In reply to G3CWI:
Hi to all,
“It is to encourage people to explore new hills and places”.
"There would be no incentive to do any other hills, people would just do the easiest and most accessible hills repeatedly."
OK Brian, and Tom, OK too.
But, to my opinion, it is not necessary to pass from an extreme to the other one. I am going to try to make me understand with my bad English.
In France, for example, but it there in the others, let us take the OM and YL who live on the West of a line " LILLE / BIARRITZ ". For many of them, it will be necessary to make several hundreds of Km to go to activate a summit. Even for me in Champagne.
If these persons have the possibility of activating the same summit 3 or 4 times a year, by going to visit the family for example, why they would not obtain 3 or 4 times the points of this summit?
Chasers, them, installed well in their armchair, obtain them without problem.
“It is to encourage people to explore new hills and places”. Certainly Richard, but it is also necessary to reward them.
I don’t think that it would “be less ethical” than to activate 8 in 10 summits a day. Even if these summits are “molehills”. For me, it is impossible without going out of his car.
As the laws for states, rules of associations can be MODIFIED (not changed).
I hope that I was understood, in spite of my not academic English. Sorry, but my favourite translator, at the moment, is teaching your language to the French students.
73 QRO to all,