Other SOTA sites: SOTAwatch | SOTA Home | Database | Video | Photos | Shop | Mapping | FAQs | Facebook | Contact SOTA

Humps - yes or no


Words like ‘majority’ and ‘minority’ are actually quite meaningless if not quantified. Could I suggest a rather radical approach?
The database requires a valid e-mail address and an association for each participant. Surely it is not beyond the wit of the MT to settle the HUMPs issue by using a mailshot to the participants from the England Association? A returning officer from another association eg GM could ensure fair play and perhaps a time limit should be set for returns.
Needless to say I’m in favour of adding HUMPs as I was the first to suggest it.

Before someone tells me it’s up to James, I say only in the first instance and maybe he would also like a firm evidence base.

Roger G4OWG


The programme minimum prominence is 100m. Therefore James may present a case, if he wishes, to take G to P100. Participants have already emailed James to states their preference. Participants that haven’t should do so if they feel strongly either way. James has made it clear that he values the views of the participants on this issue, and so far, the majority of those that have contacted him have been against.



In reply to M1EYP:

Well, to all interested parties, you now have a shot to vote for 100m prominence or not, don’t waste this vital chance.

Make the effort to email James M0ZZO now, James will then consider the evidence for or against change.

It’s now a case of put up or shut up, there will be no point in whiging after the event, so if you care about this issue, then Email James!!

I am disapponted to see that James is keeping you up to speed on emails received already Tom and the fact that you posted the current “voting” situation to date. Surely it would be fairer for James to let you know how it went after the closing time for emails. Your post above is very unfair at this stage in proceedings and could even have the effect of of putting some people off emailing James because they feel that the cause is already lost.



In reply to M1EYP:
That is simply not good enough Tom.
If, for sake of argument, one person had said I want Humps and two had said nay, and a hundred are sitting waiting to see what happens, then the majority would have it. To be fair and above board we need actual numbers - I thought a mathematician would be in support of that ?

Roger G4OWG


In reply to GW0DSP:
True Mike, but !
Without verification anyone can state a ‘fait acompli’ and we are expected to believe it :frowning:

Roger G4OWG


In reply to GW0DSP:
Just a quickie, i have been reading all this about Humps or Pimples, Does this mean if the road goes to the top then more stations will come out and work sota yes / no,

All these Humps and Pimples does seem to be coming from staions that dont always go out and activate, big summits from what i see its only a few that want to change things, insteed of going to do these humps whats wrong with going to do other summits aswell, how many summits have we got in the UK, and how many have they done ???
Central England has 5 summits, 0,
Devon& Cornwall has 7 summits, 0,
Lake Disrtict has 58 summits, 36,
Northern Pennines has 31 summits, 31,
Scottish Border has 10 summits, 0,
Southern Central has 13 summits, 0,
Southern England has 15 summits, 0,
Southern Pennines has 17 summits, 17,
Tyne to the wash has 5 summits, 1,
Welsh borders has 24 summits, 3,

Isle of Man has 5 summits, 5,

North Wales has 75 summits, 8,
Mid Wales has 40 summits 0,
South Wales has 41 summits 0,
And before any one asks me, why i have not done any others it’s
(yes) to far, and no other reason to go to that area, if i have something in that area then then yes i would activate a summit. Holiday or geocaching, But not just 1=point, I for one love going to the Lake District and Northern Pennines, for the big summits,
Right must close for now as work is calling.
Steve m0sgb


In reply to M1EYP:

Would love to email James - but where is his email address ?

It’s certainly not obvious on the SOTA web site unless I’m not looking in the right place.

I have found one on QRZ.com, but is this the “real” one ?



In reply to G8HXE:

As James is the G association manager, his contact details are found in the G association manual.

From SOTAwatch click on “website” then “Associations” then on James’ callsign on the England line. Then you can click on the link to download the ARM where you will find James’ email address.

I was sure there was a direct link but on consideration that might have been the old website.



In reply to MM0FMF:

Thanks, I had missed it when looking through the PDF.

I also thought there was a direct link from the website but as you say, it must have been on the old site.

It’s the same one as on qrz.com for those like me who can’t read !



In reply to M0SGB:

The consideration that converted me to support P100 from my previous stance of supporting the status quo was not quantity but quality. You see, P100 doesn’t just add pimples at the bottom end of the scale, little lowland tumps for the unadventurous to motor up, it adds summits at all levels. It makes it more likely that any discrete mountain group will have more than one SOTA summit, it delivers some really cracking good ridge walks with up to several P100 summits to activate along the way. It makes it possible to replace the frenetic whistle-stop tours of Marilyns with true and beautiful mountain experiences, with the car staying put all day as the activator clocks up a series of summits on foot while experiencing the structure and diversity of his mountains from a succession of different viewpoints. This isn’t to say that isolated summits won’t still exist under a P100 regime, but the mountain loving activator will have more choices if he/she wants to stay high instead of commuting. I already have a “wish list” with plenty more waiting to be added to it!

As I pointed out in another thread, if P100 includes more private summits with no access, we should just strike those summits from the scoring list until things change, thus avoiding conflicts that could bring SOTA into disrepute. In my opinion we should do the same with the summits that can only be activated from a road or car park, but I realise that there I may be going too far for some people!


Brian G8ADD


In reply to G8ADD:

On your basis Brian, would you also exclude other inaccesible summits, such as sea stacks and Inaccseible Pinnacle? (sorry for the spelling). By your method they would. Just because a summit is reachable by car does not mean you have to drive up. You can if so choose walk from anywhere to reach it.

My 2p



In reply to G8ADD:

As I pointed out in another thread, if P100 includes more private
summits with no access, we should just strike those summits from the
scoring list until things change, thus avoiding conflicts that could
bring SOTA into disrepute. In my opinion we should do the same with
the summits that can only be activated from a road or car park, but I
realise that there I may be going too far for some people!

Sorry Brian I cannot agree with either suggestion. Guidance on access already exists in the General Rules. Summits such as Swinside LD-057 and Myarth SW-035 have already been successfully activated with permission from the land owners. I am of the opinion that it would not be appropriate for the MT to pick and choose which P100 summits were included in the programe and which were not on the basis of who owns the land. That is not done for the current P150 summits, so why should the MT change their stance?

With regards to “drive-ups”, for want of a better description, no-one is forcing us to do them. They do have the benefit of widening the scope of activating for those with limited abilities and from my experience, quite a few of the existing “easy” summits have made a relaxing way to finish a hectic day rushing around the summits, like I found Wentwood SW-033 to be last Saturday. Just the thing before a 160 mile trip home!

SOTA for me is not the same as SOTA for you or for anyone else. We are told time and time again that achievement is personal and comparisons with the achievements of others should not be made. I believe that decisions relating to access and the suitability of summits should be up to the individual and not the MT.

73, Gerald


In reply to G4OIG:
Fair enough, Gerald, I wasn’t wearing my MT hat anyway, this isn’t really an MT matter at this stage, and my opinion is no better or worse than anyone elses. They (we) will say nay or yea if the question of a change is put to them but at this stage the burden lies elsewhere.

Ian, I live for the day when the Inn Pin is finally knocked off - if I can get fit enough I might yet do it myself! No, I was thinking of the notorious TW-004 which I believe can only be activated from a lay-by with traffic roaring past! I hadn’t even thought of sea stacks but the Old Man of Hoy would be a worthy challenge, a grade harder than the Inn Pin and a lot looser, with fulmars exhibiting their disgusting way of discouraging the climber!


Brian G8ADD


In reply to GW0DSP:

Your post above is very unfair…

James announced the current situation on the reflector earlier today. He also did so a few weeks ago. Nothing I said is new information, and nothing I said was known to me privately from James before he made it known to all.



In reply to G4OWG:

This has got nothing to do with my dayjob Roger. It’s supposed to be my hobby, though I do wonder at times.

The example you quote would indeed indicate a majority against HuMPs. One would have to assume that the abstainers were split in opinion in a roughly similar proportion to those that stated a preference! I think James has received rather more than three emails on the subject though!



In reply to G4OWG:

My point exactly Roger.



In reply to M1EYP:

Firstly to those struggling to find James M0ZZO email address, please email your "vote to him on this email address…

Whether James posted yesterday or not is irrelevent Tom. In my opinion, a quote such as yours, from a member of MT is vey unfair and could paint a false picture ie giving the impression that it’s all ove bar the shouting.

I may be wrong but I see this purely as a matter for the participants and their assoc. managers at this stage of play and there is no need for James or MT members to make statements suggesting the results thus far. The time for MT to get involved is when James M0ZZO approaches you with the final results and his decision, that is the time for a MT statement and not before.

That brings me to another point, have MT members emailed James with a “vote”? As I said earlier, this issue is or should be for solely the participants to decide and then for James to digest their input and make his final decision which he will then put to MT.

As Roger G4OWG stated, something as important as this issue should be done through a mailshot or similar. If this method was adopted, I think the results should be published ie…

Numbers for
Numbers against
Numbers abstained



In reply to GW0DSP:

Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?



In reply to all:

Can someone tell me where my post went this morning, I posted my complaint about the excrutiating path to travel to try and find contact details for the G AM’s and it seems to have disappeared !!!


Mike, I might be MT, but I am also a participant. Accordingly, I can confirm that I have indeed emailed James with my opinion.