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

Ive got the hump


#1

Firstly let me state I am not in favour of the P100, I have plodded on at my own pace quite happily within the rules of the current SOTA, I do not wish to see what I have achieved so far being undermined by a relaxation of the prominence rule.

If the P100 comes into force, it may be possible then to start doing multiple summits in one day for a vast amount of points. ( im not saying this is the case because I have not looked at the P100 summits.).

The argument it will bring more people doing Sota is slight at best. The green issue yes valid point but so is car sharing.

The decline of Sota Jan Feb: I think you will find that has more to do with the weather that we all just experienced.

That all said I would not object to a list of summits being compiled with an award say such as “sub marilyns” that would not count towards the overall score as is (unfortunately that would probably need a separate database). That way it keeps everyone happy. Those that charge looking for other hills are satisfied, likewise a separate award for chased would satisfy those that want different summits.

So who would do this, well those that are sounding off , create the database in a format so Gary can easily add it, a new link off the databases job done everyone happy… the purists and those who have the hump.

So come on stop all these arguments and counter arguments life is too short.

Rgds Keith G0OXV

PS if all this carries on I’ll pull the plug and do something else.


#2

Hi Keith,

I agree with you that Humps should not come into SOTA and if people are in favour for humps they should either set up their own program or summit them onto summitsbase. I agree that people should activate at their own pace and targets. Nice to hear from you again Keith thank you for the the contact whwn I was activating Whernside G/NP-004 and I also tried to work you when you where on Pendle G/SP-005.

Jimmy M3EYP


#3

In reply to G0OXV-2:
I really don’t want to alienate those that I regard as important contributors to the SOTA programme, but as I see it there is a vociferous element on this reflector who will contradict, mock, dismiss and in my view, verbally bully anyone who disagrees with them. When ever you see someone commenting about another with the words “absolute rubbish” then reasonable debate has gone and I am not singling out any one individual, merely selecting an appropriate example. This vociferous element is determine at all costs to blast aside any contradictory views and will stubbornly persist in serious verbal bullying of other contributors into submission so that they achieve their objectives regardless. This is not rational debate - this is obsessive pursuit of an objective with no regard for others.

By saying this I have probably destroyed my initial intention, alienated many and I fully expect to be mocked, dismissed and see verbally bullying applied to me. So what, I will continue to activate hills, now that I have regained some capability and if you don’t like my view you can ignore my calls. I am certain there will be enough available for me to qualify the summit.
jim g0cqk


p150
#4

Keith, Jimmy and Jim, well said all of you.

There is a very small but vociferous minority that is determined to undermine the MT, force change regardless of mandate and bully people until it gets its way. We hear far too much from them and, perhaps inevitably, far too little by way of a balancing argument from the vast, silent majority who, presumably, are content with things as they are. Sometimes the behaviour of this argumentative minority beggars belief in a civilised society. If they are so dissatisfied with SOTA, why don’t they go away and take their vitriol with them?

Jim/CQK, I stand firmly alongside you and I share your views. I feel sure that many others do too. Well said, Sir. This belligerent behaviour has been tolerated by moderate people for far too long. It has gone far enough.

73,
John, G3WGV


#5

In reply to G3WGV:

This belligerent
behaviour has been tolerated by moderate people for far too long. It
has gone far enough.

Well said John!

73

Richard
G3CWI


#6

In reply to G3WGV:

Why allow P100 in other countries which are already more “mountainous” than the UK?

ps - this is a civil question and not a dig at anybody!


#7

In reply to G1INK:

Steve, to the best of my knowledge (I might be corrected on this!) there are three Associations with P100, a small minority with special justifications. ON is small and cannot be described as mountainous, PA is small and it is frankly astonishing that they have any summits as one’s general impression is of flatness! Germany outside the Alpine zone consists largely of a flat northern plain similar to PA, and further south is largely an elevated plateau with gently rolling countryside. P100 was granted to soften the blow of losing so many summits when prominence was enforced, as despite the size of the country summits would be relatively few without P100. Although England is not a large country there is a surprising variety of topography and much of the country is remarkably well endowed with summits, probably due to the action of glaciers in the ice ages. I take it when you said UK you meant G as GW and GM are well off for mountains.

Must go now, I’m late for the climbing club!

73

Brian G8ADD


#8

In reply to G0CQK:

I want to add my support to what Jim has said and wish the status quo and overall quality of the summits list for the whole UK to remain as is - i.e. Based on the respected Marilyn list.

This one sided debate which has been running over the last few days on the reflector, if you can call it a debate, was restarted by an amateur who has had nothing to do with SOTA thus far and his query about why certain “Wainwrights” weren’t included in the programme, has reopened the same can of worms regarding humps once again creating bitterness.

The opportunity to bring this issue into focus was seized on by a minority and has again sparked controversy and acrimony amongst our number with criticism of members of the management team and the England Association Manager in particular. Much sarcasm against the MT has also been evident of late.

As one of the silent majority I would like to stand up and show support for the management team in your work as volunteers and make you aware that most of us are highly appreciative of what you do in running the SOTA programme, much of it in the background.

It would give some people satisfaction to see resignations, so please, do not allow criticsm of your work to sap morale.

Phil G4OBK


#9

In reply to G4OBK:

Thanks Phil ,I’m in support of your statement,very well documented,
i think a change in the rules could open the floodgates of disaster,
however a separate entity not related to sota could be OK for other pursuants
wanting to use /p from the hills.

73 de Geoff G4CPA


#10

Many thanks to Keith, Jim and Phil for those comments of support. I appreciate them very much indeed, as I’m sure do my colleagues on the MT.

Yes Phil, morale is definitely sapped, but there will be no resignation from me. There is too much work for me to do in running and developing SOTA, a programme that I love and to which I remain committed.

Anyway, to more positive things, there are a couple of us planning some SOTA using 70cm CW. Is anyone else interested in giving that a go? 2m CW has been great fun recently.

Tom M1EYP


#11

In reply to M1EYP:
I will certainly be listening for you Tom on 70cm CW if you have a go. In SOTA so far I have logged G3RMD (WB-003) GW3RMD (MW-013) G4OIG (SP-002) GW4OIG (MW-034/037/011/028/035) in 70cm CW. Not sure what power Frank and Gerald are running. I doubt it is QRP 5 watts. I am horizontally polarised with a Swedish 13 ele Vargarda Yagi and 40w from an FT-847. I did work G1INK on SP-007 on SSB and G4BLH on SP-007 in 2006.

It’s not a brilliant path from here on UHF as the Howardian Hills, the Wolds and the Hambleton Hills get in the way a bit. They are around 10 miles distant though so I do get a bit of a run at them.

73 Phil


#12

In reply to M1EYP:

Hi Tom,all tuned up and ready to go on 70 cms CW.
will be looking out for you.

Geoff G4CPA


#13

In reply to G4CPA:

I agree Geoff, no problem for me if a seperate programme was run using Humps just for England, but I would not expect it to come under the SOTA banner myself. I would be in there working them and would even activate the odd one too I guess if it fitted in with my walking interests. If the alternative programme was flexible then Wainwrights, Nuttalls, Hewitts, Birketts, Deweys and County Tops could be included. it would take a lot of keeping track of though!

It would take a lot of work and time to bring the infrastructure of an alternative scheme up to the standard of the SOTA programme, especially in the database area, which is a must in terms of popularity.

If the idea didn’t take off then it would have all have been for nothing I suppose.

73 and see you on 70cms (only as a Chaser!)

Phil


#14

In reply to G4OBK:

If the idea didn’t take off then it would have all have been for
nothing I suppose.

Hi Phil

The same was true for SOTA of course. Few will know that the resources SOTA has today were conceived in outline long before the programme was launched. Naturally, the input from talented people such as Gary and Jon have made them far better than we could have imagined in 2001. Launching a programme such as SOTA requires a degree of risk-taking by people who not only support the vision but, most importantly, are also willing to put in the work to make it reality.

Like you I see no reason why there should not be other schemes but they need to be prepared to stand on their own feet and have a wholly distinctive identity.

Participation in SOTA is not compulsory (although judging by some recent comments you might think that it is). Neither is it necessary to be doing SOTA to do radio from hilltops. Fortunately SOTA has a broader appeal than just for those that wish to have their egos massaged by a huge pile-up or being “top chaser”. For me, Keith’s first paragraph here is more about the essence of SOTA than “table-topping” ever was.

73

Richard
G3CWI


#15

In reply to G3CWI:
Hi All.Lots of usfull and constructive comments.Normallity at last.ATB Geoff G6MZX


#16

In reply to G4OBK:

If the alternative programme was flexible then Wainwrights,
Nuttalls, Hewitts, Birketts, Deweys and County Tops could be included.
it would take a lot of keeping track of though!

Therein lies the rub Phil. My feeling is that England would benefit from additional summits, especially in those areas that are currently under endowed. However, the question is should this be an extension or an add-on to the SOTA scheme or something entirely separate? Should it still be under the guise of SOTA lying alongside the existing scheme, the benefit being simplicity through a common point of reference? My concern is that something entirely separate may benefit neither scheme, cause confusion and as a result detract from the whole.

With regards to the point about my 70cms set up - FT-817, Microset VUR30 amp (with Gasfet preamp) delivering 20W to a 6 el DL6WU or 8el DL7ZB at 4m high via 5m of 5D-FB semi-rigid.

73, Gerald


#17

In reply to G6MZX:

Hi All.Lots of usfull and constructive comments.Normallity at last.ATB
Geoff G6MZX

I’ve not been contributing to this discussion because slanging matches
aren’t really my style. However, now we seem to be back into more
reasoned argument I’m risking putting my head above the parapet to speak
in favour of P100 for G.

My main argument is to increase the variety of summits available,
especially in areas of the country where there are areas of more
rolling wild moorland (Northumbria, Devon/Cornwall, North York Moors)
where there are relatively few P150 hills. This both adds interest for
the participants (I was a walker long before SOTA, and in general I
prefer finding new walks to repeating old) and has various "green"
benefits in terms of driving to walk starts, and encouraging people
away from common eroded paths.

Comparisons with other associations are inevitable. I don’t believe
that we can have a “level playing field” for all associations (I’ve
done nearly half of my activations in GM, and I know from experience
that activator points gained in GM are generally harder work than
those in G), but I feel that a lot of the push for P100 in G is
because much of G is seen as having similar terrain to DM. In general
GM and GW have a greater density of P150 hills, so I see no need to
change them.

I understand the concern that P100 will bring in substantially more
summits which aren’t legally accessible. I imagine that many of these
will also be quite boring hills. Would it be within the rules to only
include in the scheme P100 hills where there was known to be public
access? (I’m aware this makes more work for the AM, but help might be
offered). Another possible compromise position would be to include
only P100 summits in official “open access” areas, though there may
not be many of these.

In another thread it was said “the problem will not go away”. I think
this is unfortunately true (though even if P100 were adopted there
would still be people who would still want their own favourite hills
added!). However I think we do need to get some sort of solution,
since repeated acrimonious discussions are not good for SOTA. OTOH I
don’t think that fragmentation is helpful either, but if we are to
stay with P150 for G SOTA then I think that an alternative scheme will
be needed to accommodate the clear demand for less prominent hills
(I’m definitely not volunteering!).

73, Caroline, M3ZCB


#18

In reply to G0OXV-2:

You can do multiple summits in a day on P150 if you’re sufficiently fit and go to the right places. Yr Aran - Snowdon - Y Lliwedd in Snowdonia nets you 24 points; Elidir Fawr - Y Garn - Glyder Fawr - Tryfan would get you 34. (The former I’ve done, the latter I may well attempt this Easter or summer). Admiteddly that’s Wales not England, but my point is that’s not necessarily a sound objection to P100. Indeed, I think the presence of groups of summits on a massif that can reasonably be activated in a single expedition creates its own challenges (long days on the mountains, battery life, etc) and rewards (loads of points). It’s very good for those like myself who do a few trips a year and want to get the most out of them.

(BTW: I’m neutral to the whole idea of changing G to P100. I consider the cases for and against pretty much balanced.)


#19

In reply to M0FFX:

I’ve been thinking of whether it’s possible to incorporate non-P150 hills with P150s in multiple activations. Such as there being credit for activating a sub-Marilyn along with Marilyn. The idea being that you may end up being in close proximity to an almost valid hill whilst walking to the valid one and that combining them might make a better walk. I’ve not considered how it would work if you happen to pass a sub-Marilyn on the way to the parking place for a Marilyn but I’m sure something can be worked out.

By allowing something lesser along with a current hill would increase the number of hills without worry of (and I don’t like the phrase) dumbing down the system. You’d still have to climb a recognised P150 summit for the other summit to count. For those who weigh the cost of points earned per mile driven (and it’s a big cost for some people) again there would be more to gain for a given expenditure. The idea of encouraging people to get outdoors still remains valid, more so as this requires more activity.

The downside is that to make it work you need the online support that SOTAwatch and the database gives. You’d need to be able to have alerts and spots to make it work well. I know we used play radio before clusters etc. but there is no denying that cluster/alerts/database support encourages people to take part more so than without.

Perhaps something like this maybe a solution that is acceptable to many more people than a simple blanket change? I don’t know but I feel it may be worth more discussion.

Andy
MM0FMF


#20

Many thanks to all who replied, and sorry i missed you jimmy from Pendle.

Ok since my original post a few have aired quite reasonably a debate, I have looked at Rogers hump list for LD and SP if they were to be included in the main sota list it would immediately double the amount of summits in each region, ( is that something we really want? i think even the p100 would agree to some extent).

Right most of us that want to keep the P150 do not at least disagree to a seperate list so this is common ground. ( maybe not the p100ers).

so how could this be done? at first i thought a seperate database would be needed not so, these summits added into the current dbase ( there should be no problem there provided a direct import can be achieved as is usually the case with a dbase.)as previously mentioned a suffix of some form to the summit reference.

It would then be case of code added to the current results table to filter out (as in the case for modes bands and uniques)I suppose the same for score. input as well. A table is then produced under sub marilyns or humps whatever.

Timetables, ok howabout a tester for the barren areas that the P100 are keen to get going, if successfull a gradual phase in of other regions. ( but again not the main sota scores)

Points well guess they would be along similar lines of height.

The above is the simpliest way i could think of that keeps everyone happy.
keep it simple keeep it straight.

I might even offer help, it would also require a seperate manager.

Well there you go, I never intended to get involved but at least the nastyness appears to have subsided,

hope to be out activating with Stuart on Sunday… you never know 23cm might come out !!

73,s Keith G0OXV