First, the upper post (about easy summits, not ‘German’ summits) was from me (F6ENO), not from Lionel.
Second, I didn’t critize easy summits, but the use done by some hams with these easy summits. I realy understand that easy summits exists in many associations (and difficult summits too).
Once again, I say its not serious to get more than 100 activator points a day when the first SOTA award step is 100pts.
the way I’m activating is not the way you like it to be done.
It’s my choice to do it that way and if you don’t like it, don’t call me.
You already wrote “Everyone has the right to do it the way he wants.”
Nothing more to say.
Alain F6ENO
(without internet connexion for 5 days now)
Just a word about “cheating” before leaving home.
Don’t worry Norby !
Last year, we had a french ham who activated 2 much difficults summits. Only 2 hours between the end of the first activity and the starting of the second. It was realy not possible. So Lionel (French manager) asked him to prove his next activations with photos. We never got anything from this ham. That is why Lionel wrote “The radio hams who do not comply with the rules or which cheat will be excluded.”. Its our french position, no more.
In reply to LX1NO:
“It’s my choise to do it thatway and if you don’t like, don’t call me”
me I want quite dear friend but this n’ is not always easy when the radio ham does not pass his call to go always more quickly ! hi hi
Now you are right, has each one its choice, and its freedom. Made SOTA a kind of contest since such is your pleasure.
On the other hand I find unacceptable criticize on the French easy tops whereas you largely use this fault at your personal ends
Then dear friend to know the difficult work of creation; a section SOTA and referencing of the tops, launch in the creation of section LX
Same if work in Luxembourg will be much easier than on a territory like France with its many mountainous chains
Here is my point of considering, for my part the discussion is closed, because I do not want to feed this forum with remarks which will become sterile. I surely will set out again to activate some French easy tops. afflicted but in my area it n’ there has that, and I n’ do not have the means with the price of the gazoil to go in the Alps this year.
Happy to hears anyone
73’s for all
f5nep responsable SOTA France
me I want quite dear friend but this n’ is not always easy when the
radio ham does not pass his call to go always more quickly ! hi hi
I give my call often enough, you just have to hang on and listen. Something that a lot of people are no longer able to do.
Made SOTA a kind of contest since such is your pleasure.
Yes, and I like it that way.
On the other hand I find unacceptable criticize on the French easy
tops whereas you largely use this fault at your personal ends
I “use” what you offered to work. You still did not get my point. You don’t like that DL has so many “easy” ones and I pointed out that you have a lot of easy ones in F yourself.
Then dear friend to know the difficult work of creation; a section
SOTA and referencing of the tops, launch in the creation of section LX
We already discussed this among some people in LX and find it “strange” to call our bumps “summits”. And no-one has seen a need for an LX section. You always want to push me into that direction. What good for? To be able to bash on me lateron?
In reply to LX1NO:
You always want to push me into that direction. What good for? To be able to bash on me lateron?
let us not fall into the syndrome from persecution, hi hi hi
it “strange” to call our bumps “summits”.
it’s a pity that the tops are not high enough! a section LX would have been the welcome
good contest, and be best a long time! without resentments hi hi
A prominence value, whether P100, P150 or any other, is only a measure of difficulty in that a certain amount of energy is spent in covering that height difference, it does not define the total energy expended in climbing a mountain, as you point out in different words. Instead of this, it serves primarily as a tool to differentiate between mountains. A mountain may have a number of “tops” but it will only have one summit, and a prominence value is a convenient way of defining a summit. It is clear and unambiguous, and is not subject to “fudge factors” and differences of opinion. A mountain either is or isn’t a SOTA summit purely by the impersonal criterion of prominence.
Without an impersonal definition of what does, and does not, qualify as a SOTA summit, SOTA is impossible. It may be that some impersonal and universal criterion other than prominence may be used to define a SOTA summit, but so far as I know, nobody has come up with such a criterion that is generally acceptable.
To me, it really doesn’t matter if there are easy peaks in any associations area, we need easy peaks so that the very young, the very old, the handicapped and those with a poor head for heights can be involved. It is equally important that where topography permits, there should be summits that challenge the fit and skilled mountaineer. We have a small number of summits in the UK that have roads running right over the top or very near the top. We have others that can only be reached, let alone climbed, by people who are extremely fit. This means that whatever the capability of an activator, he or she will be able to take part. It is good to have a challenge available for everybody.
Mario, you may regard this post as a bullish defence of prominence, but if somebody comes up with a better criterion I believe that I would shift to advocating it. It hasn’t happened yet.
Hi, Mario. Believe me, I am really very sorry to hear of your wife’s disability, sometimes life just isn’t fair, is it?
It would be virtually impossible to reach 100 points in a weekend in most areas, but it became clear that in some parts of Germany this was quite possible, and widespread comments about this is what led to the enforcement of the prominence rule.
“If it is possible to climb on ten 10-point-summits on one weekend, then not the “prominence” has to be raised as a criterion but the worth of that summits is overrated. Maybe a revision of the points allocation is more helpful.”
In some cases this would be a good idea, but it would then penalise high scoring summits that were genuinely difficult if there were any in the same region.
It would be virtually impossible to reach 100 points in a weekend in most areas, but it became clear that in >some parts of Germany this was quite possible, and widespread comments about this is what led to the >enforcement of the prominence rule.
Thats only possible with the only 4 qso´s needed to qualify for the activator-points. If you´d change it up to maybe 30 qso´s that would become quite difficult.
Thats only possible with the only 4 qso´s needed to qualify for the
activator-points. If you´d change it up to maybe 30 qso´s that would
become quite difficult.
Vy73 Fritz dl4fdm
Now that’s an interesting point Fritz, that would make things very interesting indeed, but I have a feeling you best put your tin hat on;-)
I am also very active in chasing castles for the “Italian Castle Award, DCI”.
They´re rules are as follows:
if it is a first-activation of the castle you need 100 qso´s on HF or 30 on VHF to qualify for the activator-points.
if the castle was already activated you need 80 qso´s on HF or 20 on VHF to qualify for the activator-point.
If you dont get the required contacts in a day, you can continue the next or any other day until you got them.
I know summits are different to castles, so the 30 qso´s would be ok.
I like it, too, even though it would mean that none of my activations would qualify!
30 is perhaps a bit much, particularly on UHF, but four was settled on as an achievable target when SOTA was first conceived and there was no way of knowing just how many keen chasers would appear! Even now it is possible to go out and fail to qualify some of the more remote or screened summits in the UK on 2 metres. Still, increasing the possibility of failure is certainly a sporting approach! How about varying the qualifying number according to the band, say 20 or 30 on 7 megs, four or six on 144 and 432 megs, and just two on 1296 megs and higher? This could increase interest in UHF.
No harm inexploring ideas but it would take a considerable groundswell of approval before a change was seriously considered.
Some summits in the UK would be impossible to get 30 QSO’s on if the op didn’t have HF available, on some summits 4 QSO’s can be hard to come by on vhf/uhf.
An interesting concept though Fritz.
In Jimmy M3EYP’s and my recent G/SE - G/SC tour, we still found that four QSOs was an appropriate target. It necessitated at least two band/mode combinations, sometimes more, and an hour or more on summit to get 4 each. If the target was higher, we’d have failed some of them. Four is still a good number, I think. It kind of proves and validates the activation, but doesn’t require you to stay for very long should you prefer not to. Any rule that required significanly more QSOs would be bad in a programme like this to do with mountains. Safety must not be compromised.
Having different requirements for different bands would not work without a major rewrite of the Programme. At present, you can make your 4 (or more) QSOs on different bands and modes. How many contacts would be needed for an activation that included both 80m and 3cm?
It seems totally unnecessary to me, to address how many QSOs activators make. The majority make many more contacts than the minimum anyway, so there isn’t an issue. Sure, some (including myself) make four occasionally, but we must assume that there is good reason for that - weather, time, no-one else calling, or maybe just got fed-up and wanted to go home! All of those are valid reasons to go QRT, and should not be challenged by unnecessarily moving the goalposts, in my opinion.
I agree, Tom, but it does no harm to explore ideas, indeed the more I think about SOTA the more I am impressed by how right so many of the early decisions were, and where I’m not certain about the rightness it boils down to a matter of opinion rather than organic defects.
Mike, I agree there are many exceptions, I have failed to qualify a couple of times and each time it led to improving the gear (or in one case, the safety precautions in operating the gear!) but in general I think that calling CQSOTA on 2m FM within say 50 km of a conurbation gives you problems in pulling one callsign out of the pileup!
In reply to G8ADD:
Try NP-028 handheld Brian !
Leeds 9 miles, Bradford 5 miles , Keighley 4 miles and Ilkley 4 miles all medium to large conurbations with a fair few amateurs listed in the call book. If your not spotted on SOTAwatch you will be hard pressed to get 4 on VHF/UHF.
M0JRQ/P was there on 3/6/08 and despite me spotting him twice on here I don’t think he got 4.
Some interesting points being made in this thread.
I think most serious activators do not deliberately set out to work just 4 QSOs. The reason I carry linears, beams and heavy batteries up summits is not to keep fit, but to get my signal out to as many chasers as possible. I like to get to double figures on VHF as a minimum target and the more the better - below this number I descend from the summit a disappointed man even though I know I have given it my best shot. I hate to think what non-qualification would do to me! Seems I’d better take some Valium and a can of Red Bull up NP-028…
I’m dizzy when I stand on a road kerb.