The points allocations for VK9/NO-001 and VK9/NO-002 were wrong on the database and the correct values are now in place. Only VK9/NO-001 has been activated so far, so 3 activators scores have been adjusted down by 2 points and 96 chaser scores have also been adjusted down by 2 points.
I realise that the database and SOTAWatch are two separate systems, however these values have not changed in the SOTAWatch Summits table nor the SOTA mapping project as yet - they both still show Mt Bates (VK9/NO-001) as 4 points and Jacky Jacky (VK9/NO-002) as 2 points. Based on the heights of 319 and 280 metres respectively looking at the ARM’s height to points table they should have been set up originally as 2 points and 1 point respectively but the points table for Norfolk Island in the ARM had the error and I guess that’s where the data has been taken from (hence the ARM may need changing as well, if not already done - I only have an old version).
As you say NO-002 hasn’t been activated as yet although a couple of attempts have been made. Getting onto Phillip Island (where Jacky Jacky is located) is very difficult in anything but flat sea weather. It will most likely be activated in May 2016 (if not before) as a trip out from the WIA (Australia’s national radio soceity) AGM and conference which is scheduled now on Norfolk Island in 2016.
Where are you seeing this ARM. It is not on the SOTA Website yet and it is currently being worked on in order to be published onto the SOTA Website. The summits in the VK9/NO region summit points did not match up to the summits points table in the ARM that I received and hence the correction that was needed. When Database updates take place, SOTAwatch and the SOTA Website will update shortly after, I am not sure though how the SOTA Mapping Project will be updated with this.
I have a copy of the “final draft” VK9 ARM from the SOTA_Australia Yahoo group. As you say the height - points table is correct, it is only the Norfolk Island summits table that is incorrect.
By the way, where does one find the published ARMs on SOTA.org.uk - I have searched and cannot find any - I’m probably missing an obvious link.
You are 100% correct the change is needed - I suspect the error came in when the Norfolk Island summits table in the ARM was created and no one saw it until now - these things happen. Well done on spotting this if it was you who spotted it.
I believe SOTAMapping takes its data from SOTAWatch, hence when that is updated the mapping will most likely also update. Does SOTAWatch take its data from the database - if so it’s purely a matter of time before all are back in sync. Thanks.
73 Ed DD5LP/VK2JI.
SOTAwatch and SOTA website updates are taken from Database updates. We are working on the VK9 to get it up to date and then it will be emailed to Jon GM4ZFZ who will the upload to the SOTA website.
[quote=“DD5LP, post:4, topic:11282”]
By the way, where does one find the published ARMs on SOTA.org.uk
[/quote]The link is in the main site’s main menu as “Associations” (here: http://www.sota.org.uk/Associations )
(As Jimmy has noted, the VK9 one isn’t there yet, though the association is listed.)
The ARM is not an optional extra to be added later. It is a pre-requisite for a valid association. The General Rules state:
“The ARM is authorised by the Management Team. An Association only becomes operational when its ARM has been duly authorised.”
There doesn’t appear to be an absolute requirement to publish it, but I think there is a strong implication that all of the official documents will be made public.
So it seems very odd that an association should be permitted to operate without a published ARM. Is the MT perhaps being a little selective about the rules it chooses to enforce?
Authorised != Published.
There is an ARM.
It has been authorised.
There has been an edit to fix a mistake.
The edit was authorised.
Only after the edit was authorised was the data changed to reflect it.
Yes this ARM was not uploaded and ISTR you pointed that out to us sometime ago. Well that issue along with other missing ARMs has been being addressed for some time. There are 2 more ARMs awaiting upload along with this one, one is a documentation change, the other is for a new Asia region association starting 1st August.
The new ARM will be uploaded and hence published when the volunteer who can upload it is in position to upload it.
I would have thought that as the ARM and associated docs were accepted and approved by the MT before the association was approved that the originally listed points should apply. Just as happens when a peak is subsequently found to be lower than originally (mistakenly) thought and is deleted, the activator and chaser points stand as the activities were in good faith. Or is there something I’ve missed?
Of course errors sneak by and need correction - I’ve found a minor one on another ARM and the process to fix it is underway. There were at least 4 pairs of beady eyes looking and not seeing this one. It happens. However, none of us are likely to die as a consequence, well not unless the MT gets really upset.
Oh, indeed, Martyn. We have an Association ready to go, all the work done except for the dotting of I’s and crossing of T’s and getting the finished ARM to a place where it is accessible, so do we make the eager new Association hang about for a month like the proverbial lemons, or do we say “right, chaps, you can start now and we will catch up with the publication ASAP”? So yes, we select the course of action that is friendliest to the Association. You would rather that we be pedantic about it?
There’s mistake and mistakes.
There’s one in the CT3 ARM/database that is for a non-existent summit. I can’t remember if it’s been activated or not. There isn’t a P150 at that location given (allowing for the constant errors in refs). It will get fixed, that summit will be deleted, activations/chases will stand and the correct summit will be added. It was “our” error in that we put a bum summit in the system.
The VK9 issue is there’s an audit trail of comms pointing out the summits points were wrong between all involved. So we knew from before VK9 went live there was an error to fix. It slipped through and wasn’t what we intended and the intention has been applied to anyone and everyone equally. ISTR there were was a lot happening in other associations at the same time.
Mistakes happen. We’ve got reasonably small updates / additions in this window. A US and EU update and a new African association and new Asian association.
Nobody has volunteered to help with Italy yet.
Oh and there’s a request to change all of 5300+ JA summits
Thanks Rick - I had looked there, but of course only clicked on the VK9, entry, clicking on the (e.g.) VK1 link has the link to the uploaded ARM there.
Thanks for the clarification Jimmy, re update path. As most people view summit points through SOTAWatch rather than the database, good to know all is in hand.
Seems like I stirred something up in looking for the ARM - sorry for that. I know VK9 was all correctly done when it was set-up and this is just a very small correction to what was effectively a typo I think.
My original post was purely to point out that while the database has been updated, SOTAWatch was not reflecting this yet - the reason why has now been nicely clarified by Jimmy.
The systems that we have in SOTA are the envy of other award schemes and I for one thank wholeheartedly the volunteers that both wrote and those who support these systems.