In reply to GW7AAV:
“I may well fail but I am going to give it my best shot. My table is booked at the Restaurant at the End of the Universe.”
See you at the Big Bang Burger Bar!
73
Brian G8ADD
In reply to G8ADD:
Brian
Have booked the table in ten forward
ERMINTRUDE
In reply to 2E0HJD:
The costs incured by some of our prolific activators must be
astranomical and i am sure it is having an effect on the number of
activations taking place due to cost restrictions and also having to
Good point Mick. This hobby has costs both money and timewise. There are many people going to the mountains however for different (usually sportive) reasons. In different sport clubs the cost can be shared with the outing participants. In this sense SOTA activation is individual and rather unsocial mountain sport. However I do not have ideas to the SOTA rules to improve the present status.
73, Jaakko OH7BF/F5VGL
In reply to 2E0HJD:
We could but it wouldn’t be anything like as much fun ;o)
Keep on fishin’ Mick
Steve
In reply to 2E0HJD:
In reply to all
Can we try and keep the replys relevent to the subject please
Mick
OK, Mick, serious head on again!
I think it is reasonable to pay little regard to the environmental arguments, for this reason. If we took low energy usage and conservation of resources seriously, there would be no SOTA and no amateur radio. SOTA as a recreation has no justification and the energy and other resources used in indulging in SOTA are being wasted. Amateur radio is similarly unjustifiable, its energy consumption is a waste and the resources used in manufacture of equipment could be used for something more beneficial to society or left fallow until needed.
I doubt that any of us subscribes to such a purist philosophy or we would not be reading this thread.
In following SOTA we are using our personal supply of surplus resources to suit ourselves, this may be considered selfish and wasteful but it keeps the money circulating and is part of the normal functioning of our society.
Any changes to SOTA should be considered purely on the basis of whether they benefit SOTA here and now, and not society - society in its own good time will impose its own limits if it considers them to be necessary. It is my opinion that a good case has been made for some minor changes BUT I doubt if the case is strong enough to overcome the inertia generated by a number of years of successful operation of SOTA. This is a pity because I believe SOTA is at the take-off point and any fixes should occur now. Later it may be impossible.
73
Brian G8ADD
In reply to 2E0HJD:
Hi Mick
Interesting topic. In my opinion no need to relax the rules, but perhaps a very small addition to them. Each activator to plant a small tree on the way up to the summit, in this way we would assist in adressing the issue of the greenhouse gas effect. If anyone disagrees with this, this is the governments recommendation:
Three actions to reduce global warming:
Use fossil fuels more efficiently
Save old-growth forests, cut sustainably
Plant trees when you travel
1 tree every 2,000 miles (3200 km) by car (work out per activator)
1 tree every 1300 miles (2000 km) by plane
1 tree every 100 gallons (375 liters) of gasoline (work out per activator)
1 tree every 1000 kilowatt-hours (one kwhr ~= 1.9 pounds CO2)
Perhaps we could import the trees from CHINA! For winter bonus points, perhaps plant a Christmas tree… any takers?
I like the idea that we can only do one hill/mountain a year, I know when I get to Mountain Goat I have worked for it in every way.
It can be quite frustrating however knowing we have some hills in the Peak district that are just as hard to climb as a one pointer or more, yet I have to travel somewhere else 100 miles or so away to get points from from where I live.
I know of hills that are both higher and harder in the Peaks, but they do not qualify. It is forcing me to go much further a field to get points. Maybe the problem is not not what we can do,but what we can not do. Maybe we should look at adding new summits. Maybe we can add a new list of hills of our own. SOTA Specials!!
It could be based on them having a official trig point, or being hard to climb such as Glyder Fach, rather a hard summit. (SH 65670 58293), or have wheel chair access. SOTA does not cater for our disabled friends to well (yes I know its the nature of hill walking, but it doesn’t not have to be)
My wife cant do the vast majority of 1 pointers as her back causes far to many problems but there are quite a few trig points she can get to that are not SOTA. A good example is Axe Edge (551) SK 03498 70615 She can get to this with little problem, yet no points can be had
I do agree a 1 pointer should have a winter bonus of one point, this is very valid. It can be just as cold and wet on a one pointer as a 10 pointer at times.
So if you wish to change the rules Mick, you will have thought about this for some time. So would you like to say in detail how you would change things?
I’ve already said why I don’t see any need to change. However, unlike some on here, I happy to listen to detailed arguments. You may have just the plan that works for everyone Mick.
Just for interest, there appear to be 65 summits within 50miles of the centre of Clitheroe with a total value of 207 points. There are 151 within 50miles of my QTH with a value of 315 points. So I have 3 times the summits to work but yours are all higher scoring. The average is 3.18 for yours compared to 2.09, which means you have, on average, you have a much greater return on any money you spend on travelling compared to me up here in Scotland!
Anyway, let’s hear your plans. 
Andy
MM0FMF
In reply to 2E0HJD:
This thread makes very interesting reading and Mick does have a point, but there again so does everyone else who has subscribed to this thread. Each and every person has their own perceptions and view points of each and every point raised. There is no simple solution that would satisify each and every one of us.
For example I agree that there are an awful lot of hills out there that are very worthy of strolling up yet are not SOTA Summits If we are looking at the Relative Hills of Britain as our benchmark then that is right and proper. However are we looking at our hillwalking activities solely from the SOTA viewpoint or from a wider aspect. One example springs to mind and that is the Kentmere Horseshoe which encompasses Racecourse Hill (LD-011). Are we ommiting other splendid hills just to amass points ? If I am then I am misssing out on some splendid summits. Another would be Bowfell which is a super little summit. So we carry on. Personally Amateur Radio is a very secondary activity to the general idea of hill walking. If a hill happens to be a Marilyn then all well and good, if not then fine, I can still enjoy the mountains and the activity.
Returning the Micks idea. I would not advocate having an all year activation of a particular hill or hills but I do feel that a valid point has been made. For my own part I do feel that a very slight addition, up to the choice of the indvidual activator, may be able to be made. Whether this point is a correct one or not is up to the Admin Team. Say we start our SOTA year on 1 Dec 07 and end the year on 30 Nov 08 Maybe two scoring activations could be permitted (the winter bonus issue etc to be determined by the Admin Team).
As it stands SOTA is fine, well thought out and run. As such I feel no major amendments are necessary but we can all put across our own viewpoints.
Well that is my three huppence a foot.
There is no doubt that we should all be striving to reduce our environmental impact in all aspects of our daily lives. SOTA activating is for many of us only one way in which we are using our cars. For example, I have to drive 40 miles each day commuting to work, so my hillwalking activities are by no means my main source of pollution! Are we (am I?) really prepared to make the lifestyle changes required to make a significant reduction in pollution?
My personal opinion is that the existing SOTA rules have been very well thought out, for both activators and chasers. This is reflected in the success of the programme, which for many of us has rejuvenated our interest in both radio and hillwalking. I enjoy the challenge of only activating a given summit once per year for points. This has encouraged me to go to new places (not necessarily any further away) which otherwise I would probably have ignored (or even driven past!). Summit activator points are ‘hard won’, and surely that is the way it should be. If it becomes too easy to gain these points then the scheme is devalued, and interest in it will decline. Therefore my opinion is that the existing ‘once per year’ rule should not be changed.
Fred,
GI4MWA
In reply to GI4MWA:
There is no doubt that we should all be striving to reduce our
environmental impact in all aspects of our daily lives.
This is certainly hard to argue with which is why it is used by those in power to twist things around to their own advantage. For example: wind power seemed to make good green sense, but the horrendous environmental damage caused by installing them and their maintenance not to mention the eyesore and noise is with us here and now and not at some may possibly happen time somewhere in the future and just who is raking in the billions of pounds from their construction and who is on the boards of these companies getting a big fat wad out of it?
Remember there were predictions that London would be buried under a mile of horse manure before the invention of the internal combustion engine. There are pollution free alternatives to conventional car engines but too many people would loose too much money if we got them right now.
When I was at school they told us the oil would run out in the next ten years and that was used as an excuse to push up both the price and the taxes of fossil fuels. It has not happened yet so they need another excuse, so now they tax us to stop us using our cars (not). Putting up the price of fuel because it was running out (when it was not) did not reduce car use and neither will the green issue, if it did just think what a poor bonus all those politicians on the boards of the major oil companies would get.
Are we (am I?) really prepared to make the lifestyle
changes required to make a significant reduction in pollution?
I think we all need to think very carefully about which changes we make are truly of benefit to the environment and which are just lining the pockets of some fat cat. I personally like to take as much of the waste paper, plastic, glass and cans I have for recycling. In doing this I am doing my bit but there are questions even here; Is it energy efficient to recycle? Is more pollution caused by the processing than is saved and who is making money out of my trying to be green? We could return to the way of life of a few hundred years ago but even then they pumped the sky full of coal smoke and the rivers were open sewers. Our individual impact will remain small until there are step changes in the way we live our lives, this is unlikely to come about by persuasion but by disaster and tragedy; Fuel shortages if it really does run out and flooding if the sea level really rises might make society think again .
Somehow I think letting people get a point every time they activate a summit would be more likely to lead more rather than less environmental damage as more activators would just run up an easy one when they had a spare five minutes to get the points with the resultant pollution and erosion to pathways not to mention the disturbance to wildlife.
Mick, bringing together this pointless issue (pun) with this very important one clouds both issues and leaves me wondering do you want to keep on topic with the pollution issue or the points issue or both?
Steve GW7AAV
HI All
Catching up again with the reflector…
I haven’t the time to spend trawling through all the arguments in this thread in detail but my impression from skimming the thread is that if the SOTA rules were changed in the way suggested by Mick 2E0HJD and others, some of the present, more enthusiastic SOTA particants would stand to gain points out of the change due to where they live and the type of activations they do.
SOTA is all things to all people. I speak for myself as a sometime activator and one who tends to concentrate more on chasing uniques. The planning of the few activations I do and the walk to and from a variety of summits is the greater part of my enjoyment, however it has to be said that walking is also my hobby. The operating part on the hill I can take or leave, it’s uncomfortable, and it can be anti-social on busy summits if you use an HF antenna. On these summits the questions from passers-by especially, when you are in the midst of a CW pileup can be damned annoying as well! I would much prefer to operate from my comfy shack. However, every chaser should try to put a bit of something back if they are fit enough to climb and have the competence to operate and that is why I do the occasional activation. The rules suit me fine as they are.
I would certainly not enjoy walking up the same local summits repeatedly and erecting an antenna just to gain a few points, although I realise others do enjoy this and it helps gives chasers a few extra points.
My view is that the SOTA rules are extremely well thought out and they should stay as they are. Take a leaf out of the ARRLs book - the most popular ham radio award in the world is DXCC. This was thought out by Clinton B DeSota in October 1935, has changed little, and became the definitive basis for DXCC.
Phil
In reply to All
An interesting discussion…
I thought, from day one, that SOTA was basically a ‘green activity’. We have to use leg or pedal power (in most cases) to get to a summit, we have to use battery, solar, wind or hand cranked dynamo to power our Radios - no petrol/diesel generators allowed. So activations actually have minimal impact on the environment. I know we have to charge our batteries, but we could use wind or solar power for that.
Getting there (to the bottom of the hill!), as various people have pointed out is more of a social issue. As individuals, if we feel so concerned about the environment then by all means use public transport or pedal power. If thats not practical, then use a ‘green’ vehicle. Come to think of it, as I’m sure someone else pointed out, we should only use internal combustion for essential use only. So again it’s down to individuals on how much they use their cars for recreation.
It’s interesting that so many ‘celebrities’, proudly announce they run Hybrid Cars, conveniently not mentioning the gas guzzling super cars thay also have in their garages.
Getting back to radio:- I wholeheartedly agree with the people who say “Don’t change the rules”. I think allowing multiple activation in a year would undermine the whole SOTA ‘thing’… Say ‘same summit’ activations were allowed every 24 hours (with points awarded each time). I could leave home, and drive about 40 miles (80 mile round trip), to Ros Hill, in Northumberland. It’s a 5 mins walk to the summit, and I’m activating. Dead easy, and if I did this every weekend (Saturday and Sunday), I’ve got 100 activator points in a year. I know this sort of thing would be even easier in some other regions. Surely that isn’t what SOTA’s about.
In practice I don’t do many activations anyway, but if I set out to do this just to get the points (and I know it would be daft!!), it would cost me a fair bit of cash AND I’d pump out 1.5 tonnes of C02!! So maybe some multiple activations aren’t that green.
For the geeks…my diesel car is very green (silvery blue actually)and emits 119gms/km…and only costs £35 a year to tax. I got it cos. it was cheap to run, the ‘green’ aspects weren’t even considered!
This isn’t me saying we should ignore green issues, I’m just saying we should be realistic about them, and don’t change SOTA. SOTA is pretty green anyway. and the rules are very well thought out.
In reply to 2E0HJD:
I have considered this one long and hard and still can’t make up my mind. I was a prolific activator for quite a while but a mixture of cost and other activities has slowed me down a bit.
I have racked up an amazing mileage doing SOTA and my car is not the greenest on the planet so I will duck that aspect of it.
From a purely selfish point of view I would welcome extra activations in a year so that I can increase my chances of making mountain goat. I don’t think one extra activation in a year would devalue this as I would still need to make the effort to get out and about. However too many scoring activations on the same hill in the same year would devalue it. I reckon with a bit of planning it would be possible to score between 10 and 20 points (depending on the area) in a day without any climbing. I would really hate to see that being allowed.
My first activation was in September 2004 so I have had the opportunity for 3 more activations of several of my early hills but haven’t taken advantage, so I wonder if I would make use of extra activations if they were allowed.
Having 0 hills within a 50 mile radius means I have to think carefully about any trip I make. The 1 activation per year rule has meant that apart from the recent WB activation all my hills have been uniques. This started happening because of the rules and continued because it became part of my mind set.
The advantage I have over those living close to the hills, is that when I set out I am looking at a 200 mile each way trip anyway, so I might as well do uniques.
I can understand that if you have 10 - 20 hills in close proximity you may well activate them all quite quickly in a year and be left unable to amass more points. Perhaps allowing 1 extra activation per year would help in this circumstances but I am really undecided. If I did come down in favour of a change it would be to allow 2 activations per year. Once in “normal” time and once during “Winter Bonus” time.
The other thing to consider is the chasers situation. Many chasers have been happy to work anything and everything to get to shack sloth or even super sloth. I now see many looking to increase their total of uniques. Introducing extra activations would, in my opinion, reduce the number of unique summits activated in a year and deprive the chasers of wanted summits.
I am sneaking this post in between support calls at work so I have probably lost the thread somewhere along the line.
In summary, I think that some people would benefit from a change and that it may give the programme a boost, but overall I think the increase in activity would be short term and only benefit a few existing activators.
It would possibly discourage new entrants from broadening their horizons and in the long term may do more damage than good.
Bottom line No Change but open to persuasion and I think it is a great debate.
73,
James M0ZZO
In reply to 2E0HJD:
After some thought I must admit I would not be in favour of relaxing the present rule of scoring points once per hill, per year.
What I would like to see considered is perhaps the inclusion of non-Mariliyn qualifying hills from other “lists” - for example Hewitts (another Alan Dawson thing) Nuttalls, Donalds, Corbetts, Murdos etc. If I`ve confused anyone, definitions can be found at:-
It seems ridiculous that I live in the “Peak District” yet only 3 summits qualify, rejecting such fine tops as Shutlinsloe, Mam Tor, Win Hill & Thorpe Cloud etc.
Also dont forget theres 205 sub-Marilyns (hills with 140-149m re-ascent) these include such gems as Bowfell, Wetherlam, Glastonbury Tor and apparently Tennyson Down on the Isle of Wight.
To sum up, keep the existing once per year rule, but give us more choice to activate / chase. Either that or I will buy a holiday home in (for example) Thuringia in Germany. This state has 826 summits in an area just slightly larger than Yorkshire. Using Google Earth, it can be seen that the drop between summits can be as small as 10m. Food for thought. (no smiley)
73 Steve G1INK.
In reply to All:
Last year I decided to try and reach 1000 points in 12 months (eventually it took me just under 13 months), so I am well aware of the limited number of hills we have on offer in England. To achieve my goal you need about 200 summits in the year. We have 185 in England. Careful planning of which hills would be tackled in Winter (due to limited daylight) and sorties into Scotland and Wales was required. Its a case of getting on with what we have got!
Do I think that allowing activators to score on the same hill several times a year will increase the number of activations? Probably not or if it does it would be marginal. Do I think that 185 Marilyns in England restricts activators from going out? Probably not, people will climb the hills if thats what they want to do and will take the trouble to drive another say 20 miles to bag a different one.
After careful thought I think the argument is marginal. Consequently, I would not wish the rule to be relaxed - leave it as it is for me.
However, I believe the DL model is best, loads of hills to climb! As Steve (G1INK) says, Hewitts, Nuttals, Corbetts, Wainwrights, et al, there’s loads of lists and inclusion of these may be a good idea and should be easy to implement. At the moment, we got Marilyns so lets get on with it.
If it aint broke, then dont fix it!
73 all Ian G7KXV
In reply to 2E0HJD:
our more regular activators , ie the ones who do more miles traveling in their pursuit of summits, if the topic is to open again i would like their views on this topic.
Hi Mick,
Well Steve and Ian have had their say and largely I would tend towards the “if it ain’t broke…” approach. The only idea for change that I would readily support would be the introduction of a single bonus point for single point summits in the winter period. Something to add value to the effort made when rising from a warm bed at 3.30 a.m. on a December morning. So much more difficult in comparison to a summer activation.
I didn’t comment on the subject before because I am on a personal mission to activate different summits and in doing so I see lots of different places, both new and familiar. I can only admire what Tom and Mike do by going up the same hill time and time again - for me it would be worse than getting shack fever.
I am fully aware of the eco issues and that’s one reason why I tend to be out doing multi-summit activations once a fortnight rather than fewer on a more regular basis. This MO also keeps the XYL reasonably happy. I have a 10 summit / 2 day plan mapped out ready for the Indian summer we are going to have (ha ha), this in an effort to reduce a 2 x 350 mile trip to a 400 mile all in one.
I think that we have to be careful we don’t beat ourselves up too much over this issue. Lots of human leisure activities have a cost to the environment. SOTA has many plus points, not least for me personally the opportunity to keep fit and keep out of the doctor’s waiting room. It is a great antidote for Seasonal Affective Disorder.
73, Gerald
In reply to G7KXV:
“If it aint broke, then don’t fix it!”
Precisely Ian - couldn’t agree more.
As for which summits are eligible - if my reading of the rules is correct - then that is not up to the Management Team (who set the general rules) . The decision is up to whoever is in charge of the ARM. Over to you James 
Roger G4OWG
In reply to G1INK:
Hi Steve,
I agree in part with the idea of adding summits of a different category to the database, but none of the established categories would add anything to large swathes of the country and so we “Easterners” would still need to travel to carry out our activations.
If you added County Tops to the list, at least James would have a local hill to activate on a Tuesday evening.
73, Gerald
In reply to G4OIG:
There is a recent set of hills called ‘HUMPS’ there are even some in Norfolk 
They would all have to be 1 pointers - but what the heck !
http://www.hill-bagging.co.uk/EWRegions/HuMPs.php is gradually adding them.
Roger G4OWG
ps for full details join RHB yahoo group.