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

SQ9MDF 8 peaks in one day


#21

That takes much more effort than simply revising the list. We know OK, OM, HA, SV are bad in places. Enjoy them whilst you can because all the non-compliant summits will be removed one day.


#22

In the Carpathian winter conditions can be very difficult, the score does not reflect the effort at all


#23

It is unavoidable that the effort for a given score varies a lot. In Iceland the seasonal bonus does usually only reflect part if added challenge associated with winter activations. The fun makes upp for the difference. :slight_smile:


#24

That is certainly no more difficult than winter conditions in GM and GW. I well remember being forced to abandon an ascent of GW/NW-001 because of powder snow which was chest deep, almost shoulder deep, but with no support so our feet remained on the track. We tried forcing our way through it in the hope that higher up it would become solid enough to walk on, but it was too exhausting!


#25

The adventure and memories are also important


#26

Icelandic mountains are also my dream


#27

Andy, I have not measured those in Orlickie Mountains, but I do not think they even make 100m prominence criterion. Either way, I was not feeling as if in mountains at some point. :slight_smile:

What is a process to review a summit or summits? Is this something a SOTA Association Manager has to trigger?


#28

The AM can do this. But we have already noted there are many summits in OK that are lacking in prominence. I cannot remember if OK is a P100 or P150 association but I do know the whole association is being re-evaluated now. This means a lot of the current summits will be deleted from the program. I do not know if there are any summits waiting to be added. So there will be fewer summits in OK once it has been reviewed.

I do not know when the changes will be published other than it wont be before June 1st 2018. That doesn’t mean there will be changes for July 1st either.

One of the problems that takes time is we wish to ensure we don’t miss valid summits to add and we don’t delete valid summits in error. So there is manual checking to be done on many summits that are near the prominence limit.

It will be a shame to remove summits but we want every association to be done to the same level and standard as every other.


#29

Thanks, Andy. That would be a fair approach. I think in OK it is 100m prominence (also for unknown reason to us), as well as a lot of liberty in summits criteria, just very subjectively speaking.

I like the idea of integrity in approach, and 100m shall be quite exceptional (e.g. in a country like The Netherlands), while mountainous countries perhaps shall meet the 150m prominence without any special treatment.

Thanks again for sharing a bit of kitchen view… :slight_smile:


#30

many frustrated waiting for change…


#31

Have you looked at how it is done?

https://www.sota.org.uk/Blog


#32

Why not look at the OK Association Reference Manual? :
https://www.sota.org.uk/ARMViewer/OK/English

Page 5 of 32
"The summit must be elevated at least 150 m from it’s surroundings"

73 Joe


#33

OK, you are right. Sorry for not verifying prior to this.

PS. However going through those “peaks” - they did not feel even 100m :slight_smile: