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

Unwanted discussion


#1

Hello last time…
MM0FMF wrote:

Germany will have the same rules as everywhere else.

But why do you erase summits with more then 300meters prominence?


#2

And which summits are those?

Brian


#3

… and why left you summits with considerably < p150?
… and why created you new references for summits. that have already references?
… and why created you references in region “A” with a reference number of region “B”?
… and I thought, you wanted to delete “border-references” …


#4

I suppose you guys think that your rhetorical statements are a mark of intellect, well far from it. Instead of these ringing but empty statements, list your problem summits so that you can get answers. My crystal ball is a bit foggy tonight and my telepathy needs a new set of batteries, so only you know what you are talking about.

Brian


#5

Oh - I am, sorry for that, Brian. You’ll find the answer on SOTAwatch:

http://www.sotawatch.org/summits.php?assoc=13


#6

I’m not sure posting a list of all the summits is responding to Brian’s request to list the ones you have problems with. Unless you are suggesting every summit in DM is incorrect, which I think is a slightly extreme position to take.

You provided four blanket statements in your first response. Brian requested you provide a list of the (exact) summits that match those statements, so that the team responsible can respond.


#7

Thanks, Andrew, that is exactly right.

Mario, we need a list of the summits that you think are wrong, we need the parameters that you think are the right ones, and we need your source for your figures. Without those figures your complaints have no substance.

Brian


#8

Good morning Brian…

On of them is DM/SX-002…deleted soon but the prominence is 307m!
See https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auersberg

73 de Tom


#9

Actually it’s 115.5m but don’t let the facts spoil your argument.


#10

Andy, it might have helped your argument if you had quoted a data source like Tom did.


#11

I think that is a question for the summits team, which neither Andy or I are members of. Wiki does appear to give 307 metres (I say “appear” because I am depending on Google translate, the article being in German) but Wiki is notorious for errors and inaccuracies so the question must be resolved by the experts.

Brian


#12

If you use e simple map you can see the 900m line in the near of the summit…the summit is 1018m high…so for sure more then 115,5m…and the terrain is falling down more. The 850m line is only a few meters away.
But…I give up…

73 de Tom


#13

Another example: why is the “Ruppberg” (dm/th-014) in the list again? … only 127 m prominence = yet still p150?

I’am surprised about that. 73, Joachim


#14

Well Wikipedia is not a qualitative reference. For a short time me there was a page saying how much I looked like George Clooney which is obviously wrong.

The thing being overlooked is maybe, just maybe, the summit team know what they are doing.


#15

A quick look at the 860m line round that summit shows that it isn’t closed round the summit in anything like the way the 900m one is. I don’t have easy access to good enough maps of ther area to find out exactly what the 860m contour encloses, but it is a very considerably larger area than the 900m one.

If you look at the entry in the database for that summit you will see it remains valid only until March next year. Activate it while you can.


#16

Sigh… Deja vu

Guys…

I know from experience that there are folks in Germany that are very capable of producing a very clean P150 list. After all it was eventually done last time for P100 using TOP50 maps for absolute verification. It seems that no one was prepared to help do it this time because of the dreaded application of consistent prominence rules… Which really should have been done last time but it wasn’t!

Rather than propagating and continuing the “unwanted discussion” here either:

A) Step forward and help the summits team clean the list

Or

B) if no one wants to help apply the change (even if they have the knowledge) then they have to accept that they really have no right to whinge about it.

73 Marc G0AZS


#17

In any case, contour lines are not to be trusted. Often the survey of a mountain consists of a few traverses with a level and staff giving lines of dots of more or less known heights and the contours are drawn in freehand based on those dots.

Brian


#18

i think Germans had a lot of time to do 150m correction by self (as we did in OE)
but just wait for work of others and then scream that some is not ok ???
very strange


#19

True. They’re a rough guide, only good for a quick check, but that 860m contour goes off in ways that could easily enclose other higher summits, so the claimed 307 metres prominence is clearly highly suspect, and while 100 metres prominence is probably easy enough to demonstrate, claims of 150 metres prominence obviously need careful examination. I’m sure the summits team have given it a very good look using the best data they can get hold of (which will certainly be better than the contours Google Maps provides), and if they say it doesn’t have 150 metres prominence I’ll believe them.


#20

Wondering if someone also questioned the winter bonus, e.g. applying the same gradation as in OE, F, HB9, … ?