Anomaly in Associations and Summits

The point is on the top, and it is spray painted in gold…

Everyone stop! The upcoming SSO changes will fix all this. These things take time, hopefully a preview for all might be available after I get back from Korea in two weeks time.

Rob’s SOTAMaps is obviously benefitting from some of the work already. Not everything else is in a state yet to do so.

Move on, be patient

Sotamaps is benefitting in large part from my having put in substantial effort over the past year or so to figure out how to pull the right data from (a copy of) the same data sources as are available to your MT team.

Apart from having access to these data sources (for which, as a 3rd-party developer far removed from the MT, I am of course immensely grateful), I’ve not seen hide nor hair of any of the work you mention, although I understand you currently have a team of people testing the new sites.

The problems highlighted by Esther GI0AZA are easily fixed and, as Martyn M1MAJ points out, should never have depended upon people having to list their alternative callsigns. In any case

so that’s good to hear!

…and as Brian pointed out, continually pointing out that our old systems are old doesn’t make them newer any more quickly. The issue is not desire or will but the fact this is a volunteer organisation that relies on people’s time and goodwill for anything to progress.

So yes, it shouldn’t have depended on the alternative callsigns, did at the time because it had to, now needs rewriting, rewriting is happening, will be coming. We’re aware, no need to bring it up again.

Well, to tell the truth, since I no longer use any of the SOTA sites or services, old or new (having personally given up on both SOTA and ham radio), I actually had no idea which of them Esther was referring to.

My interest in this thread was piqued by Andy’s amusing retort to Esther’s somewhat vague reporting of the issue she had noticed, and then by Martyn’s subsequent comment. And it just ballooned, as these things so often do…

Okey, dokey, chief, thanks for clearing up any misunderstandings!:vulcan_salute:

No effect is good, Rob. Be afraid of counter effects. Here is a story.

A few months ago, I publicly (through this reflector: 1st August 2018 Association updates - #10 by E70AA) pointed out to discrepancy in the winter bonus data for E7: the E7 RM said that one can get winter bonus for activating summits higher than 1000m, while the database and consequently sotamaps had that value set to 1400m (I think no country in Europe has the winter bonus altitude set so high).

OC Brian suggested that I inform the MT guys about this issue using the PM mechanism since that should produce a better and more timely solution to the issue. So, I did as I’d been instructed and soon I got response from MT member Simon (G4TJC). In a note (that even Sheldon from Big Bang Theory would easily recognized as sarcasm), Simon thanked me for pointing out to the discrepancy and promised to resolve the issue by “correcting” the value in the E7 RM! Which he did. Now, it is 1400m all over.

Isn’t that a great way to solve a problem or what?

Well, Simon is an astronomer, his head is in the clouds, so to speak: so it’s probably not surprising that he chose the higher of the two altitudes! Nonetheless, you and your Slovenian colleagues can take solace in the idea that, since the winter bonus altitude is set so high in your country, it must reflect the high degree of fitness and toughness of the Slovenian people :slight_smile:

But, yes: i do take your point; it’s often better to let sleeping dogs lie undisturbed.

And sense of humor, too. I sincerely laughed after getting his pranky note :rofl:

1 Like

Hello Zoran.

You asked us to correct the inconsistency between ARM and DB. This is what I did, with the ARM now correctly reflecting the reality of the bonus points assigned by the DB. You did not ask us to reduce the WB elevation level on the DB.

Since you are discussing my reply, here it is:

Thank you for bringing this to our attention.

The ARM is being updated to match the database.


Simon, G4TJC

Apparently you saw that as funny. In any case I received no reply, so presumed the matter was resolved. Perhaps a theoretical physicist would be able better to construct withering sarcasm even in such a short note but for a me it was a simple note of the actions we were taking.

The MT is guided by the AM on winter bonus issues. So if you think the bonus elevation for E7 is not appropriate please petition your AM, Žaro @E73DU, and if he agrees he can discuss it with us.


A most singular sense of humour, I would say…

Especially as the prefix for E7 is Bosnia-Herzegovina and not Slovenia!


Well, those are my words, Phil! - I must admit to being a little out of touch with ham radio and prefixes and what-not these days. But the fact that Zoran did not correct my silly mistake is surely a tribute to a high degree of empathy, tolerance and good humour on his part.

I agree Rob - you hit the nail right on the head there.

73 Phil

Hi Phil,

As you might know, for a large part of the twentieth century, Bosnia and Slovenia were parts of the same country. Since Slovenians were by far the most dedicated mountain lovers in the country, Bosnian people with similar affinity were often called “Slovenians”. So, hey, Rob wasn’t so wrong after all :wink:

VY 73!

Zoran / E70AA



Dear OM Simon, I hope you’ll be glad to know that comrade Vasily Iosifovich Dzhugashvili just called and expressed his greatest pleasure with the fact that the spirit of his time still lives in a small brotherhood of SOTA devotees.

Best 73!

Zoran / E70AA

Your “comrade” ran a command economy. What he said was right, no matter how wrong it was. Perhaps you would rather have that than the MT conferring with the AM who can be assumed to have better local knowledge than members of the MT. If so, be prepared for the gulag!:grinning:

Brian, how Stalin and the gang ran economy (terribly and inhumanly) is not an issue here. What I wanted to point out here is the similarity with his time’s bureaucracy,


and self-censorship

that some “more equal” members of the SOTA community have been trying to inflict on us, ordinary SOTA creatures.

And speaking of your note:

I guess you could test your assumption on the local knowledge of our AM by looking at his SOTA activation record:

After all, it looks like we should be prepared for the gulag, my friend.


1 Like

So what are you saying, Zoran? Do you advocate that the MT should take unilateral action on complaints about the parameters of an Association without consulting the AM? What should the basis of such action be, then? Listen to the loudest complainer? Base our actions on the data in wiki - which is notoriously unreliable? Have a quiet word with your tourist board or the equivalent?

If you want something from us, spell it out, don’t play guessing games with us, but bear this in mind: This year we brought nineteen new Associations into being, that is a lot of effort from volunteers, and it does not leave a lot of spare time to micromanage the other 137 Associations, which is what you appear to be advocating. We also set aside a certain amount of capacity each year to go through the summit lists of selected old Associations, to see if they need changing in the light of the more modern tools and data available to us now. In view of this continuing work load, you should not be surprised to learn that many of those working on the expansion of SOTA just don’t have the time to read the Reflector - far from being “people-silencing” my intervention was in recognition that these points on the Reflector were unlikely to be read by those who could act on them and were wasted where they were.

That seems foolish to me. Take me as an example, I am in my late 70’s and nowadays only do a few activations in a year, but does that negate my knowledge of British hills gained over sixty years of climbing and walking? Your AM took the effort to bring your Association into being, how much of that work did you do?

I also got the reference in your “more equal” comment. Since you think that “Animal Farm” is relevant, have you ever read on page 19 of the General Rules?


hi zoran,

just wanted to let you know that in austria the minimum height for the winter points is also 1400m.


73 martin

This is not a criticism of the powers that be in OE, but I must say that I do find it bizarre that the likelihood of sub-zero temperatures is used as the parameter for winter bonus points. Surely it drops below zero on summits below 1400m in Austria.

Whether an activator chooses to operate in sub-zero temperatures is entirely up to them. To my mind the winter bonus should be based entirely on the points rating of the summit and should be universal across all associations. No doubt others will disagree.