Cockaigne for points collectors?

Has anyone ever taken a look at the prominence of the 10-pointers in the OK/KR region? :wink:

yes I did

According to SOTA Map several summits appear to be only small terrain increases of one and the same hill chain. Prominence of these summits therefore appears to be sometimes less than 50m.

I just wondered if this is true? If so, I would be surprised any longer that some activators can visit such a huge number of summits in a fraction of a day.

BTW, I know that chasers may have a slightly different view, they will appreciate all the points no matter where they come from, hi.

Heinz, I congratulate you on your scolarship, few people nowadays know of the legend of Cockaigne, but the proper way of dealing with any doubts that you might have about summits is an email to the MT. Those dealing with the verification of summits may never read this! I have passed on your doubts and at some point one of the team will find time to check the satellite data for OK (they are at full stretch with new Associations at present.)


PS No, I am mainly a Chaser and I would rather have kosher points!

1 Like

Hallo to all,

Somebody could explain me the validity of this nice serie,

Or my map is completely wrong !


just had a quick look at that region and think that OK/KR-008 is the only valid summit according to the P150-rule. But if I’m not mistaken (i read it somewhere … maybe here on the reflector) that there will be a evaluation of the Czech summits in the near future!

73 Martin, OE5REO

1 Like

As I just explained to Heinz, who has expressed similar doubts in the “Cockaigne” thread, the proper approach to deal with any doubts that you might have about summits is to email the MT, since it is quite possible that the members of the summit verification team will not read this thread. I have passed on Heinz’ doubts and when time permits a member of the team will check.


1 Like

Thanks you for answer, sorry for this double thread.
hpe cuagne on air

I’ve merged this thread into the other thread and so now there is only one thread!

1 Like

Yes i did,
Here (Italy) it’s the opposit, to reach a 10 or 8 point’s summit you have to climb like a real GOAT!
It will be nice to have a guide line to configure the picks value in an equal or similar way…
And then i ask myself… why there are peacks (well define ones) not included on the peack’s list ?? Here there are hundreds of them. Thank for your attention and your work.
73’s Carlos

Hi Carlos,
A lot of us agree with your thoughts about how some difficult summits give relatively low points, while some easier to get to summits have higher points. The problem is there is no standard “access severity” rating method that is already created for all of the summits. The present system of relative height within an association giving a spread of points between 1 and 10 is the only practical method found so far. I personally am not part of the MT but I do understand this problem and can’t see any way to fix it.
In Australia, and Germany (and probably elsewhere) there are summits of almost the same height facing each other across a valley which is the border between two associations and a summit on one side is 8 points while the just as difficult to reach summit on the other side is only 2 points.
Points are assigned within an association, the best you can do is to discuss any descrepancies or missing summits (which have at least 150m prominence) that you find with the Association Manager.

73 Ed.

1 Like

Thanks Ed for your replay…
In ours lands is difficult to reach a summit for a Non trained Ham. I think more people could join SOTA with some easier summits,… thanks again.
73’s Carlos

1 Like

The Italian Association was set up with only a selection, a sample, of the many summits that will be included when the full list is finalised, this is slow work but it is in progress right now. Some of the current summits are not good and will be deleted but they will be replaced with many more summits.

Note that an 8 or 10 point summit will be among the highest summit in any country and will therefore in general be harder work than a 1 or 2 point summit.


We all remember the big outrage (mostly from DL) when DL and DM was evaluated for P150 last year. In OE the situation was similar and the Austrian AM Sylvia, OE5YYN had to do much persuading why this was necessary.

As I live close to the Czech border I took a deeper look at the OK-summits and had to find out that lot’s of these summits are not even close to the P150-rule. And I’m sure that there are also other associations that have a incorrect list of summits.

In order to avoid that the P150-topic will be brought up again and again with every evaluation of regions and associations … here is a suggestion to the MT: wouldn’t it be better to focus on checking all existing associations for P150 first and start working on new associations after the evaluation is finished? So we all have to go through the P150-discussion only once in the future (hopefully).

I was part of the evaluation team in OE and know how much work it is to check all existing summits for correctness, also to motivate the local AM’s/RM’s to help with the evaluation. But I personally think to focus on evaluating first and bring new associations online later would be a better option.

73 Martin, OE5REO

Hi all,
It’s more that welcome to review the list of the summit, since it’s only a few referenced as compared to the total summits present in the territory, some of which with error in the name or error in locator.
Right now we climb up on not yet referenced summits and we calling “cq call/p” of course without using “cq sota”. we regret for points ours and chaser, but most important think keep the focus on fun! without have a bitter tast in my mouth!!

Thank you for everything you will do for the SOTA in Italy.

73! Roberto

The problem with that suggestion is that although it sounds sensible there are at present a large number of new Associations in various stages of development, over twenty IIRC, and it would not be good from the psychological point of view to tell these people that they have to hang around for several months or more without progress while we bring older Associations to where they should have been in the first place. We have recruited more team members and have better tools than we had even a few years ago and some of those team members are concentrating on revising unsatisfactory Associations. Italy is being worked on now and when that is completed there are a few other Associations that will be examined in their turn (I can think of three but there may be more), but stopping work on new Associations to speed this up runs a risk of thwarting enthusiasm and losing momentum, perhaps permanently.


1 Like

Martin, DL, i.e. the German Alps were not yet converted to P150, only DM. Be prepared for another association losing the majority of its summits as well as association and region managers to resign. DL will be another association losing easily accessible summits and only gaining ones extreme climbers can access.

I agree OK and some other associations are not as P150 as the ARM tells you. The parts of OK I have looked at will also lose a majority of the summits, too. Some other associations are still P100 but do not fulfill the later introduced summit density criterion.
Summing this up means currently quite a large fraction of SOTA is actually NOT P150. A situation I do not mind and I know I am not the only one.

This medal has two sides:
On the one side the span of time we can enjoy the old summits lists would be minimized by this approach.

On the other side this would show the overall impact of enforcing P150 strictly at a glance. Extrapolating the outrage in DM this could end in a huge tumult. Once a critical fraction of the SOTA participants in the associations concerned has quit SOTA concurrently the overall loss in activity would be visible. This could be the right point in time for rethinking the MT’s recent P150 policy.
Well, perhaps a German proverb fits here “Lieber ein schreckliches Ende, als Schrecken ohne Ende.” which seems to translate quite well to “Better a terrible end than terror without end.”

Seems I missed this kind of motivation. Propably this was the reason I refused to dig the grave of DM. I am still curious how this motivation looks like.

73 de Michael, DB7MM

  • still DM association manager -

Hello Brian,

thanks for your reply to my previous posting. I fully agree with your statement, it was not my intention to tell you (the MT) to stop all work on new associations right now. But when you finished your work on these new associations you should maybe concentrate more on revising the existing ones before planning to add new associations.

73 Martin, OE5REO

Since revision work continues in parallel with new Association work it is likely that the revised summit lists for the “iffy” Associations will be completed at much the same time as the new Associations will have all come on line.

I don’t intend to discuss the application of the P150 rule, and the P100 relaxation for Associations with few summits. The rules are published, they are there on the website for all to see, and the requirements are explained to the AM when work begins on a new Association. Where summits are later identified that do not conform to the rules they should be removed - after all, rules are rules - and it should be added that it is the responsibility of the AM to maintain the summit list, identifying new candidate summits and removing summits that are subsequently shown to be non-compliant. Each AM has the opportunity for an annual updating when such “housekeeping” can be performed. In an ideal world I think we would expect that AMs doing their duty would quickly root out any non-compliant summits without any prompting from the MT. This would allow the MT to do their job and establish new Associations for the benefit of the SOTA community.


1 Like

Looks like I need to activate some summits this summer…