This is not a fundamental change but it is a constructive suggestion which would improve the program, thus making it more sophisticated.
Karel
https://www.sota.org.uk/Blog/2017/06/19/Finding-Summits---Part-1
https://www.sota.org.uk/Blog/2017/07/23/Finding-More-Summits
Its easy to miss these, as they are tucked away on the website, but they show how the job is done today.
Thanks for the suggestion, but as Brianâs links show and my post intimated, we already do make full use of technology in determining summits, including understanding the limitations of the technology too.
Can you please tell me why you want to do this so fast? What would have been wrong with a 30 to 60 day deadline? I would have found it more elegant and above all more transparent.
Wow. Why are you getting so emotional? Iâm just surprised how much of a burden you are with whatâs going on in another country. As Swiss, youâre supposed to be neutral, right? 
[not 100% serious]
I think so, too. Such a short deadline without announcement does not exactly speak in favour of the programme. I would have liked more transparency here. Apparently, it all came out after your posting. I find that a little strange.
Sadly we had this in 2016, too here in DM. Quite a few went into GMA then which becomes more and more popular.
1 Like
I guess the âambush strategyâ is intentional. This thread has been up for only few days and there are 64 posts already and emotions are flowing in hectolitres. And it is still nothing compared to the flamewars before the DM massacre.
What would be the purpose of a 30 or 60 day deadline? Would it be so that activators and chasers could make a special effort to gain as many points as possible from summits that they now know to not be valid for SOTA? Personally I would feel very uncomfortable activating or chasing a summit that I know (rather than suspect) should never have been on the list. It is a matter of personal integrity, just as removing those invalid summits is a reflection of the integrity of the SOTA program.
Is it old-fashioned to be concerned about integrity?
But I thought about it in another way: The criterion of prominence OR isolation itself in some special cases.
Frankly, I donât want to need a car more frequently and thus become a more addicted planet burner.
Nevertheless, now all is going to be rigorously standardized.
73 and CUL!
Karel
Chapeau Karel!
Unfortunately there are more than enough of them. Unfortunately, these people do not respect borders when it is conducive to self-expression.
For more typical reviews we find, for example, cases where a ânewâ location is marginally higher than the listed position, so we replace these summits with the new ones. In such cases we are comfortable arranging for the transition to happen after a delay, if this is what the AM wants (but often they see no value in this and ask for an immediate change). In this case the AM is no longer engaged, and anyway so many of the summits are so egregiously non-compliant that we cannot, for the integrity of the programme, allow them to stand any longer than is necessary.
We announced that OK would see action a long time ago. Our MT volunteer had no external help on this task, so it took a while.
Whilst our main focus is on adding new associations (e.g. Pacific and South American areas) we will act to correct non-compliance with the rules. Some people get upset when we take away a summit, move one or refuse to list one which is not compliant. But the simplicity of the prominence criterion is a strength of the programme, allowing us to list vast numbers of summits on the basis of topography alone.
At midnight on Friday OK will âonlyâ have 229 summits.
W5M, with a surface area of 125,433 m^2 has just one. One.
With our simple rigorous prominance test you get the summits that nature has given you. No special cases. No bending the rules - leave that sort of thing to politicians! 
2 Likes
Which brings us to the infamous question of 150 meters being the right amount. Maybe 100 or 50 for everyone would have done the job. 
I agree with the decision to stick to the rules, yet personally, without any offence or blaming, I would have preffered if there were more summits worldwide.
1 Like
Now I must put my foot down as Moderator. The âinfamous questionâ has cropped up with monotonous regularity ever since SOTA began. It evokes strong feelings. All too often the discussion has become rancorous. I will not allow this to happen again.
Okay, the 150 m prominence seems to become the Holy Grail for MT.
How about PA association - should it be completely deleted for the sake of INTEGRITY?
73, CU from GMA
1 Like
Just for my information, are there really no more exceptions (e.g. FL, DM, PA, others)?
Rule 3.5.1.
Enjoy GMA.
We do not regard GMA as a competitor. They are fellow travellers in the conjoined fellowships of Ham radio and the summits. They have chosen different rules, that is their right, so good luck to them.
Some of the retiring OK summits are well short even of P100.
Perhaps activators have taken extra holidays or booked hotels. With such a short notice you are not doing the program any favors in my opinion.
Okay I see your point. But itâs not the Activatorâs fault it took so long. I myself have checked hundreds in DM/RP and DM/SR as regional manager by hand. The normal activator canât do that and itâs not reasonable for him.
Okay maybe you. But the regular activator does not know if that is the case or not. The reason described above applies.
Maybe. BUT: This is just a hobby. At least one monthâs notice can be given under overall consideration of the circumstances. That would not hurt at all.
I often drive 300km per day (sometimes 500km) for SOTA since P150 took almost all summits in my regionâŚ
Okay I understand that. Interesting.
Yes, there have been some rumors. I would have liked to have set another deadline, though.
Right. Yeah, I understand. But then the same would also apply to P100. No, I donât want to get into that⌠
1 Like
There are no exceptions, rather only associations which qualify for P100 under General Rule 3.5.1. There are some associations with a nominally-P100 listing which do not qualify under 3.5.1 which therefore require further attention.
There are several more P100 associations around Europe (e.g. Baltic states). A handful in north America come to mind (e.g. VE3, VE4, and shortly VE5).
Edit:
No, DM is P150.
73, thank you Simon
Really?
I would take that also, 1 summit per 0.125433 km^2.
Just a funny typo.
Karel
1 Like