DD1LD-first Mountain Goat in German Alps!

In reply to G8ADD:
Dear Brian,

I understand Dzianis’ anger very well. Before all the P150/100 stuff started, SOTA in Germany was developing very good and an increasing number of activators reached high scores in the database. Who cares as “SOTA is not inherently a competitive activity” as we all know from the database? In this situation the MT insisted on a rule which was not seen as strict before. Finally this lead to a drastic decrease of valid summits. Many activators have stopped or reduced their activities because of this. Others started their own program in order to stay with “the SOTA the liked”. It is obvious that SOTA in Germany suffered severely of this decision. And you, Brian, cannot understand why many operators here in DL/DM are still disappointed and angry?

To my mind the main idea of SOTA should not be insisting on some theoretic rules often contradicting the perception. It should be a program to encourage activity from summits!
I do not think DL/DM should be an exception of P150/P100 but the use of P150/P100 as the only and absolute way of determining a summit should be thought about in all associations.

Finally: Congratulation to Dzianis in this really difficult time for SOTA in Germany!

73 de Michael, DO7MM

to Brian and all responsible of SOTA
In a message you said :
« You should remember that the MT did not impose the height bands on the French Association: when the Association was being formed, those height bands were put to the MT as being what the French Association wanted, and the MT accepted them. I am sure that if the French Association decided that the height bands needed to be changed then the MT would listen with sympathy »

Dear Brian and all readers also

I was not born in the SOTA world at the begenning in 2007 and I do not speak about any old french proposition. I don’t know the context of that period, and I would not speak about things I do not live. Anyway, the proposal I have done does not change anything for the french scale.
I do not think about my own church, I am thinking about european or world logical barem.
So, according to your agreement, we could propose a new scale for France next revision ? or just to be listened ?

In a message you said :
« I can see what you are trying to do with your suggested scoring system. My personal opinion is that there are too many bands, but in addition I see two difficulties. Firstly you are thinking only of Europe, and you stop at 5,000 metres. I suggest that any universal scheme should be world-wide, it should include the highest summits in the Himalaya. The second fault is that a universal scheme should have a step change at the altitude where breathing becomes a problem; either the climber carries oxygen and therefore has to overcome a weight penalty, or he goes without oxygen and has breathing difficulties. Perhaps a bonus is appropriate at this height? »

Brian, my proposal is for the world ! just to continue the scale till the highest summit if you enjoy it ! Personnaly, I would be please to give 50 points to the personn who will climbed to himalaya, with or not oxigen (it doesn’t matter). To bring Oxigen is not a valid argument to change a scale ? When you go to 2500 m, you do not bring the same thing when you are at 10 mn from your car ! the weight penalty already exist. Last SOTA tour, I brought 3 liters water, safety box, clothes in case of changing weather ect… and still a plactic bag to collect garbage of silly human !

I do not pray for myself, but for a common rules that should be understand by everybody and easily ! I still remember when I explain to Gerald (F6HBI) the rules of SOTA while we were walking through the snow the 1st may for the international sota day (F/am-333) video on Youtube! I explain the scale and then I told him that it was different in each country of Europe ! He was surprise and do not understand why ? I was a bit embarrassed ! The only reason I found to explain him was a joke ! « May be it is more difficult to climb and walk in Germany, in Czech, or in Hungary than in France or Switzerland » !

You also said :
« With regard to the winter bonus, I think you would find a considerable increase in difficulty in mid winter in the high alps! However, again thinking beyond the boundary of Europe, the MT is prepared to accept a summer bonus in desert countries - in a country like Australia there are mountains that get winter snow and rate a winter bonus, but elsewhere on the continent where it is hot and arid the winter might be the best time to climb and a summer bonus might be more appropriate. These are problems for the future. »

If a summer bonus is necessary, why not ! you have to consider it ! The rules for winter bonus should be different in the date :
Under 1500 m : no bonus
1500m – 2000M : from the 1st december to 15 march : 3 points
2000m – 2500 m : from the 15th november to 30th march
2500 m – 3000 m : from 1st november to 15th april
3000 m – 3500m : from 15th october to 30th april
3500 – 4000 m : from 1st october to 1st may
over 4000 m : always a bonus

Sincerely, if we want our activity be a success, it should be easy to be understood from the Ham who arrive and try ! Why everybody like football, because it is so easy to understand, even the idiots can understand it ! Why people don’t care gymnastics, cause to difficult to understand and rules are so elaborate than also gymnasts themself don’t know !
The major principle is : « if I transmit very high I get more point » and that’s all ! But today we cannot say that !

Again, I am pleased to get the possibilities to debate about SOTA rules in a democratic way ! I think we are far from the World goal. But as Dzianis told : « while there’s life, there’s hope… ».
Best regards to all and tomorrow 3 french stations will be on the air from Pyrénées and Alps !
Hope to contact u soon from a high summit !
Bob

In reply to F5HTR:

Bob,

I agree completely, I never understood why high alpine summits offer the same amount of points as for example quite a huge number of hills (often with roads up to the top) and whenever I tried to explain to interested persons, nobody would understand. Since I mainly practice SOTA for my personal pleasure, health and fitness - like Tom does - competing isn’t - and hasn’t been - my primary intention. But as time went by I met quite a few people who felt like being in a competition with others, some saw it as a hard competition, some just looked onto the score table at the end of the day to compare with eachother - and some just enjoyed themselves, according to everyones’ personal view of the things. As a matter of fact each of them should be granted the best possible “fun-factor” and it’d only be fair if real efforts were appreciated by an appropriate number of points.

Brian,

The MT is always ready to listen to advice!

I can only speak for myself, but I am quite sure, the alpine associations within the SOTA programme would be VERY happy to assist the MT towards redesigning of the scoring system so it could get closer to international demands, or an extended bonus system which might be settled on top of the existing one. I know this can’t be done in one day and I know a lot of work would be implied but - for the benefit of one of the most genious programmes I ever participated - I’d give it a try, since some things still seem to be in disorder.

73 Bernhard DL4CW

In reply to G8ADD:
Hi Brian et al!

Interesting all comments - phew! Looks like life is difficult for some! I think a touch of the KISS (K_eep I_t S_imple S_tupid - for our foreign brethren) principle is required here.

When I achieved the adulated status of Mountain Goat in February 2006 I kept (and still do) separate columns on my Excel Logsheet to record height ascended and distance walked. It might be of interest to some that this amounted to some 96000m elevation and 1800Km walked (with a little bit of cycling). This information was recorded from my GPS and ‘Tracked-Back’ into my PC/Memory Map.

Robin GM7PKT our leading light in SOTA ascended pointage also conducts the same logging format along with Distance Driven - now that’s another story in the remoter parts of Scotland.

This I would consider is certainly one of way of sorting out the Mountain Goats from the Nanny Goats - hi!

But I suppose you could put a fair few metres on your accent total once the Nepalese Association is up and running and you chase your 10 Point Activation score for Mount Everest.

Then there is Logistical/Difficulty factor. Our recent activation of the Alsia Craig (GM/SS-246) with all the access problems with suitable boats, time limitations, wx constraints - for just one point - you see what I mean.

The bottom line is that every Association is different with peculiarities that are specific to that association and as such you can’t compare ‘like-for-like’

So just get out there and enjoy yourselves. SOTA is just another great facet of this great hobby(s) of ours.

Ever Upwards!!

Jack (:>)

In reply to DL4CW:

Some years ago, in an attempt to look at the differences in “difficulty” between SOTA Associations, I analysed the scores for the top 10 activators in each country. Assuming the “difficulty” to be reflected by those scores I came up with a difficulty factor for each association. At the time this showed Switzerland to be the most difficult and the German Low-Mountains to be the least difficult. I published the results of this analysis in graphical form on the SOTA website and updated it periodically.

It seems to me that such a method could be adapted and refined to provide an objective adjustment factor for each association that could be used when looking at the “all association” table on the database. By doing this, all the differences in difficulty are automatically accounted for without a need to alter the scoring system within individual associations.

That being said, I am quite content with the current system!

73

Richard
G3CWI

Me too, but what a great idea to be able to click something that would apply the difficulty coefficient to all scores on the All Association table and re-order it as necessary. I had forgotten about your inter-association difficulty co-efficient, but recall that it returned appropriate results, like the examples quoted above.

Perhaps it would need to be a little more sophisticated than you describe though. G1INK (et al) have done several activations in DM, while you (for instance) have done some in OE. Each individual activation points score in an activator’s log would need to be factored by the coefficient for the association of the summit concerned, although it can be demonstrated mathematically that the single application of your home association difficulty coefficient to your entire score would still approximate generally correctly.

Of course, you could drill down even further and devise a difficulty coefficient for each region, or even each summit, or even each ascent option of each summit - but that is getting silly, and we don’t want to get into fractals - do we? (Sorry, just been helping Jimmy with his A-level Further Maths homework!).

Tom M1EYP

In reply to G3CWI:

Hi Richard! In that case I agree with Tom.

In addition, how would you scale the score system which initially wasn’t suitable for some associations, e.g. Mont Blanc and a simple 2000+ are both worth 10 points. Your “error” will be multiplied by that scaling factor, too :slight_smile:

In reply to DD1LD:

“It seems to me that such a method could be adapted and refined”

…as I said!

In reply to G3CWI:

Richard, it could be an ideal solution to consider EVERY summit in an association and to find an appropriate scaling factor for EVERY one. Do you know how many summits do we have?

“Mission impossible…”

In reply to DD1LD:

That is not the idea at all; clearly you have not been able to understand it. It is not applied to individual summits but to whole activator scores as displayed on the database.

73

Richard
G3CWI

In reply to G3CWI:

It seems to me that such a method could be adapted and refined to
provide an objective adjustment factor for each association that could
be used when looking at the “all association” table on the
database. By doing this, all the differences in difficulty are
automatically accounted for without a need to alter the scoring system
within individual associations.

This sounds like a promising approach to me Richard! I wonder how accurate such an algorithm could finally become, always provided that the neccessary amount of fine tuning takes place.

73 Bernhard DL4CW