Dm sota

Old Reflector
21

Hi all,

there is no software which is perfect. We ( DF6PW and me) made the list for RP,SR and a new list for NW(which is not published yet). We used WINPROM (by Edward Earl) for our prominence list for those areas. But we only used it as a systematic approach for these areas. All summits were checked twice manually which is very simple with TOP50 (GeoGridviewer by EADS). You use height layers(highest point and -100m below) and you can make your own database (ACCESS) inside this program.
There are a few problems:
First of all there are no tolerance limits published for P100.
Second , there are differences between the published height (remember-official german map) and the underlying data (resolution 50m ->approximately 1 arc sec) in TOP 50.
Third , some underlying datas are missing in TOP50 V.4(small areas in NW).

We did a worst case analysis :-). So there may be additional summits later on.

For our area we are in contact with Marc G0AZS who is very cooperative and will provide a quick guide for the Landserf program. But I think you always will have to work thru the list and do some manual work in the TOP50 map afterwards.

73
Walt
DK1BN

22

In reply to OH7BF:

Hi Jaako

You could test that by checking the UK Marilyn list with the SRTM
data. Actually I thought that Marc G0AZS would start by that first to
prove that the new method is valid one.

That, of course, was the very first thing that Marc did! The results correalated exactly, so we have great confidence in the software’s ability to find true summits with appropriate prominence.

73 de Les, G3VQO

23

In reply to G3VQO:
"Hi Klaus

Even a quick visit to GoogleEarth shows that you are mistaken! If we look at the position of DM/BW-038 ( 8 45 1 E and 48 9 2 N ) we can see its height as being around 1015m as listed. If we look just a little to the north-east, to position 8 45 25 E and 48 9 29 N, it is easy to find a higher summit at around 1020m."

Les, it is a well known fact (at least in Germany) that the Lemberg is the highest point in the Swabian Alps. Just as most people know Cross Fell is the highest in the Pennines or Scafell Pike is the highest in the Lake District or England. It is a simple fact, and if software says otherwise, then the software is wrong.

24

In reply to G1INK:

Ah, yes, Steve, just as people once knew that Ben Lawers was the highest peak in Scotland (and the tourist office in Abernethy will still tell you that!) These spot heights were derived from laborious manual surveying and have often proved wrong, so “everybody knows” is not evidence. Various lines of evidence suggest in fact that conventional wisdom is wrong: I don’t suggest that on the present evidence the Lemberg be demoted, but there is a strong indication that it should be resurveyed. The software is not a bunch of figures pulled out of a magicians hat, it is based on measurements, too, and if two sets of measurements (more in this case) disagree then you don’t argue in terms of which set of figures you would rather trust, you look for more evidence.

Jaako, its an odd thing, but you are not the first to tell us that the Alps are different, as if keen mountaineers from the UK were not eager to make an annual pilgrimage to the Alps. We are familiar with the effects of snow on the height of mountains, too: I myself have seen the summit shelter on Ben Nevis buried in snow, yet it is anchored on top of the ruins of the old observatory. And with a degree in geology I would be a poor student of the subject if I didn’t know that the nappes were still moving - the orogeny is far from over and when the Mediterranian Sea is closed by the collision with Africa the Alps may well rival the Himalaya. I am sure that where such things need to be included in our considerations, they will be.

73

Brian

25

In reply to G8ADD:

Brian,

Can someone give min/max error and 90% confidence intervall of the satellite data, both for (a) densely forested hills and (b) peaks/saddles much smaller than the 30x30m satellite tiles? This would benefit this discussion.

Forcing the associations to use SRTM satellite data would be a next logical step. Until then: the maps stated in the ARM as valid should be respected by all for the purpose of SOTA, which is about mountaineering & ham radio much more than abt. geology…

Gerd.

26

hmmm,
hi all…back from work :slight_smile:
one question -
is the srtm data and that from google earth based on satelite data ?
hmmmm, on the peak who is 1009m are many high trees and theres deep jungle on it :slight_smile: on lemberg you have not many trees and the satellite looks on the ground from above…maybe thats the error in satellite datas ? maybe the trees on the “higher” point are at about 1020m ? :slight_smile:
i´m often on the lemberg to relax and run up but i never seen that the neighbour summit is higher. i´m now in contact with g0azs and will send him a few maps with data from that area.
otherwise its time to give a info to the government and the Cadastral Office?
to say them that they are wrong and all maps you can buy here are not correct.the lemberg is not the highest point in swabian alps, found out by the sota mt in uk ! good work…
this morning i asked a friend who is also a runner and works at the military
and he has access to very good maps , they also shows the lemberg with 1015m as highest point there. ok ok, google earth shows a different picture…

i will stop now posting here , normaly i don´t want to make any more
work for sota in future,because the many weeks of work for nothing in the past.i want also show , how i can trust a software who has errors and is not correct everytime !? has the rm/am the last word or landserf ?
its ok, all same as last year, don´t discuss with the mt, they will ever right and you are wrong.

now we have a good alternative here with the gma. i will take part there if i have more time for the hobby again. and more summits :-))

73 Klaus

27

It goes to show how very difficult it is to produce an accurate list. Not only is the resolution of the data to be taken into account but also the accuracy of that data.

Another example. In the UK there has been controversy for years about the summit Foinaven. The 1948 maps show the height as 2980ft. Later metric maps show this as 914m after the OS (the UK mapping authority) built all the trig points between 1936-1962 and performed the retriangulation of the UK. The limit for a Munro in the UK is 3000ft or 914.4m and so the question asked was this summit a Munro.

In 2007 detailed surveying was carried out and the height was determined as only 911m making Foinaven a long way short from being a Munro. It doesn’t change the beauty of Foinaven, but it does show that respected maps are often less accurate than we want.

Who would be an AM?

Andy
MM0FMF

28

In reply to MM0FMF:

In fact, Andy, very little of the discussion has been so cogent as to consider resolution and tolerances. Nearly all the discussion has been, shall we say emotionally prompted by the loss of numbers of summits and about the loss of favourite summits. Take the discussion about the Lemberg. Nobody doubts that in the vicinity of the Lemberg there is a summit that will become a SOTA summit, all that has to be decided is which summit is the highest. If it turns out that it is the unnamed summit, then why not just call the unnamed summit the Lemberg, too? It wouldn’t be the first peak with two or more summits, all of which are known by the same name. If it turns out that the summit known as the Lemberg is the highest then there is no problem and BW-038 returns to the list unchanged in any way. No problem!

It must be obvious to all by now that it is futile discussing individual summits on this reflector, when the actual work is being done elsewhere, and really pointless to get so worked up about it that some of you start getting sarcastic at the expense of the MT, who are just a bunch of hard working guys trying to do their best for everyone and getting very little thanks for it. It seems to me that whatever the MT does, somebody, somewhere is going to get ratty about it! I’m not pointing the finger at anyone, anyone at all, but it seems to me that many of the people that complain about the MT and/or the AMs have no idea of what the work of running SOTA entails, and are not prepared to shoulder any of the burden themselves. All mouth and no trousers, as some would put it!

73

Brian G8ADD

29

In reply to G8ADD:

Well I am definately wearing my trousers Brian, and metaphorically opening my mouth by saying " I will take the England AM job" would love to do it, got plenty of time at work during the day to administer it, no problem at all.

What are my chances ???

Lee
M0LMP

30

In reply to M0LMP:

No doubt you will be considered if and when the post becomes open!

73

Brian G8ADD

31

In reply to G8ADD:

Out of curiosity Brian, how are the AMs selected?

I presume that interested parties put their names foreward, then MT picks who they want from those names?

Or do the participants in the region concerned get to choose who they would like to represent them?

73
Mike GW0DSP

32

In reply to GW0DSP:

In general the AMs are the people that do the work of starting up new Associations. There is not usually a rush of candidates, more usually someone makes an enquiry about setting up a new Association, finds out just how daunting the task is, and fades away again! Those that don’t then look for RMs to delegate the hard work to. Sota has not been about long enough, nor has there been enough change of personnel, for a formal protocol for change of AM to be evolved. No doubt in due course the MT will turn their attention to this and it will appear in the rule book.

73

Brian G8ADD

33

In reply to G8ADD:

Hypothetically, an AM resigns tomorrow, what does the MT do about it? The job obviously needs filling.

I must have been misinformed Brian, I was under the impression that the MT invited James M0ZZO into the position of G AM. To be fair to James has done and is still doing a fine job too.

Mike GW0DSP

34

In reply to GW0DSP:

As I say, I am not aware of any protocol, and would have to put this question to the MT for a considered answer. However, in the case of the AM of a hypothetical country called, say, Blueland resigning, my instinct would be to ask the AMs assistants to select a new AM from amongst themselves, thus ensuring continuity. If the AM has carried the work single-handed, my instinct would be to ask him to nominate a successor from those most active in the program in Blueland, thus maximising the knowledge brought to the task.

73

Brian G8ADD

35

In reply to G8ADD:

Thanks for the reply Brian. I wasn’t aware that the AMs had assistants.

Wouldn’t you think that having the AMs assistants picking from amongst themselves is a bit of a monopoly situation and the only continuity that it would guarantee is to be stuck with the same old opinions as held by the ex AM?

Surely it would be better to put it to the participants of the region in question? after all the AM should be there to represent the participants views in his/their region, or more so the activators.

Just a thought and while we are at it, I would like to be considered for the next MT position.

73
Mike

36

In reply to GW0DSP:

Well, I’ll answer that as long as you realise that you are debating with me and not the MT!

First of all, practicalities: you have to advertise the post and get candidates, you then have to send out voting forms to perhaps hundreds of participants, getting their addresses from whichever database is applicable. This costs, Mike, and the only income of SOTA is the fees for awards, which are run on a non profit making basis. And what do you end up with for AM? The most capable administrator? The most active participant? The most knowledgable mountaineer? THe most skilful cartographer or surveyer? No, you get the winner of a popularity contest! In fact just to apply this limited democracy we would have to start charging people a membership fee or a fee for using the facilities. Would this be popular? Guess!

As for the monopoly aspect, where does this come into play? It is rare that something like the P150/P100 question needs considering, the work is more concerned with maintaining the summit list, and where software is involved there is not much room for the independant opinion of the AM!

I know that democracy is a widely approved of system of government, and perhaps one day we might try it out for the first time, but usually what we have is an elective oligarchy where the only necessary skill for the incumbent is garnering votes. SOTA is too serious for that!

73

Brian G8ADD

37

In reply to G8ADD:

In reply to GW0DSP:

Well, I’ll answer that as long as you realise that you are debating
with me and not the MT!

First of all, practicalities: you have to advertise the post and get
candidates, you then have to send out voting forms to perhaps hundreds
of participants, getting their addresses from whichever database is
applicable. This costs, Mike, and the only income of SOTA is the fees
for awards, which are run on a none profit making basis.

We have a Reflector which is free of charge and open to ALL who are interested in SOTA, maybe it should be done here.

And what doyou end up with for AM? The most capable administrator? The most
active participant? The most knowledgable mountaineer? THe most
skilful cartographer or surveyer? No, you get the winner of a
popularity contest!

That is a very good point Brian, I have to agree with you.

In fact just to apply this limited democracy we
would have to start charging people a membership fee or a fee for
using the facilities. Would this be popular? Guess!

To obtain a democracy and membership with a voice, no price would be too high.

As for the monopoly aspect, where does this come into play? It is rare
that something like the P150/P100 question needs considering, the work
is more concerned with maintaining the summit list

Fair comment on the monopoly analogy, point conceeded.

and where software is involved there is not much room for the independant > opinion of the AM!

It would appear that there is NO room for the independant opinion of the AM, well in Germany anyway.

I know that democracy is a widely approved of system of government,
and perhaps one day we might try it out for the first time, but
usually what we have is an elective oligarchy where the only necessary
skill for the incumbant is garnering votes. SOTA is too serious for
that!

Have you swallowed a dictionary Brian;-) But it works both ways, surely we already have a oligarchy, we are ruled by a few men’s (MT) votes. The incumbents garnering votes could also be applied to the MT’s MO.

I have come to see both sides of the coin Brian, yes, the MT does without a doubt do some sterling work on our behalf, for free, it’s a thankless task and the MT can never win!! If our MT pleases one group then they upset another group etc. I suspect these “arguements” will still be debated in ten years time Brian.

73
Mike GW0DSP

38

In reply to G8ADD:

In fact just to apply this limited democracy we
would have to start charging people a membership fee or a fee for
using the facilities. Would this be popular? Guess!
In reply to GW0DSP:
To obtain a democracy and membership with a voice, no price would be too high.

In fact in HB9 we have the SOTA-group Switzerland with annual membership-fees.
The president HB9TQG and his assistents are elected by the members.
This protects against inactive “AM´s” based on their laurels.
Btw: how about an international SOTA-MT?

Vy73 Fritz dl4fdm,hb9csa

39

In reply to DL4MFM:
Mario , please wait for the correction. I am sure there are nearly one hundred P100 hills in DM/NW. This list is not published yet.

73
Walt
DK1BN