Not sure if this reads well to me:
- We got complaints that people activated 1 summit with 2 references.
- We will deprive one association of their summit based on some parameters
3, We will receive complaints, but they are inevitable.
So, stimulated by some complaints we provide solution which will produce more complaints… Hm…
Wouldn’t it be easier for everyone, including MT, to:
- link the summits in DB so the server scoring would allow just 1 score?
- allow just one activation of 1 reference per day (if someone climbs the summit next day again, the other ref can be scored)
To me solution #1 should be easier and less vulnerable to failure, at first glance. And we would avoid potential tensions between associations, countries, licence holders, etc.
Secondly, behind geographical unity criteria there must be some reasonable effort, while DB works are centralized (not sure how much effort it is, as I am a humanist radio amateur…
Thirdly, if an association is bordering with a non-associated-yet country puts an analytic effort and develops a list of summits, then the neighbour joining the SOTA will take over their work, as they have a few more square meters AZ, this would create tensions even in future.
Finally, let’s step back and try to understand what the program is about? Is it about racing/score-collecting? Or about promoting mountaineering and ham-radio spirit? I think more peaks available to even a basic licence holder, more opportunity to kick people out of their armchairs and make them go to meet the nature. On the contrary, more limits = less opportunities / more problems, IMHO.
First sentence of the program says:
The purpose of SOTA (the Programme) is to encourage Amateur Radio based activity from
the summits of hills and mountains in countries around the world
I personally believe “encouraging” is key word and limiting is in contradiction to the action desired.
Andy - I know how hard it is to lead an organization, especially when one does it just in their free time, I have been through this myself, and not just once - and you never satisfy everyone. I just believe a good cost-benefit analysis would be needed. Not sure, if there has been any collection of feedback from at least Association Managers prior to the solution choices?