I think the solution can be simpler if looking at it, just to update the GR first - a couple of minutes of work, and then communication rollout byt the Association Managers, plus some time margin for the participants acknowledging it.
Shall this be understood that the decision has already been made and any contributory feedback provided has very little chance to be considered, if at all?
The current rules say you can activate a summit with multiple references once per reference per year for points.
So for Naafkopf (HB/GR-338, HB0/LI-002, OE/VB-123) you can climb it once and get 3 sets of points.
If we change the rules so that you can only operate the summit once per year for points no matter how many references it has you get 1 set of points. The number of summits stays the same. The number of references stays the same.
If we delete 2 sets of references for Naafkopf you can only operate it once per year for points as there is only one reference. The number of summits stays the same. The number of references drops by 2.
With either case 1 or case 2 the activator gets the same points each year. Case 1 is difficult to implement in the database scoring code, not impossible though. Case 2 is simple, we delete some references. The number of summits is the same regardless.
Case 2 is the obvious choice as we have limited resources and we are reviewing every summit anyway to ensure the same rules are applied to all associations and that heights and locations are correct.
One country review showed that about 40 summits listed were invalid. So that’s 40 to be deleted. The same review showed there were 75 valid summits that were not yet listed. So that association will gain 75 new summits and will end up with 35 more than now when the invalid ones go. I’m not naming the association because I don’t have the accurate figures to hand, the net gain in summits is about 35.
Where a border summit has different names and loses a reference then the name will be updated to show both names. If you know it by name you will be able to search for either name and find it even if you didn’t know it was on a border and had a different name.
If only life was so simple! In fact I have spent many hours spread over months in revising the GR, going through past correspondence, posts etc finding out what parts of the GR have caused problems and how to change the wording to make the exact meaning clear. This particular problem is just one minor facet of the work.
Brian
I do agree with Stephan, DM1LE
Please, turn thinking ON
73’s Kuba
Andy, I get your point and understand the limits of the voluntary resources (as well as to Brian’s point, I can only imagine the amount of issues to be handled by the MT in the light of such a successful growth of the Programme across the Globe). I was just thinking of giving it a chance first to clearly forbid the double activation of a summit regardless number of references. I’m quite sure that if communicated well, by Pareto rule most of the cases people will obey, and any margins will be caught by the community itself. Wouldn’t it be the least-effort solution? And in parallel least controversial, allowing also lower class license holders to enjoy the full lists of bordering summits?j
I have done the exact opposite but both sides of the border are under the same jurisdiction. How would this work for a summit on the GI/EI border (not sure if there is one but if so it presents a problem to us, Rod & Vicki)?
Under these proposals does the AZ extend into both countries as before, so activation can be done by low level licensees each on their own side of the border? eg activating an EI summit with an MI6 callsign?
(If my EI/GI example is invalid there are plenty of real examples in continental Europe for which the same problem might apply.)
Sorry if this is unclear - English may be my native language but I am not always very good at it 
Rod
Yes.
If your license is good in EI, operate EI summit from EI side and sign EI/M0JLA.
If your license is bad in EI, operate EI summit from GI side and sign MI6BWA
Andy,
Thanks for that clarification; in that case I have no problem with the proposed solution, especially if it seems to be the least awkward one to implement. However, I would expect opposition from affected associations.
Rod
First, a factual observation to address a previous CEPT discussion point - and then an opinion. Facts can be important or trivia. As for opinions, everybody has one.
In the US, the Advanced Class License (with frequency privileges just one step below the Extra Class) is no longer being issued. While the total number of Advanced Class licenses declines every week, there are still in excess of 50,000 current Advanced Class License holders. Advanced Class license holders have exactly the same full CEPT privileges as an Extra Class license holder. One more US frequency privilege step down, a General Class License holder has partial CEPT privileges. The CEPT privileges, where granted to them, are actually the same as for the Extra and Advanced Classes; they are just recognized by decidedly fewer CEPT countries.
I appreciate that the MT (after considerable discussion) has reached what it feels is the best border Summits solution to fix a compromise they inherited. Now it seems there will be considerably more discussion to explain their rationale. Thank goodness they are appointed, and not elected. This is a fellowship, not a democracy. Democracies are great, but they can be difficult to govern efficiently.
If you want to see an example of just how anemic an experience SOTA could be, just check out POTA (Parks On The Air). That effort never took off. The funding and dedicated professionals needed to make it work never stepped in. Seriously, realize just how fortunate we are to have such a dedicated volunteer MT (and some very valuable support they do receive from outside the official Team). There is a parallel usage of the acronym SOTA. It is State Of The Art. Equally appropriate I think.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and to express it. Though it seems all the recently advanced suggestion had already been considered. Since it is always possible that a new as yet unconsidered potential solution will emerge, discussion is good. Not so good is any suggestion that this decision has any political or nationalistic implications. Where is the evidence? In my short association with SOTA, I have seen nothing but a welcoming spirit and nationalistic good will here. I understand that old-timers in any activity inherently resist change with all arguments at their disposal. I really do. I am in that old-timer category in other recreational pursuits. I guess it’s good to be a SOTA kid in these changing times.
Glenn – AB3TQ
SQ7OVV said:
I do agree with Stephan, DM1LE
Please, turn thinking ON
73's Kuba
I came close to using my position as Moderator to delete this post, Kuba. I make allowance for English not being your milk language, but the comment reads as an insult.
Managing SOTA erodes your spare time, the MT spend a lot of time running SOTA, thinking about SOTA and debating SOTA with each other. Our thinking has never been OFF, to use your idiom. You see the facilities SOTA provides and the activities that it supports, but you do not see the sheer hard work that goes into running SOTA. Your suggestion that the MT has not thought about this issue is wide of the mark. It has been well debated, the alternatives have been examined, and the most practical alternative has been selected.
Brian
I agree with this. Solution 1 will in particular avoid confusion if, say, an OE summit were activated by a German operator, or a Welsh one by an English operator, even though SOTA associations may have no political significance whatsoever, and thus we might not strictly need two or more references for one summit. Still, we need to take into account that summits worldwide have been used as reference points for defining borders of regions or countries, and in some places there may be rules restricting the crossing of said borders. However, I also understand that implementing this change may require some extra programming work.
However, I believe if the summit itself is clearly located within one country or region, and not a border point, then it should only count for this one association, even if the activation zone formally extends into the territory of a neighbouring association. In such a case, activations should only count from the territory in which the summit is located, and the part of the activation zone in the other be disregarded.
73, Jan-Martin
It is an interesting point I haven’t had a chance to take a note on. When double-thinking on this, I am not sure how current rules would treat this - I assume that the AZ term allows even now to activate a summit which peak is only in XX association, by staying on another side - provided it is within the AZ and meeting all other criteria - then using a mother callsign instead of XX/call/p. If the answer to this is “yes”, then I assume there will be not any difference here after the changes the MT is heading us to.
This is impractical, usually the border is not clearly marked on the ground, and if it is a segment rather than a straight-across division then it would take surveying equipment to define the zone to be disregarded. Much more importantly, what would you do if it is desirable to set up in the disregarded segment to get shelter from the wind? No, the AZ should be complete as defined by the SOTA criteria, and as defined by rule and customary usage.
Brian
Yes. Several people have said this: you do not need to be in the same country as the summit, provided that you are in the AZ. You use the callsign which is correct for your actual location. It sometimes confuses chasers who think you’ve got it wrong, but that’s their problem.
Let’s concentrate on fundamentals here: the only thing that the proposal changes is that it removes the ability to get double or more points for a single activation.
You can still activate from whichever side of the border you like. You can still cross the border and make more contacts with a different callsign. The only difference is that you will give the same summit reference both times, and of course only score once.
It’s a huge simplification and I’m all for it.
Martyn M1MAJ
One of my local summits G/SB-004 Peel Fell has a very large activation area. The route up follows the border between England and Scotland and zig zags across it. The summit is clearly in England by a several metres. I have activated it on the English side of the border with my call sign G0CQK and on a separate occasion from the Scottish side with the call sign GM0CQK. But it is one summit with one set of points to be gained each calendar year.
Jim
I suggest that it is time we moved on and left the MT to get on with the task. It seems to be generally agreed that (provided that relevant rule changes are worded carefully) nothing changes for Activators except the rather dubious opportunity to obtain double points for a single activation. The AZ remains unchanged.
Some chasers will be confused; nothing new there - and I speak as a chaser myself
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the MT for all the work they and their associates have put in to the SOTA scheme. Viki, M6BWA, and I have had a huge amount of fun visiting summits we would never otherwise have found and revisiting others for the points. Our recent visit to the Lakes being a good mix of both.
So, thanks very much to you all.
73,
Rod & Viki
What do we have maps for? Without them, and the level of detail they provide, SOTA would not work the way it does, anyway. As for the weather, if it is not conductive to an activation, well, you’ll have to wait. If the terrain is very difficult, we might have to exclude the summit from the SOTA programme for reasons of safety anyway.
No matter if the SOTA guidelines/rules allow it or not, I find it inappropriate to activate a summit from a country or region it is not located in, even if part of the AZ may be in the other region. Should I ever find the time to go to the mountains and activate a summit or two, I’ll make sure to be on the proper side of any border - if I cannot access the area, I won’t activate the place.
73, Jan-Martin
No objections to that, of course. Makes perfect sense. I believe that, in order to accommodate regional sensitivities, linking references of true border summits (i.e. peak on the border itself) seems to me the best way to do this.
73, Jan-Martin
[quote=“DL2LFH, post:49, topic:9677”]linking references of true border summits (i.e. peak on the border itself) seems to me the best way to do this.[/quote]We’re going round in circles. It has already been stated more than once above that adding this kind of link to the system is not a practical option.
73, Rick M0LEP
Doing this, and getting it right, would almost certainly require some major changes to the database schema and some very tricky SQL. It would be a horrible job.
Martyn M1MAJ