In reply to F6ENO:
I don’t see valid references in LX, do you?
73 Norby
In reply to LX1NO:
I don’t see valid references in LX, do you?
Norby,
I checked French summits, Corsica summits, Martinique and Guadeloupe summits…
That’s all for me !
I’m very surprised that LX couldn’t have valid summits, but I don’t have any LX map.
Belgium, Germany and France are surronding Luxemburg, and they do have.
73 Alain
In reply to LX1NO:
Hi Norby
The work has been done for you! Look at
http://www.peaklist.eu/MountainLists.Luxembourg.htm
There are four summits with a prominence of over 100m (though none of 150m)
How about your own Association then 
vy 73 de Paul G4MD
In reply to G4MD:
I know that list, the translation that belongs to some other part has been done by me. I was given the references by some G people about 2 or 3 years ago, I don’t remember but it doesn’t matter
There are four summits with a prominence of over 100m (though none of 150m)
Summits? ROFL LOL
They are nothing but where huge long plateaus and you could be anywhere you want but not nearby the “summit” and it would still count.
And? Where’s the distinct ascent? There are roads everywhere and I would like to see that fool who goes by foot.
How about your own Association then
There’s no reason to have one, read above. I was under the impression that there have to be distinct summits. I’d like to see them in LX. There’s none.
Just to have an association in LX in order to have one?
But we are getting slowly off my initial post and you won’t get me off the track by trying to answer with questions.
73 Norby
If they are prominences, then they are distinct summits. It doesn’t matter if they have long, broad, flat plateaux surrounding the summits, so long as they are prominent - ie, they have the (in this case) minimum 100m drop all around them.
Prominence is a good objective way to define a hill or mountain. It is consistent, and you get a good variety of hills, from rocky mountain summits to broad grassy whalebacks. So long as the saddle (col) between it and the neighbouring higher hill is lower by at least the prominence value, then it is a summit. The distance from the next hill or the shape (or even road network) of the hill doesn’t come into it on a prominence definition.
Tom
In reply to LX1NO:
Norby,
Your initial post addresses seven different issues, one of which is the lack of an LX SOTA Association due to the absence of valid summits.
Your latest posting highlights perfectly the problem with subjective criteria for defining summits. In your eyes LX does not have any summits; others may have a different opinion. Yet by the objective test imposed by the SOTA rules, it most certainly does and I would imagine most SOTA participants would be glad to see an LX Association in SOTA.
73 de Paul G4MD
In reply to G4MD:
Your initial post addresses seven different issues, one of which is the lack
of an LX SOTA Association due to the absence of valid summits.
Wrong, I was pushed into that direction. It’s not been addressed in my initial answer to the thread.
Enough said.
BTW, if you want a LX Association, you will certainly find someone experienced in SOTA to set it up but don’t count on me. Oh yes, before I forget, that 4 summit list is amazing since it does not consider our well known highest point as valid. And I would just need to go into my garden to activate just another “summit”. How ridicolous.
73 Norby
In reply to LX1NO:
Apologies for misinterpreting your initial comment Norby.
I do hope that someone will take up the challenge of setting up an LX Association. Now that the P100 ruling has been adopted, the way is surely open.
The absence from the list of the highest point (either the ‘official’ Burgplatz or the ‘actual’ Knieff) is an unfortunate consequence of Luxembourg’s landlocked position, the cols defining their prominence being outside LX.
I’m sure there are a great number of SOTA participants who would envy you, living within the activation zone of a summit! If the size of the AZ’s was an issue, they could perhaps be limited by a lesser limit on the permitted vertical distance.
73 de Paul G4MD
In reply to LX1NO:
Hi Norby,
Hope that there is a other Om’s which wants to do that asap … I waiting for a long time to the sota Lx-land list come on in the SOTA programme, so that we can go and visit again your beautiful country. Years we have been there on holiday in the cities and villages: Hosingen, Echternach, Heiderscheid, La Rochette, Wilz ect … We love walking in the Petit Swisss surroundings !
If Belgium remains at 8 summits, what we do not hope, than is Lx-land on our list if the want come up in the programme.
About SOTA Belgium.I have already sent ± 60 new Belgian candidate sota places to the Sota Belgium AM ON5EX from Belgium. We wait wat the final results are … now with the new 100 m rule must that succeed.
73
Luc ON6DSL
In reply to ON6DSL:
Hi Luc,
I’m well impressed that you have seized the possibility of expanding the ON Association so quickly. Surely the MT will be delighted to approve a change from P150 to P100 for the ON ARM if it means the summit count climbs from 8 to around 68 - it can only be a good thing. Good luck with it!
73 de Paul G4MD
In reply to G4MD:
Let’s hope the MT will be equally delighted to adopt P100 across the UK also.
73 Barry
In reply to 2E0PXW:
Hi Barry,
I don’t know about the UK as a whole, but I think a strong case can be made for P100 in the G Association. At least we now have the option of putting forward the arguments.
73 de Paul G4MD
In reply to G4MD and 2E0PXW:
Just remember to put the case through the proper channels, to James not the MT!
73
Brian G8ADD
In reply to G4MD:
IF MT don’t offer P100 across the board to EVERY association, surely they will create the exact same problems that they are dealing with now, in the very near future. It has to be the same set of rules for all or more arguments will be inevitable.
73 Barry 2E0PXW
In reply to 2E0PXW:
Hi Barry,
The possibility of P100 is on offer to every Association, it just has to be shown that it is appropriate to adopt it in a particular Association. Choice of prominence is an instrument for assisting in “levelling the playing field” between Associations, a process that can never be perfect but which is nonetheless desirable.
An Award scheme by it’s very nature recognises the achievement of set goals. For the awards to be meaningful, attaining those goals should take a broadly similar degree of effort wherever you do it.
73 de Paul G4MD
In reply to 2E0PXW:
“IF MT don’t offer P100 across the board to EVERY association, surely they will create the exact same problems that they are dealing with now, in the very near future. It has to be the same set of rules for all or more arguments will be inevitable.” ---- IMHO It’s the same can of worms just a different label.
It’s been made very clear in the past that the MT will not move. James has said so as well, I don’t foresee any move to allow new summits.
I have not done any activations since Friday and just enjoyed the walks so far this weekend with no radio deciding if I wish to continue with SOTA.
My decision is to continue with SOTA, because I enjoy radio and mountains. At the moment, and I say at the moment, SOTA is the only award scheme available for radio and mountains and I set a goal a year ago that I want to finish.
I will also continue to speak out and say what I feel about the SOTA MT who as far as I am concerned are doing a rather poor job in some areas such as PR and the development of SOTA
73 Steve
The possibility of P100 is on offer to every Association, it just has
to be shown that it is appropriate to adopt it in a particular
Association.
Isn’t that exactly what caused the current arguements we are witnessing across EU/UK. Different treatment for different associations is discrimination no matter how you try and disguise it and more arguements will follow, mark my words.
73 Barry 2E0PXW
In reply to 2E0KPO:
Hi Steve
I’m very glad you decided to stick with SOTA.
What gives me hope for the future, and what has spurred me to the stream of posts I have sent over the last couple of days, is that the MT have shown that they are capable of flexibility. I am not saying any changes will be easy and automatic, but we do have the opportunity to put forward proposals within the new Rules (via the AMs of course) with more confidence that they will be judged on their merits.
73 de Paul G4MD
What gives me hope for the future, and what has spurred me to the
stream of posts I have sent over the last couple of days, is that the
MT have shown that they are capable of flexibility. I am not saying
any changes will be easy and automatic, but we do have the opportunity
to put forward proposals within the new Rules (via the AMs of course)
with more confidence that they will be judged on their merits.73 de Paul G4MD
…but we shouldn’t have to plead our case, it should be one rule for all, it’s the ONLY way to avoid discrimination and arguments in the future, we have to learn from what has recently happened, do we not?
73 Barry 2E0PXW
In reply to 2E0PXW:
Isn’t that exactly what caused the current arguements we are
witnessing across EU/UK.
Barry, there are two completely different issues here.
In the UK, some G Association participants are unhappy with the low numbers of summits in some areas.
In DL/DM, the AM’s and their management teams (and it has to be said an unknown number of their SOTA participants) have a different vision of SOTA to that understood by every other Association in existence.
Adopting P100 as a minimum prominence gives us the possibility of more G summits, and attempts to bring the German Associations (should they eventually accept P100) closer to the rest of the world. It is a bold move by any reckoning.
A lot of work still needs to be done on both issues, but the MT has shown a willingness to grasp the nettle and deserves credit for it.
73 de Paul G4MD