What has happened to Harter Fell G/LD-016? It hasn’t been activated according to Sotawatch!
73 de M0SSD
In reply to M0SSD:
It was deleted 2 March 2002 as it was found not to meet the criteria of a Marylyn.
Roger G4OWG
In reply to M0SSD:
Hi,
It looks like this summit was one of the first to be deleted from the SOTA programme due to the prominence being re-surveyed measured & being less than 150m. It was only valid for a few days in March 2002.
If I’m looking at the correct fell It is still a Hump (G/HLD-028) & a Wainright (LDW-048)
73,
Mark G0VOF
In reply to M0SSD:
It is still an available selection in the ‘log activation’ list but when selected comes up with the message ‘The summit was not a valid SOTA summit on the the date of your activation’
73, Derek
In reply to 2E0MIX:
In reply to M0SSD:
It is still an available selection in the ‘log activation’ list but
when selected comes up with the message ‘not a valid summit on date of
activation’
Which is a good thing!
Every summit there ever has been is still in the system. Every summit has a start date and end date. If you try and log an activation that took place before the summit was valid or after it was devalidated then the system will stop you and give the error message. There is no time limit on entering logs so if you happened to activate the summit back in 2002 and decide to log it now, 11 years later you can.
The same goes for points which may be changed because a region is rebanded, or because the height of summit is remeasured. You get the points for whatever the summit was worth when you activated/chased it irrespective of its value now.
Andy
MM0FMF
In reply to M0SSD:
This thread puzzled me until I remembered that there are two Harter Fells!
73
Brian G8ADD
In reply to MM0FMF:
Many thanks Andy - puzzled me because in a recent list of ‘most activated’ it came up as ‘not activated yet’!
George
In reply to M0SSD:
Ld016 is stored in the system as Harter Fell but is not valid for any qsos outside of 2 to 6 March 2002. In all probability none ever took place!
LD028 is stored in the system as Harter Fell (Eskdale) and remains valid today and into the foreseeable future. Neither appears in the Most activated summits list.
Tom M1EYP
In reply to MM0FMF:
The same goes for points which may be changed because a region is
rebanded, or because the height of summit is remeasured. You get the
points for whatever the summit was worth when you activated/chased it
irrespective of its value now.Andy
MM0FMF
Interesting! I remember the re-banding of all the Colorado peaks… I lost roughly half my points over night and was told:" It is what is is".
So, where do I apply for these lost points?
Matt/KØMOS
In reply to K0MOS:
That was different Matt. When it was decided to reband nobody had done the summits so the date of change was the date the association started. You just happened to have activated some summits in the time between deciding what to do and doing it. I think it was W5 not W0 anyway.
Andy
MM0FMF
In reply to MM0FMF:
When it was decided to reband nobody had done the summits so the date of >change was the date the association started
I beg to differ. Here the facts as I recall them:
- It was WØ and not W5
(100% sure of that) - I started my activations in June 2011 under WØ-ARM 1.1 with a start date of May 1st, 2010.
- The re-banding happened on August 1st 2011 with the release of WØ-ARM 2.1.
- By that time I successfully activated six summits (not sure how many were affected by the re-banding - that would require some digging).
Here a related post from the reflector from back in August 2011:
http://www.sotawatch.org/reflector.php?topic=5977#49316
Cheers
Matt/KØMOS
In reply to K0MOS:
I agree Matt, it was W0.
We have had a number of issues where an association has been started up with just a limited number of summits and that’s what we did with W0. That makes it very difficult to decide on what the banding should be. When Guy and Steve set about adding into an initial W0 all the many summits that are now there, they realised that the initial banding levels when applied to the many new summits looked odd, so they proposed rebanding and given the summit points profile that would resulted from the original bands, the MT agreed.
Rebanding is something we resist doing except in circumstances where the profile of summit points is exceptionally odd or we can see that there was clearly a previous error. When we worked with Mike to split W5 into separate states, the terrain of W5N is so vastly different from W5A and W5O that it would have been illogical to keep the existing banding in W5A and W5O so they were rebanded. There is a proposal to split the Dakotas from Colorado, and undoubtedly given the disparity between the what may become W0D and W0C, it would be very odd not to reband W0D. But in general we do not reband without a very good reason for doing so.
I am sure Guy or Steve will correct me if I my interpretation has any issues.
73
Jim G0CQK
In reply to G0CQK:
Jim, I never questioned the re-banding. I am just interested why WØ gets special treatment after the re-banding.
Matt/KØMOS