How do you know that he isn’t?
Perhaps you should have more Dutchmen who go up a hill and come down a mountain (see the instructions on how to do that here).
Sorry, I could not resist.
73 de Martin / HB9GVW
“[…]men who go up a hill and come down a mountain”
see also: SOTLAS
Now this is a coincidence (or maybe not, as they managed thus to get the prominence needed to classify as a SOTA summit).
73 de Martin / HB9GVW
I don’t think they did.
At the very beginning there was only a vague requirement that summits should be “distinct peaks”. The UK soon adopted P150 opportunistically, owing to the ready availablity of the relative hills list. However other associations were free to use different criteria.
One explicit suggestion was “independently named on national mapping”. That is how Germany (for example) got into the state it did, with many summits initially accepted that had to be removed when strict prominence requirements were introduced later. Those summits weren’t a mistake - the rules changed!
Martyn M1MAJ
1 Like
I think that you are confusing the pre-SOTA discussions on line with the criteria adopted for the start date of SOTA, Martyn. Look at how quickly that LD-002 was withdrawn due to the realisation that it did not qualify on prominance. The problem with Germany came about because of a misunderstanding about prominance, IIRC they listed summits which were visually prominant rather than topographically prominant.
I don’t think I am. I wasn’t in on any pre-SOTA discussions. I knew nothing of SOTA until I accidentally overheard an early activation on holiday (shortly before I was licenced). I distinctly remember reading in an early edition of the rules that there was at least the potential for new associations to use different criteria for inclusion of summits. We know for sure that they did, and moreover took a lot of convincing that it was wrong.
Actually I think we may both be right, kind of. I found a copy of the 2002 rules at:
and the critera are to my mind a bit muddled. On the one hand it says:
- The Association must have sufficient topology to enable meaningful Summits to be defined. The minimum height for a Summit is 150m above its surroundings. In the event that this guideline cannot be met, the Entity or Subdivision will unfortunately, be unable to participate in SOTA.
which seems a clear statement of a P150 requirement. But then it goes on to muddy the waters in the next clause with:
- Summits should be distinct peaks. In general, this means that there should be a minimum vertical separation between Summits and their associated cols (also known as saddles). Peaks separated by a shallow col should be considered as a single Summit. This principle ensures that there is a distinct climb associated with every Summit. As Associations will have widely differing mountain characteristics, the Framework Programme does not specify a minimum separation value. This is for the Association Manager to determine.
I really can’t fathom what flexibility this clause was intended to give to the Association Manager, if you accept that the previous clause requires P150. Note “does not specify a minimum separation value”. Logically it would permit an association to demand P>150, but I have never ever heard that proposed!
So I think you are right that the idea of P150 was there from the outset, and I think I am right that it wasn’t a rock solid requirement. I believe that revision 1.12 in January 2008 cleaned up the ambiguities and introduced a strict P150 requirement. The concession to permit P100 came a little later - revision 1.13 in April 2008. The rules were further clarified in revision 1.20 in March 2015.
Not that it really matters for the present topic - the current rules are what count.
Martyn M1MAJ