LD-001 but where is LD-002

Old Reflector
21

In reply to M1EYP:

Incidentally, how long must one serve in the sota ranks to be
taken seriously when voicing an opinion?

The answers to most of your

“Why is there this rule or that rule?” type questions can be
found in the archives of the old reflector at
Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos.

How many of the newer participants even knew of the existance of the old reflector Tom? Why hide it there in the archives and not bring it onto the NEW Reflector?

It doesn’t matter what criteria is set for a hill list, it will always
exclude some good hills and include some rotters. The only way around
that is to have a subjective list - which would produce far more
problems and arguments than it could possibly solve! I’ve yet to see
a better hill-definition and hill-list for SOTA in the UK than the
Marilyns, an you have yet to suggest one :wink:

Inky suggested a cracking list to go by, so I’ll second his idea :wink:

73 Mike

22

Maybe its time to start adding new hills by suggestion or a vote, how hard can it be to update the database and agree what a hill should be awarded. There are a few who have the experience to decide on what hills should be included and the points they should get.

I love to do SOTA. SOTA has got me climbing hills I would never have visited, but it’s at the cost of my wallet. The miles I am now covering in a car is getting stupid and I don’t have a open bank account for fuel. This is why you see me doing 5 or more summits in a day to make the mileage worth it. 300+ miles driving is no fun

I have lots of local hills on my doorstep in the Peak District but only 5 are SOTA.

I know the following statement will upset some, maybe even get me alienated, but I am going to speak my mind on this one.

There is a great resistance to change; maybe it’s to keep the amount of work down in looking after SOTA, maybe just to make life easy. If the decision not to include a Summit is because it’s not a Marilyn then this is short sighted and a poor excuse.
I am aware a line has to be drawn but there seams to be no real discussion, a suggestion is made by someone and promptly shot down by the same few. I am not just refering to new summits either.

There are a few that are asking for some simple changes, and they are simple changes, yet its is falling on deaf ears. Is SOTA for a few or is it for everyone?

I suggest that there should be a way of suggesting additional summits, somewhere to see the suggested summits and the reason behind the suggestion.

So come on SOTA MT, wake up and except the fact that there are people that don’t want to drive 1000 of miles to work SOTA summits but they do want to work summits for the reward.

Its time to allow voted/suggested summits to become part of the database, even if its restricted to a certain amount a month being added to keep the work load down for whoever maintains the database.

There is no good reason not to add new summits and as yet I have not seen a reasonable or valid answer from the SOTA MT as why not to add new summits.

The South and South East for example are crying out for more hills and there are plenty of hills that could be added.

Change is good, if the SOTA MT just open their eyes a little more SOTA could be so much more.

Summits on the Air or Marilyn’s on the Air???

73, as I don my flame proof suit

23

Steve mentions that so-called Sub-Marilyn’s could be incorporated such as LD-002 for example

This is a possibility, but not one that I would think beneficial overall. P150 lists (=Marilyn definition) are available for other countries, and prospective new associations tend to be pointed in this direction. I don’t think it would help Les and John in bringing in new associations if in the UK we suddenly changed from P150 to P140. It would only add 39 hills to the 1540+ anyway, so it is hardly worth it.

LD-002, by the way, is not even a Submarilyn - it rises only 136m from its col with LD-001. Neither is Shutlingsloe, nor is Mam Tor, both of which have been mentioned as prospective ‘new’ SOTA summits. You would have to extend the net beyond submarilyns to bring those in!

if so many were added yearly on a membership concensus by voting for such hills.

SOTA is an awards programme, not a club or society - so it doesn’t have “members”. It does have lots of participants though!

How many of the newer participants even knew of the existance of the old reflector Tom? Why hide it there in the archives and not bring it onto the NEW Reflector?

They don’t come much newer than you Mike, and you have postings on the old reflector yourself :wink: Nothing on there is hidden; it is all available to read openly.

Im sorry but i have no recolection of this topic being discussed in any detail on the reflector before as stated by Tom! or any official input from the MT

Have a search through the message archive at Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos Mick - there’s absolutely loads of discussion about the criteria for a qualifying summit on there - right back to when the initial group of several interested parties were discussing the ideas from 6 months before the programme launch.

Tom

24

If the decision not to include a Summit is because it’s not a Marilyn then this is short sighted and a poor excuse.

Not at all Steve. It is robust, well thought-through, preserves the integrity of the Programme and supports work with prospective new associations. Are you suggesting that the SOTA programme is being held-back by my/our laziness???

how hard can it be to update the database

It involves adding a new line to an Excel spreadsheet, saving it as a Unicode Text file, opening it in an MS-DOS uploader application and then performing the upload. Then checking the results on the live online database of course.

Its time to allow voted/suggested summits to become part of the database, even if its restricted to a certain amount a month being added to keep the work load down for whoever maintains the database.

That “whoever” is me. A certain amount of summits being added each month, multiplied by all the associations, multiplied by the process for updating described above would not “keep the workload down”. It would become untenable, and I would be reluctantly forced to stand-down from that duty. However, that is not the reason I am against, as implied in your comments. The reason is that the existing criteria for including summits is stronger and better than anything that has been proposed.

There is no good reason not to add new summits and as yet I have not seen a reasonable or valid answer from the SOTA MT as why not to add new summits.

There are good reasons, and I have taken the trouble to set them out above. The answers I have given ARE reasonable and valid. It is unfair of you to suggest they are not, just because you don’t agree with them.

For those who have not yet done so, I really would suggest reading the first six months or so of reflector postings on the Yahoogroup, and the first two chapters in the reference work “The Relative Hills of Britain” by Alan Dawson. This book is freely available to read online.

Tom M1EYP

25

Mick, in this thread I have explained about criteria for a valid summit in the UK associations, why the Marilyns definition is the one we have adopted and what the procedure is for updating the SOTA Database.

You may take these as official MT responses.

26

“These are my personal opinions”.

Yes Mick, I deliberately include this where it needs to be pointed out that my stated view is not necessarily MT opinion. Nowhere does that line appear in this topic though (other than in this comment!). I might have used it in other discussions but not this one, and I have confirmed that I have stated the MT position on this matter.

I hope that is clear now.

27

I have watched this thread with puzzled interest… and now feel obligated to pitch in.

Frankly speaking, and with respect to all contributors, I am baffled by the strength of feeling in the responses to issues raised here that say there is a problem with the existing SOTA summit qualification criteria…

…and also the criticism of a group of people who have the best interests of the programme at heart i.e. the “MT”. I’m grateful to them for dedicating part of their lives to SOTA and the maintenance of a great programme.

A number of things are clear:

When we all started out on the programme (chaser or activator), the summit qualification rules were communicated as they are now.

i.e. we knew what we were getting into.

Secondly, I find it very refreshing that there is a VERY clear-cut set of “rules” that determines whether a summit is “in” or “out”.

Imagine the confusion if we had the opposite, less clear-cut approach much like trying to define/justify DXCC entities. The rules there seem to bob and weave all the time.

After all, no-one is stopping folks going out and conducting radio activities from other summits… and other people contacting them. It’s just not in the points programme… that’s all… no big deal for me. I would call them regardless (if I could hear them).

I like SOTA because I like the hills, I like radio and I like the friendly approach of everyone… and the lack of politics, please don’t change that.

73 Marc GØAZS

28

In reply to M1EYP:

SOTA is an awards programme, not a club or society - so it doesn’t
have “members”. It does have lots of participants though!

Tom

With members you have a democracy, with participants you have a dictatorship!!

73 Mike

29

Of course those who are not happy with the current arrangements could always start up HOTA (http://www.liv.ac.uk/SportsandRecreation/hillwalking/mountain.html) and choose from Munros and Munro Tops, Corbetts, Donalds, Grahams, Marilyns, Murdos, Nuttalls, Welsh Hills and English Hills

30

Interesting resource Jim. It is striking that when searching for all classes of hill, you end up with virtually the Marilyns list for each region, with one or two added. I was expecting to see more, although the Submarilyns aren’t included in this site - though there’s not many of them anyway.

Catbells, which has been mentioned by Mike, is a great walk. Shutlingsloe and Mam Tor mentioned by Steve are excellent also. In this area there are many other super hills to walk up - Sponds Hill, Kerridge Hill, Higher Blakelow, Warrilow Head, Tegg’s Nose, Croker Hill, Wincle Minn, Mow Cop and Axe Edge to name but a few. Their not being in the SOTA Programme never stops me from going for walks on them.

31

In reply to M1EYP: “Catbells, Shutlingsloe, Mam Tor, Sponds Hill, Kerridge Hill, Higher Blakelow, Warrilow Head, Tegg’s Nose, Croker Hill, Wincle Minn, Mow Cop and Axe Edge to name but a few. Their not being in the SOTA Programme never stops me from going for walks on them.”

It would be great if they were though…

32

In reply to G0AZS:
Yes - Bravo Marc for encapsulating my thoughts entirely.

As a total newcomer, I read the rules and accepted the judgement of the MT without a problem. After all, they have given up many hours of their valuable time to put SOTA together. As for not knowing who they are, it is quite clearly stated on the Homepage.

Tom’s point about reading Alan Dawson,s first chapters is very relevant. If the MT were to vary the criteria to allow a 100 metre vertical separation to include other summits, a case could be made for including one with 80 metres! And so it goes on.

Enjoy what you have here. Enjoy the selfless attitudes of the great activators who make it possible for us mere chasers to get huge satisfaction from our hobby. Work with the list as stipulated and for the reasons stated. Coming from a WAB background, I have been amazed at the tribulations suffered by them in order to reach certain hill tops. Being 72 and living on the coast of East Anglia would make activating a major exercise.

73’s to all
David G4CMQ

33

In reply to the topic:

Marilyns are defined by what is best described as a “magic number”, an arbitrary number which happens to appear significant in both metric and imperial units. I may be wrong but I don’t think there is another convenient number with dual significance below the Marilyn definition unless you take one tenth…which personally I would regard as ridiculous! We could abandon the dual significance and choose a lesser round number in metric (or imperial) units - but what then? There would be hills that just fail to meet that criterion and soon people would be feeling irked by that fact. I am irked by the fact that Earls Hill (Pontesford Hill) in Shropshire just fails to meet the Marilyn criterion, depriving me of a fine accessable hill with rock climbing laid on, too, but there has to be a line drawn and some favourites are bound to fall beneath it. They are still there, fine walks to fine summits, you just won’t get any points for working from them, and ultimately this is what this thread is all about. The hills are not just objectives in their own right, they are opportunities to score points - just like Munro-baggers ticking off their climbs in Munros Tables. This urge to score, to achieve browny points, ultimately cannot be assuaged by adding more hills, soon they will sport their own little mark and the scorer will be looking out for more…and more…and more!

For me climbing a hill is to some extent a spiritual experience, I am quite prepared to forego my SOTA points and climb hills which are not Marilyns, and seeing some contributors to this thread feeling such urgency that they are prepared to make comments that I would deem hurtful if they were directed to me leaves me just a little baffled.

I suspect that the transitory and sporadic nature of SOTA activations leaves some devotees with too much time to think. Mind you, DXCC and IOTA can be chased 24/7 and you still get people agitating for more entities and islands (and there are endless debates about whether some hills should or should not be Munros, too!) so perhaps the periodic resurgences of this controversy should be excused as human nature!

So, I vote that the SOTA program should continue unchanged (other than occasional adjustments following resurveys…and when the oceans start to rise, hills will fall off the list in droves!)

73

Brian G8ADD

34

In reply to G4CMQ:

Hi Dave

We all accept the rules when we enter ANY organization, that’s obvious, but rules have to change with evolution and time. If you check the rule changes which Tom brings to our attention, you will see that only a few were changed this year, the next batch was 2 years ago and none of those changes really affected the structure of sota in any way.
I am of the opinion that MT got it right at the outset, not a single doubt about that, they did a superb job, but the fact that the “participants” have aired their voices on quite a few occasions should at least warrant some sort of reply from MT, or even a few simple rule changes.
If government didn’t revise their rules we would still have the slave trade, women would have no vote, etc etc.

You quote that the MT members are clearly stated on the home page. They are clearly stated, I agree, but they are not the current MT Dave, you are being misinformed right from page 1, something else that needs changing, hi.

73 Mike

35

The aforegoing posts make interesting reading and I am surprised how many insomniacs there are in the SOTA fraternity.

What no-one has mentioned (unless I’ve missed it), is the fact that the perceived “problem” actually relates solely to England. The topography of England makes for an extremely uneven distribution of summits. It is therefore little wonder that activators living in Norfolk and Suffolk are thin on the ground, if indeed they exist at all.

In Northampton I am very much “on the fringe” and as a regular activator I have by necessity to activate summits on a multiple basis, usually between 3 and 5 summits in a single day. 350 miles drive is a normal SOTA day’s driving and the cost limits the number of times I can escape the home QTH each month.

I have given a lot of consideration as to how the list of qualifying summits might be improved. What I have to put forward for debate is somewhat radical - I suggest that for those counties where SOTA summits are either non-existent or few in number, a different criteria is applied, with the 3, 4, 5 or whatever highest summits in each county included on the lists.

I know that a true balance cannot be achieved by any method (and do we really want uniformity), but at least there would be more options for those of us that currently have very few. Having said that, I am not complaining about the current criteria. I just put this idea forward for what it is worth.

73, Gerald

36

In reply to G4OIG:
This is a valid point, can the SOTA MT not consider the options of adding more summits in the areas missing a good choice, if nothing else it’s a good start and allows the MT to see how it will work and show some compromise.
The Midlands, SE and South are lacking somewhat yet there are plenty of hills to consider adding to the database to reduce travel

Go on give it a go!!

37

In reply to G4OIG:

You make a very good point Gerald and offer an excellent idea. Unfortunately, it will probably fall on deaf ears.

I really feel sorry for the dedicated activators who have to travel such huge distances to activate. Timothy 2E0KEA is in Suffolk and recently travelled vast distances on public transport to join in sota activity. I think Richard G4ERP is in the same boat.

It sickens me to drive past Halkyn mountain complete with it’s trig point and superb views over the Dee estuary and Irish Sea.

73 Mike

38

If new hills are added in those areas by introducing a lower criteria, then it would be only right that the new criteria be applied throughout the country. Other associations may then wish to consider amending their own summit definition and add new hills.

So it is all about what you think the minimum vertical separation SHOULD be. “The Relative Hills of Britain” by Alan Dawson sets out a compelling case for why it should be 150m (500 feet), and of course gives us an independently maintained list to use in the UK. As people have said earlier, the line has to be drawn somewhere, and I still don’t see a better solution to the existing one.

I empathise with the frustrations of those that feel they don’t have a good selection of mountains on their doorstep (although I’m not sure why Mick of Clitheroe feels that way!), for Jimmy and I have been concentrating on Uniques for some time now, and similarly must engage in a thoroughly planned, expensive long journey, usually with an overnight involved, to bag new ones for our record. That’s life - we can travel, but the mountains can’t.

Failing that, one can always reactivate all the more accessible summits again in 2008, or just revisit your local hill for zero points. If you love SOTA, and feel like doing SOTA, but don’t want to spend money, travel long distances etc, then do as I do and don’t worry about getting a point. The activations are just as enjoyable.

I can assure you all that the MT is watching and listening to this debate, but note that within this topic, the majority have expressed a wish for no change, matching the MT view.

Tom

39

In reply to M1EYP:

I can assure you all that the MT is watching and listening to this
debate, but note that within this topic, the majority have expressed a
wish for no change, matching the MT view.

Tom

Oh my goodness Tom, grasping at straws with that comment aren’t you. Does the few comments on this thread constitute a fair representation of the participants and form a reliable database to suggest a majority against change?

No doubt MT are watching/listening, it’s just a pity that’s all they do when there is a debate going on.

Mike

40

In reply to G8ADD:

In reply to the topic:

So, I vote that the SOTA program should continue unchanged (other than
occasional adjustments following resurveys…and when the oceans
start to rise, hills will fall off the list in droves!)

73

Brian G8ADD

I respect your opinion Brian and wish you had the right to a vote, but of course you never will, that’s why we are participants and not members. Participants are dictated to and have no voice like members do.

73 Mike