Hi MT and everyone,
I just noticed that a new association has been added to the program.
I realize this might be a recurring question, but I’d still like to raise it: the way Lesotho (7P) summits have been ranked feels counterintuitive. For example, a 2001 m peak scores 10 points in ZS, while in 7P the same elevation only receives 2 points.
Could you clarify how this difference is determined?
Best 73!
Alberto EA3GNU
Hi Alberto!
Scoring for SOTA summits in 7P is perfectly OK. Please check this page to learn why: Geography of Lesotho - Wikipedia
A quote from the above:
Lesotho is the only independent state in the world that lies entirely above 1,000 metres
Best 73!
Marcin SQ9OZM
Alberto,
When a new Association is established I believe a normal distribution curve is applied to the summits within the Association boundaries. So, the number of 1-pointers and 10-pointers should be similar, with most summits being 4-pointers and 6-pointers. It makes perfect sense within the Association. However, NO consideration is given to neighboring Associations or comparisons. So for example, in Colorado (where the Rockies are higher), we have a peak (W0C/SJ-137) that is a 2-pointer at 8,832 feet above sea level. 2.6 km to its south, in New Mexico (where the Rockies are lower), is a peak (W5N/CC-005) that is an 8-pointer at 8,855 feet above sea level (roughly the same elevation). Comparing two peaks’ elevation and points from different Associations will drive you crazy! Just go have fun with ones that interest you!
Ray / KD8EQA
Hi Marcin and Ray,
I think I get it now.
SOTA uses the (somewhat arbitrary) political borders of each association to determine the point values of its summits. That means when we talk about differences between associations, we’re essentially touching on something similar to a political issue. And once the discussion turns political, it can sometimes become difficult to manage.
That said, without any intention of creating controversy, since political discussions can be sensitive, I still feel that if we moved away from political boundaries and allowed nature to simply be nature, the system might become more consistent and intuitive, and perhaps even easier for everyone to embrace. That’s just my opinion.
Yes! It’s really impressive how high the Lesotho summits are. But is it the only association that lies entirely above 1000 m?
@KD8EQA Yes! I agree. By the way, I’ve climbed Longs Peak, Mount Alice, and a few other Colorado 14ers, back when I had no idea SOTA even existed.
Cheers!
Alberto EA3GNU
So you want to do away with DXCC as well?
Hi Andy!
How many points would you give to the 7P DXCC?
Just kidding.
73!
The team who determine the points have a method of determining points per summit. I know from VK5 summits and the geography here 10 point summits start 1,100 metres above sea level. Because its not a mountainous region and the amount of summits found 13 years ago by Wayne and Myself the 1000m asl was not used as the benchmark for 10 point summits it was raised to 1.100 m asl. The formulae gives a better spread of summits through out the regions here of varying value in points per summit. If you check out other countries summit lists the same has been applied to their summits. We only have 346 summits last count in VK5 and most activators average scores for activating the summits accessible to us is 3.8 to 4 PPA.
Ian vk5cz .. 
Explained in the other thread.
0.1 points for every 100m asl. For every summit in every association.
Or a different scale, to get to 1000 points in 100-200 activations: 0.4 points for every 100m asl.
Those poor people in the Netherlands.
As explained further down in the thread by doing it by association it tackles the issue that people in lowland countries are not egregiously disadvantaged compared with alpine countries.
So by your system a summit in Lesotho that needs just 150m of ascent is worth the same number of points as a summit in, say, the UK that needs about a km of ascent. Remember that in Lesotho the lowest point is already worth ten points bands! I don’t see this suggestion as an improvement!
Yayyy! Yet another discussion about point assignments, I’m so looking forward to everyone venting their frustration about their favourite summits not netting enough points, they always turn out to be such a productive use of our time. When was the last one? Yesterday?
Sigh… 
Exactly! that’s my point!
Like it or not, points don’t really mean much as they stand. Everyone says “don’t compare”, but then as soon as someone proposes a simpler ranking method, based on nature rather than politics, comparisons inevitably begin.
If you live in a high-altitude region, you’ll naturally score more. You can still compare yourself with others in your own area if you want to. For example, the first MG in EA3 needed around 200 activations to earn the certificate. That’s roughly equivalent to someone surrounded by 1000 m-asl peaks under the proposed ranking method. And EA3, if I’m not mistaken, is the only European association where 10-point summits start at 2750 m, an outcome driven purely by arbitrary, political boundaries.
Instead of inventing complicated algorithms to model reality, we could recognize that nature already provides a very clear and exact scale.
The problem is that once we introduce artificial decisions, like drawing political borders, or boosting points in low-lying regions, the discussion starts to resemble a political debate. Some people like it, some don’t, and things quickly become messy.
Cheers!
OK, enough is enough. You’ve had the why and wherefore explained to you but you don’t like it. You’ve been told to come up with a scheme that works for all summits. But you’d rather complain about what we now have and what has been done thus belittling the considerable effort many people have put in to building SOTA and making it work.
It’s obvious SOTA is not the award scheme for you and so I suggest you go and try another scheme. Then you can tell the designers and administrators of that scheme about their ludicrous design decisions and all the things they have got wrong.
Summit geography really doesn’t work that way. Another random geographical anecdote:
I grew up in Kenya, which doesn’t have a SOTA association yet (and access to accurate mapping data is Restricted™, so it’s unlikely to any time soon). Our house was at 1800 metres asl. The land around and about wasn’t exactly flat, but it wasn’t seriously hilly, either. It does generally slope upwards towards the edge of the Rift. The nearest hills that’d definitely qualify for SOTA are on the edge of the Rift and have their highest point around 2500 metres asl. Not that far from them down in the Great Rift Valley, Mounts Suswa and Longonot have peaks around 2800 metres asl, but they rise from the Rift Valley floor at around 1600 metres asl. Head south a bit down the Rift, and the valley floor drops a thousand metres in a hundred kilometres or so. Turn east and head towards the coast, and in four or five hundred kilometres you’ll be at 0 metres asl. Within a few kilometres of the coast you’ll find hills with peaks around 1000 metres asl, and peaks at under 200 metres asl. Look south as you’re heading towards the coast, and you might see Uhuru Peak (in Tanzania) at 5895 metres asl.
…and then folks who live near the Rockies could get to MG in six months, while folks who live in Australia would be lucky to get there in a decade.
No thanks.
SOTA isn’t a game for geographical reality to play; it’s a game for people to play using the geography available to them…
Different places, different geography, different scales. That tries to give people at least half an even chance.
Again Rick, the game of comparisons… I don’t know if we want to compare regions or not anymore!
Let’s play the game the way I proposed, 0.4 points for each 100m asl. You still set your challenges and goals based on your natural environment, and you do not compare your performance others in different regions.
You don’t artificially boost regions or devalue others, and you end up with a map that follows a natural continuity (rather than the abrupt and sometimes absurd discontinuities created currently by political borders).
The game is drastically simplified.
The thing that you seem to be missing, Alberto, is that you are placing all your emphasis on height. Height only becomes important at the altitude where the thinness of the air affects your performance, and that is not the same for everybody. As I see it, height is far less important than the distance from and height GAIN from the trail head. In other words, the effort expended in gaining height from sea level to a summit one km high is much the same as going from a road head at 9km to a summit at 10km, with additional effort either at sea level or at 9km if there is a long walk before you start climbing. We who love the mountains tend to think that in general higher is better and a high summit earns good bragging points, but for the purposes of SOTA that preference is not relevant. The SOTA bands do not reward height as such, they reward difficulty where height within an Association is treated as a very approximate symbol for difficulty in that Association and nowhere else. This might sound like an over-simplification, a cop-out if you like, but in a very simple and managable way it avoids a quagmire of complexities that would otherwise make the database work far too much!
Yes, your points based on nothing more than height asl would also be very simple but it over-rewards quite minor ascents for Associations where even the valleys are well above sea level.
Do you scale the MG award too?
Because that’s something that is constant across regions, and someone working towards that will care about the number of points available to them if they’re surrounded by a bunch of 200m summits that only net them 0.8 points per activation once per year.
Thanks for the text Brian, I’m enjoying this discussion!
I see your point. As with many aspects of society, we try to design systems that put everyone on a fair position. I know I keep repeating myself, but to me this feels very close to politics. And in fact, we are using political borders…
If we take those out, things get simpler. We’d be playing a game dictated by nature itself.
In fact, it’s virtually impossible to design a solution that fully addresses what you mentioned in your last post, and what everyone is claiming to achieve via the current (adjustable) algorithm.
Neither the current system nor the proposed one really accounts for effort. The difference is that the asl approach is far simpler, global in scope, and avoids introducing arbitrary differences.
The points would reflect your performance, naturally adjusted to your environment, and you’d still be able to compare and compete with others in your region if you choose.
So, putting the two systems side by side, complexity versus playability, I find the asl approach as a viable option.
I would like to propose a new scheme based entirely on Altitude, which more or less corresponds to Flight level and to make the scheme complete we could have Flight level Activation of Radio Transmission … and of course those who manage lots of these transmissions would become , not old timers but Old FARTs … .. and perhaps chasers would need to sniff out the FARTs too….
Rather more seriously I would be considerably annoyed if the scheme I joined 9 years ago suddenly changed its points structure and rendered by 0.878 Goat worthless. Yes the points structure does not appear to be fair in terms of how easy it is to get points in different regions, but changing it to an entirely altitude based system would make most of the region where I live “pointless” as the highest summit is only 893m. (And having done a rescue up there in winter I can assure you that despite its low altitude it can still have horrendous conditions).
Why not have a new scheme rather than change an old one, which for me works very well. If and when I get to Goat I know the work that has gone into it, and it might have been easier in the Rockies, but I did it with the hills I have access to with the level of technical skill and fitness I have.
I’m sure you could find a better acronym, but in the meantime I would like to thank the MT for managing an effective scheme.
73. Paul