More summits in G-Land

Old Reflector
1

I see our DM colleagues received a fabulous xmas present, another several hundred summits!
The tally now is approx :-
DM - 2793
DL - 976
F - 2510
HB - 901
OE - 2253
EI - 387
OK - 813
ZS - 317
GM - 1214

& G - 180!

The average number of summits across associations is 768 summits, here in G-land, we have many activators and yet only a small number of summits. In 2006, I spent around £2500 in fuel activating due to the few summits available, other associations seem to acknowledge this and provide sufficient summits!

On www.biber.fsnet.co.uk, there are several file formats for downloading the data, its all there and free, name, height, NGR, location,classification of hill and much more …

I quickly downloaded a file which included Nuttalls, Hewitts, Marilyns, sub Marilyns, Wainwrights, Wainwright Outlying Fells, Deweys and others. A quick analysis shows approx :-
422 LD’s
155 NP’s
43 SP’s
34 WB’s
58 summits in the south.

Implementing these is still below the average number of summits/association and yet would reduce my fuel bills drastically and let me activate more summits. I forecast it would encourage more activators on the summits, particularly the easier summits, I’m sure some would take the opportunity to do the drive-bys and the short strolls but may not have a go at a steep Marilyn!

This is a perennial topic and it needs airing again! There are many views on this subject, so we wont all agree, but I believe the advantages in increasing the number of summits in G-land far outweigh the disadvantages.

Happy New Year and 73 to all.

2

In reply to G7KXV:

But we gained one today Ian, oops forgot, we lost one too:-)

73 Mike

3

I agree something needs to be done. At over £1 litre for fuel SOTA is the most expensive hobby I have.
I have a stack of hills on my front door in the peaks that don’t involve SOTA, frustrating or what.
At least it is a New Year now and I can go back and do the local summits and get the points…
Come on MT pull your fingers out and make some changes…

4

In reply to 2E0KPO:

I totaly agree, I can see the Peak District and the staffordshire moorlands from my windows but I have to drive around 80 miles to get to some (nearby) SOTA summits. crazy or what.

PLEASE PLEASE CAN SOMTHING BE DONE.

HNY DAVE G0AOD

5

In reply to G7KXV:

Ian,

I am pleased that, as one of the main English activators, you have voiced your opinion on this issue. I believe that a clear case for or against altering the current parameters cannot be established until at least a majority of the main activators have had their say and so I would encourage others to make the effort to provide an opinion.

Last year it was unfortunate that only a few commented and that was taken by the MT and the English ARM as the meaning that the majority were in favour of the status quo. I trust that apathy will not be allowed to rule once more.

73 and a Happy New Year to all.

Gerald

6

In reply to G7KXV:

To paraphrase Eric “There are plenty of summits available but not necessarily in the Relative Hills of Britain”

There are also plenty of hills in Scotland which is only a short drive away.

The scheme, as with most schemes, has to have limits and rules otherwise it becomes an administrative nightmare. If the MT see fit to add further summits then fine, if they do not then so be it. Many of us were operating from Hill Tops with portable kit long before SOTA came along. All SOTA did was to add a further dimension. Are we classifying hills by a quantifiable measurement rather than a qualitive measurement which must be intrisinc.

“I spent around £2500 in fuel activating”

I would suppose that the utility you derived from these activities was born in mind when the decision to activate, and travel, was taken. The actual cost is irrevelent only the utility is important. (I would say a thnk you for electing to aid the economy, protecting jobs in the motor industry and for paying more tax that help provide more services for the public). One cannot blame the scheme for the costs incurred. I see no mention of the costs of the radio equipment which is also necessary to activate nor for the cost of the hill kit. So why just use fuel as an excuse ?

The more it costs then the better it is for the economy.

7

In reply to 2E0HJD:
Leaving aside the APPARENT unwillingnes of the MT to do more than defend the status quo (No S-to-S award for instance, despite a considerable interest when the subject was last aired) we are limited by geology. No amount of tweaking of the rules will change the fact that most of G-land is relatively flat with a few localised hilly areas (Despite what my legs told me when I used to Youth Hostel by bike (HI). Changing the band steps, introducing intermediate steps or changing the definition of a summit would give us more summits but I submit that they would still mostly be in the same geographical areas.

If you change the rules for G benefit, the other associations could well change their rules and the same disparity will exist. Who knows, you may even end up with a PA association.

Regards, Dave, M0DFA/G6DTN (QTH Shrewsbury, Shropshire)

8

In reply to M0DFA:
Thanks for your comments Dave, I too am not prepared to start complaining about the MT, I understand it is the responsibility of the Association Manager and any changes are his/her responsibility.

But for clarity, I am NOT advocating a change in any rules, the rules are fine so please dont change the debate. I am suggesting we should have more summits and so instead of using only Marilyns (a list of hills), we use other lists AS WELL, there are many to go at and the data is available, secure and managed.

Also, if we used Deweys, you may be surprised on the geography of the areas covered.

And it will still reduce mine, and many others fuel bills.

Gerald, you make an excellent point, I hope apathy does not rule …

Myke, see comments above - I fear you miss the point!

9

In reply to G7KXV:

I am NOT advocating a change in any rules, the rules are fine so please dont change the debate.

But if the basis is changed from using the Marilyn list to another, or even a conglomeration of, lists, then how is that not changing the rules?

Apathy might not rule, but conservatism may!

Regards, Dave

10

In reply to G6DDQ:

“The more it costs then the better it is for the economy.”

I am sorry but it has to be said… What a pile of pants you speak in those words…

11

In reply to 2E0KPO:

What’s the point in quoting MT? Surely it’s the ARM managers job to sort this one out, DM managed to include over 500 new summits G couldn’t even swap WB-001 to SW-041 after promisses were made. It’s embarrassing to say the least.

Barry 2E0PXW

12

In reply to MoDFA:

“Changing the band steps, introducing intermediate steps or changing the definition of a summit”

For clarification, I am NOT advocating any changes like the above, merely suggesting we would benefit having more summits, i.e. using additional hills to the existing Marilyns.

“If you change the rules for G benefit, the other associations could well change their rules and the same disparity will exist.”

In the context of this thread, that is exactly what our DM colleagues have done with no penalty to anybody else.

Currently we have less than a quarter of the average summits per association at our disposal, lets change it so we have a number which is closer to the average than 23%!

13

In reply to 2E0PXW:

“What’s the point in quoting MT?”

Because the MT have to make the decision together. ARM is not going to make a decision like that on his/her own.

14

In reply to G0HIO:
This is a different issue Mike can you delete your post and start a new thread? thanks

Barry

15

In reply to 2E0HJD:
Hi Mick,

ENGLAND Association Reference Manual, Date of Issue 26-Nov-2007 shows the Association Manager as James McGinty M0ZZO.

The Association manual can be found on the SOTA website under SOTA Documents.

Another good website as a source of information regarding lists of hills in Britain is www.hill-bagging.co.uk ‘The Mountains of England and Wales’. This is a good site for recording your ascents, a number of amateurs use this including myself, M0ZZO and M1EYP amongst others, its a good resource and I can recommend it.

16

In reply to G7KXV:

For my information (and perhaps also for others), did our friends in Germany amend their rules to gain the extra summits, and if so, how, or was it a case of a closer inspection of summit heights within their existing rules.

Regards, Dave, M0DFA

17

In reply to M0DFA:

I don’t think that there has been any rule change in DM Dave, this is a different matter than a rule change.

Or am I wrong? Any how, New Years resolution, I’m going to be a good lad, interesting debate though.

73 Mike

18

In reply to M0DFA:
“For my information (and perhaps also for others), did our friends in Germany amend their rules to gain the extra summits, and if so, how, or was it a case of a closer inspection of summit heights within their existing rules.”

I honestly don’t know Dave, can anyone give an accurate answer to this?

19

In reply to GW0DSP:

If there’s been no rule change (and I would include in ‘rule change’ an amendment of any sort), then how did they find so many extra summits?

Someone get a JCB for Christmas??

Not that good, I hope.

73 Dave

20

In reply to M0DFA:

As far as I am aware, the inclusion of new summits and or changing summit info is the job of the association manager and nothing to do with MT.

Maybe if you ask MT if DM contacted them re the new summits you will get your answers.

I honestly don’t know.

73 Mike