i am a simple bloke with no high education but as this is SOTA the first letter meaning summit and there are a lot of tall cone shaped places with a summit at the top. perhaps it should be called MOTA. Now you can put as much clever stuff you like as a reply as i wont understand most of it anyway.
73 dave
In reply to G4OWG:
Sorry Roger, I didn’t see it or intend it as a trivial question, but a question based on the fact that you refered to an earlier post of mine.
I have now removed the question, no harm meant whatsoever by the way or any taken.
Ian has raised a sensible and serious debate and I think he is 100% correct in all that he has said and deserves some answers.
73 Mike
In reply to G4OWG:
I am disappointed Roger, you have sympathy for Ian because of what he has done for SOTA but from what I see none for the other activators because they haven’t given anything to SOTA . Clearly then I am not worthy and neither should I have even dared speak out since I have done nothing for SOTA.
Let me say this Roger, I also do SOTA because I enjoy it. However there is a goal for me in SOTA and that is the 1000 point goal. I am that type of person, you are clearly not. I like to set goals for myself I know when to stop, and when to start another goal. Maybe my next goal is to get involved in WAB who knows, maybe I will try to activate every named summit in an area. I don’t really care, but I will set my goal and go for it.
I not asking for SOTA activations to be easy, if I wanted easy I would sit in my shack chasing, or I could give up on SOTA as a bad job and enjoy my local hills. Far from it I want to finish what I started. I agree with the humble Ian, G7KXV that we need more choice and less burden on our wallets.
73
Steve
“Who clearly does sod all for SOTA in some people eyes…”
I have uploaded a Google Earth .kml file to the Yahoo files area with all the DM/BW summits as of 1/1/2008 on it.
You might as well all have a good laugh because I think this could be the end of SOTA. The MT team need to get this under control very quickly.
The first thing that is required is to quickly suspend the DM changes before there are many activations and changes become difficult. They should then have an informed debate with activators and chasers and LISTEN.
Do you agree?
The filename is: DL BW 2008.kml and it is in the maps folder.
73 & HNY
John GW4BVE
In reply to GW4BVE:
Good work John, thanks. I have never looked at their summits on Google. Its madness, 10 point summits with car parks on the top… I wish!
At least I know when I get to 1000 points I have worked for it.
Shall we have a fortnight in Germany Steve and do mountain goat the cheap way, no rush, management wont act on altering anything, we can safely book for two weeks in August knowing it will still be there with no changes!!
Go on management, …prove me wrong I dare you!!
In reply to M0JDK:
Sounds good to me John!
I surprised we dont see more MG’s over there since it is that easy to score points… No wonder some people are doing three or more 10 pointes in a day and still going to work after as well, oh how I wish.
Opps, we gone OT’ish
In reply to 2E0KPO:
I don’t chase certain people now because they
don’t try very hard and I can’t be bothered to pull them out of the
noise. I not going to make the effort for someone that does not make
the effort in the first place.
Sorry if you took offence .
I do not decry your efforts,in fact i’m quite envious, but I was somewhat taken aback by the statement quoted above. Even if someones signal is not as good as it should be they must have made some effort to put on an activation.
Back on topic whilst I am now in full agreement with the desire for more summits I still contend that it will be more advantageous for someone like me within easy reach of SP,NP and LD.But I recognise this will always be the case because of geographical position of suitable hills. Also I see the DM comparison as irrelevant for the ‘cause for change’; we , for reasons set out in arguments above , need more summits. The DM situation, whilst 'probably? within the general rules, does SOTA no good and IMHO trivialises that association and thus SOTA itself.
Roger G4OWG
All good stuff guys and I appreciate your comments but this is nothing to do with DM or DL, its about G. Without looking at the detail I happen to agree with the strategy of the DM and DL management teams, they are providing enough summits! As are several other overseas groups, please see my original post for comparison.
The issue here is has G got enough summits? IMHO, we have not and that is not the fault of anybody else, its about G-land, its about us!!
Now being British, we are blessed with having many lists, the data exists and is easily implemented, our overseas colleagues have to generate their list and should be congratulated on their extensive work buyt for us in G, its already done for us!!! So whats the problem.
Well here’s the problem, APATHY! If YOU are a CHASER or ACTIVATOR of an English Summit (no matter where you reside), then its down to YOU. If you are happy with a small fraction of summits available to you, then good luck and you dont have to do anything, just let it be. But if you are supportive of me and many other activators driving excessive miles, then get off your pot and get on this bandwagon.
Sorry but thats the way it is and from a personal point of view, I will always be on the hills as long as I live, but I may not always carry a radio!!
In reply to G7KXV:
Ian, I was not about for the start of SOTA but I have read all the early posts in the reflector about setting up SOTA and I think I understand why the program was set up the way it is. The idea was that a summit should be clearly defined and the Marilyn list was convenient to use and in general provides a set of objectives that are clearly individual hills. Whilst I can see where you are coming from, I do wonder if your desire to reduce the defining height difference might debase the program.
There are places where reducing the height difference would make some splendid SOTA expeditions possible. For instance the Snowdon Horseshoe (imagine operating on 80 metres from the summit of Crib Goch!) or the ridge from the Old Man of Coniston to Wetherlam spring to mind. On the other hand you would then add a plethora of grassy little tumps with nothing to distinguish them other than a reference number and score. If scoring is the objective of SOTA, bring it on! However, I like to think that for many of us the hills are in the blood and it is being up there above the mundane world that counts more than a score.
Geology rules, our hard rocks and the hills that they define are mainly in the west and north, there is no getting away from that, and reducing the height difference may add more hills in the flatlands, but it will certainly add far more in the uplands, and where they are packed together it will become obvious that the list becomes trivial. An illustration: it is well-known that there are 14 3,000 ft summits in Snowdonia, but if a summit is defined as a point surrounded by closed contour lines then careful examination of the 1:25,000 maps will reveal two more summits. You could walk over them without noticing, but they are there! Now I have sympathy for the idea that, say, the Carneddau ridge should have more SOTA summits on it, making a fine SOTA expedition possible, but at the same time I would not like to see the program trivialised by loads of silly little bumps being added. A quandary, and I have to choose: sorry but I choose the status quo. This isn’t apathy, Ian, its a reasoned choice. If I am going to play a scoring game, I want the score to be genuine and I don’t want it to be trivialised.
I appreciate the economic argument, there are many fine remote Munros that I never climbed because of cost and time restraints, but they are still there and I am still here, and who knows, I might get there before the spiders spin their webs over my eyes! It doesn’t all have to be done in a set time, unless that time is a lifetime.
HNY
Brian G8ADD
…and don’t forget if you “run out of nearby summits” to activate, assuming that it’s using a radio that is your primary interest, then one can always activate other things like islands (IOTA), WAB squares, etc.
If not, and it’s the hills that motivate you, then one can still walk up any hill you like with a radio and have a chat (/P) with anyone that pops up but still enjoy the hill without SOTA points.
I really dont have a problem and I’m one of the folks that lives “down south” where summits are few and far between. If I really felt strongly about it, I might move to The Highlands (or Germany )
Mike is right… Radio is fun… whatever mode, band or activity you choose. So let’s try and be a bit more positive about our hobby, that we are privileged enough to be able to enjoy, having worked hard for it.
73 es HNY Marc GØAZS
In reply to G0HIO:
In reply to G7KXV:
I feel these public discussions are just damaging to SOTA and amateur
radio.HNY Mike G0HIO
Mike
I disagree. There are some major issues here. The problem is that the MT are self elected and unaccountable. They have made a major error of judgement in making SOTA in DM and the UK so different. I wrote to John G3WGV pointing out that DL (as it was then) problem in the early days of German SOTA and nothing was done. The problem is now many times worse. My view is that the only way we can get any movement or consultation is to generate some publicity about the issues that SOTA is facing.
You are right that people have the option of not taking part and I am seriously considering taking that route.
73 John GW4BVE
In reply to G0HIO:
"I feel these public discussions are just damaging to SOTA and amateur radio. "
Thanks for your opinion, I appreciate it. However, I sincerely think it does NOT damage SOTA and amateur radio, I think it is the democratic process.
These public discussions are not damaging to sota, however, allowing arguments to develop between fellow sota participants is.
Let’s stay focussed on the real issue here, I feel that Ian makes a very valid point.
73 Mike GW0DSP
In reply to GW0DSP:
These public discussions are not damaging to sota, however, allowing
arguments
to develop between fellow sota participants is.
Well put Mike. People should not be afraid to discuss what they see as failings in the current system and how they believe the system can be improved. We don’t need ad hominem attacks.
Now I have always seen some of the German regions as a little soft and a bit of a joke especially when you consider how far you have to walk to do some 1 pointers up here in GM. But if that’s how they want it out there then fine. It really doesn’t bother me. I’m not competing against anyone so it doesn’t matter how many points people can get chasing/activating DL summits.
As for whether England needs more summits, well I’m sorry but I’ll pass on that.
But what I would suggest is that those of you who think more are needed should put your boots where you mouths are! By that I mean go and activate some non-SOTA summits. As Ian G7KXV has identified, the hard work has been done in that there are official lists of Hewitts and Nutalls and all the other mountain groups. All someone (Ian?) needs to do is allocate some prefices and numbers to those lists and you can run these additional hills in parallel with SOTA. Now you wont be able to use the SOTA website directly because its database wont know these new summits but there’s nothing to stop someone alerting for a current SOTA summit and then listing in the comment the extra hills to be done. You go and do activate the SOTA summit and walk on and activate the new ones. Just make sure you don’t give a non-SOTA summit a ref number that can be confused with a SOTA ref. I’d suggest using 3 letters in the ref so it cannot be confused.
Then see how many chasers are interested in chasing you. If you get hordes and hordes of chasers for these new summits then you have a substantially stronger case in support of the argument for change. Far too many times people have demanded changes to the rules to SOTA yet have been unable to produce any evidence of support for these changes. As such the request for change, which may be entirely valid in the eyes of the person requesting change, just look like moaning that things aren’t fair.
It’s much harder to dismiss an argument when it is supported by hard evidence and there’s nothing more obvious that new summits are wanted by many by showing how many of these potential summits have been activated and chased. Don’t think it will work? Well just cast your mind back to when Derek G1Z?? did SB003 a long time after it was deleted. He had no problems getting chasers for a deleted ex-summit. I know when I activated East Cairn Hill before it was officially recognised I had my ears pulled off by the large number of people who worked it on the off chance it might become a valid summit.
So those of you who want more summits should get together and get your summit refs sorted so the chasers know what is what. Those of you who don’t want more summits can studiously avoid these new summits. At the end of say 6 months you’ll have the evidence. Whether it supports the demand for new summits will have to wait till it is examined. But at least we’ll have something hard to discuss.
One last point, if Tom is English AM, then he’s in GI and probably can’t comment for a few days.
For the record and those that don’t know I’m AM for GM. In no way am I privvy to the thoughts of the MT and these are my own personal thoughts. In no way should they be considered official in anyway.
Andy
MM0FMF
I find it quite sad that we always seem to get the same old dinosaurs pop up and defend SOTA, saying there is no need for change when clearly there is. These dinosaurs add nothing to SOTA apart from holding it back from evolving and quite frankly I wish they just become extinct so that the people that want SOTA to evolve can help it do just that.
It’s easy to add more hills, humps or whatever people want to refer to them as. We have SOTA summits now that you can activate by the road so what is the deference if is a small trivial hill as some would like to put it. There are some mountains and challenging hills that are missing from our list.
We don’t have to include every hill in every area, it’s quite easy to filter areas out or add the odd new hill/mountain of our choice in an area. Let’s face it is was easy to remove LD-002 and move WB-001 so what the difference in adding a few good hills or mountains in some areas.
There are some great examples out there to improve SOTA and give more choice. Look at some hills and their positions so we could create routes to take in several summits etc.
As for your comments Roger, G4OWG I did take offence.
Mike G0HIO, quite frankly, your advice is not relevant to this thread IMHO.
Ian’s comments and the comments of others including myself are comments and suggestions that could help improve, add fresh interest and new challenges into SOTA. I did my licence so I could use radios during storm chasing and research along with SOTA, yes SOTA sparked my real interest in Amateur radio and I for one think there is room for improvement.
One thing I have noticed with amateur radio is there is an awful a lot of dinosaurs and too much politics, and all this just holds back what is a great hobby.
Now then , Now then gentlemen ( cfr Jimmy Saville) . No need for this abusive behaviour.
There was a topic “happy Newyear 2008” a couple of days ago. Lets stick to that and discuss in a mature way please.
I have logged/worked “HIO” several times this last year (G and GW) and I believe every member should have its say chaser or activator, very active or not.
Peter
In reply to G7KXV:
Hi Ian
Although only a token activator (however, still believe I’m entitled to a voiced opinion), struggling to reach the 100 activator points…hi! I firmly believe that you are right in all you say regarding costs involved of which affect all Activators.
I personally, have no interest in what the Germans are doing or any other International SOTA Association and cannot see what difference it makes whether it is easier to reach Mountain Goat or Shack Sloth status as a German activator or Chaser using CW due to increase of summits, easier access to more 10 pointers or otherwise. SOTA has always been an uneven playing field for both Activators and Chasers and always will be… so whats new? I think many have lost the ‘personal goal’ scenario and look more at the tables to see who is above them rather than what their own achievments are. It always tickles me when I see another new German… French CW operator etc in double quick time becoming a Shack Sloth being congratulated on the Reflector, but again who cares?
However, in my opinion, to save on fuel costs, time and continue enjoying both the hobby and SOTA, to encourage more members into the programme,it makes more sense to add further summits to the regional areas, of which many members seem to be asking for, perhaps more importantly in our southern regions. Surely, with the ripples being voiced at this time by many members, change has to be the basic outcome? If not, operators will of course vote with their feet as is their right and IOTA, CASHOTA, AOTA, WAB will gain to SOTA’s loss!
The Advantages of adding more summits in G Land, in my opinion also outweigh the Disadvantages!
73’s
Ian 2E0EDX
In reply to ON3WAB:
Hear, hear Peter…
Let us remember… The reflector guidelines state:
“Think Before You Post! Is your post appropriate, constructive, friendly and suitable for all ages?”
I have no problem with anyone voicing their opinion (as is their right) but can we please keep it to a level where I do not mind my family reading the reflector too!
73 Marc G0AZS
In reply to M3EDX:
Well put Ian.
I’ve just been looking at the HUMPS http://www.hill-bagging.co.uk/EWRegions/HuMPs.php dont forget all Marylins are also HUMPS
The HuMPs are a list of hills with relative height over 100 metres
Region Marylins Humps
LD 56 109
SB 8 26
NP 31 59
SP 17 48
TW 5 15
WB 22 61
CE 5 29
DC 7 29
SC 13 33
Seems that I was wrong about favouring the present large SOTA regions - percentage wise the smaller areas benefit more.
Even dinosaurs can dream 
Roger G4OWG