I understand that some 50% of German summits will go. I may be a bit dim but

why are summits deleted under these prominence rules when they have existed for years. Would it not

be better to leave things be and then attend to new associations in getting it right?

Now off to watch Masterchef.

Night night.



Hi Mike,

You have answered your own question in the title of this topic.

If rules that have existed for years are found to be incorrect or unfair, then surely you would expect them to be reviewed?

Nicely chilled after a fine day activating :smile:
Best 73,

Mark G0VOF

It would certainly seem logical to do so!
I’d be more concerned if the rules weren’t being applied once the errors were known :slight_smile:
Kudos to the MT and AMs for sorting it out.



I am sure the MT has discussed this as thoroughly as they presumably did a few years ago when DM was granted p100. But I can’t see the reason why MT now rejects a summit list based on p100 as the DM summits haven’t changed at all during the past years.

I think the number of DM SOTA activations will drop when p150 applies. But not only because the number of summits is reduced but because the number of attractive summits is significantly reduced. To explain this, there are very few dintinctive single mountains in DM, most of the summits are peaks of ridges that last for kilometers. The summits usually have dense woods on them up to ~800+ m asl. Not the right place to be when you want to get the feeling of operating on top of a mountain. But luckily besides these main summits, there are peaks that are not as high as the main summit, meet p100, are very popular in general and offer great viewes and that certain feeling. As these secondary peaks often don’t meet p150 or then would be ‘covered’ (or what’s the word?) by the main peak, these are among the summits to be deleted. Too bad!

For other associations it might be right to apply p150, but in DM it definitively mostly sorts out popular summits with great views. And then, only the less-attractive summits remain. This means operating in the woods and only knowing from the map that this is a summit you’re on. Where is the unique thing of SOTA? What would then distinguish SOTA from, for example WWFF?

For example the Harz (peaking at 1142 m) in DM/NS. In size and popularity it is comparable to the Lake District. By now there are 16 SOTA-referenced summits in the Harz. But when applying p 150, only seven will remain. And some great summits will be deleted, that offer a view for literally a hundred miles (wx depending) and spectacular hikes through the wilderness.

I don’t think p150 will be helpful for SOTA in DM.



I won’t speak about the DM mountains case you exposed because I don’t know those mountains at all, but I can tell you that we are in the West part of the Pyrenees and we have p150 here in EA2 area, with lots of beautiful mountains having nice ascents, beautiful views and sometimes nice related histories unfortunately out of the SOTA list. I’d like my EA2 area being a p100 one so we would enjoy having many, many more summits to activate, but it’s what it is so far and we have to live with it. May be one day… :wink:
Best 73 de Guru.


Pom, well said and I am amazed that so far you are the only German activator/chaser to make a comment. There have been 200+ views.

As I write I see Guru has just posted about beautiful mountains in EA which are not on the ‘list’. The ‘list’ only has importance for points for activator and chaser - why not re-consider MT + supplicants? It would then be true summits on the air not cut off by some finger in the wind P number? I wonder if this will be deleted?

Night night


Maybe just a rhetorical question, but who will benefit from less summits?
Isn’t more the merrier ?

I know that need to be some rules, but for example in YO, a summit isn’t accessible/ not allowed, but another summit, same mountain, just 2-3m under can’t be in SOTA because of p150 rule. Even that is the most hiked peak from that mountain.

After all, SOTA is about getting out, hiking and not only about collecting points, isn’t it?

Back to my corner,


Oh really, Mike? This is the SOTA Reflector, unlike some SOTA-inspired sites the opinion of ANYBODY is tolerated as long as the manner of presentation complies with the AUP.



I am slightly mystified by this. As far as I know, anyone can walk wherever they like, with or without radio, provided they are not breaking any laws. SOTA neither restricts nor extends those freedoms.

SOTA provides a framework of rules within which it pleases a lot of people to enjoy activating and chasing.

Of course the rules could be different, and of course they could be changed from time to time, but there would be less motivation to engage in a long term goal - say, achieving mountain goat in 10 years - if the rules are likely to have been changed beyond recognition in that time.

If WWFF, or WOA, or HOTA, or WAB Trig, or the infinite number of similar schemes which might be set up are attractive, then that’s fine. They are not mutually exclusive. Engage with all of them. Set up a new one. But keep running around with the SOTA goal posts? Well, I would humbly suggest not.

There are several summits near me which are delightful, and which I often visit. Good views. Just outside the P150 rule. That’s the way it is.

(no connection with SOTA other than as a grateful participant)


What you are missing is that the DM P100 situation was caused by a misunderstanding. Every other association set up at that time was P150. The proposed change is not moving the Goal posts - it is fixing an error.


1 Like

You are right, we can walk there without SOTA, but SOTA gives a nice motivation (at least for me) :slight_smile:


Part of the problem for me is not understanding the role of the “rules” in this stuff.

Some associations have P100 and some P150. DM clearly has P100 at the moment, but this is to change to P150.

Can someone please show me, in the “rules”, where it shows the logic behind which associations can have P100 and which can’t? I think this is part of the problem (unless I’m missing something). It feels like the MT just “decides” which association has which prominence without rhyme, reason or rules!

Let I said… I might be wrong (it has been known!)… that’s just how it feels! :smile:



Of course, you can go anywhere without SOTA goals, but: The number of CW operators is steadily decreasing. For many of us is SOTA one of the few radioamateur activities that we still enjoy. Therefore, it is a pity that the rules for the selection of the SOTA hills are not too smart for hills in Central Europe.

By the way, not all restrictions are maintained in force - for example The Locomotive Acts. The most draconic restrictions and speed limits were imposed by the 1865 act (the “Red Flag Act”) which required all road locomotives, which included automobiles, to travel at a maximum of 4 mph (6.4 km/h) in the country and 2 mph (3.2 km/h) in the city - as well as requiring a man carrying a red flag to walk in front of road vehicles hauling multiple wagons. The 1896 Act removed some restrictions of the 1865 act and raised the speed to 14 mph (23 km/h)… [quoted from Wikipedia]

It should of course be an attempt at humour, but…



I cannot find the original posting to which this comment relates, as you have started a new thread.

What is the title of the original thread, please?

Walt (G3NYY)

Obviously, equal conditions and justice are of high value, especially in a growing international community.
I do not know the exact number of summits that will be affected by a change to P150 in DM and DL, but I can imagine that in certain regions eventually quite a number of summits will have to be deleted.

In the alpine regions the summits affected are likely to be those that are accessible more easily, while the remaining summits will be those that are really hard (and sometimes dangerous) to reach. There is only a very small number of radio-amateurs with enough skill and experience as a mountaineer who are capable to reach these alpine summits safely. For the rest of us, a great number of possibilities for SOTA activations will be lost.

Therefore, imho, the absolute number of summits in a certain amount of square miles should not be the only criterium to compare different regions.


Search the Reflector for “summit density”

No, the MT works to consistent objective criteria. This has been discussed in the reflector on more than one occasion, it has not appeared in the rules because, frankly, it is only a matter of importance for the MT and the various AMs who spend hundreds of hours sorting out the summits list for any new Association or any update to an older Association. It is part of the information provided to prospective AMs for proposed Associations. It will, however, appear in the next update if only to avoid posts like yours!

If you want to search back look for “Summit Density” or “SD”.


Yes, sorry if I didn’t express it clearly, I was arguing from that point of view - correct errors rather than letting them drift on.

It was a general comment, rather than me taking a view on this particular correction…


I have pretty much the same “feeling”.
When I took over as AM I was confronted with the fact that I couldn’t officially be named as AM without an update of the summits list, then I was given the “special privilege of an update” at a time when it would normally not be allowed (??), then it was suddenly a prerequisite to add the col coordinates for ALL the existing summits (there are currently more than 2000 in Austria and originally we would have been expected to add them manually if ON4UP had not made a software evaluation that allowed us to extract the data for every individual summit). I can only say that all these requirements have never been officially published or communicated with the AMs and are all very much “MT decisions”.
This evaluation and its inaccuracies now forces us to “prove” that existing and previously accepted summits fulfill P150 by sending screenshots and on top of all that we are confronted with a massive cut in those high alpine regions where due to the long mountain ranges a P150 only leaves the highest and most dangerous mountains that have, most of the time, not even been activated yet on the one hand, and uninteresting spots without a view somewhere in a forest that cannot even be located without GPS on the other. What difference would it make if we had P100? Would we have too many summits? Would the activation of a mountain be worth less? Would it make a difference for the chasers? These are all questions that I cannot really answer…

73, Sylvia OE5YYN


Well said Sylvia. You very rarely post comments here so to me has greater value.
Best wishes and thank you both for all the summits,

1 Like