Hi Mark, I believe you are wrong in referring to the 100m prominence as being an error. It’s not an error, at the time prominence was applied in DL/DM (and elsewhere) that was the rule at the time. I believe this rule can still be applied to new associations who perhaps wouldn’t have any 150m prominence summits and hence applying 150m in such new applications would exclude the possible new association and I thought SOTA was abut INCLUSION not EXCLUSION.
I have seen the descrepancy in the use of a prominence value between e.g. Australian associations and German ones as there’s more mountains in Germany than Australia, however I go back to my first point, what we have here is not the correction of an error, rather a change to the rules (whether justified or not, I do not wish to comment) being applied to a particular association.
Ed.