p100/p150

Summit Info
187

Micheal, can I ask you try try a thought-experiment?

Imagine there is no SOTA association in Germany. If someone was to create a German association it would be P150 and there would be 350 summits (or how ever many there will be) and that would be the end of it. The summits which will be deleted from DM would never get added if it was to start now.

I don’t know how many times I have to say the original association was very wrong to include so many summits with no prominence and that it was wrong of the MT to accept it. But accepting that situation of a completely invalid association is the root cause of the all problems now. With hindsight we would have been better to have rejected the P100 plan and have done without a German association simply so we could have introduced a compliant association at some point in the future. It would have saved a lot of heartache and argument. The cost would have been I, for one, would not have
met so many excellent German activators and chasers over the years.

There is nothing, repeat nothing special about German summits that warrant special accommodation. The rules good enough for the rest of the world are good enough for Germany.

I certainly do remember them and have already said so. I also accept that you are in a difficult position in that no matter what you do there will be people who blame you for things you have no control over. Damned if you do and damned if you don’t.

The level of abuse the MT have received from fellow amateurs stirred up by a few UK stations beggars belief. Personally I would simply cut the access to small bunch of stirrers who only strive to destroy when they can’t get their way. But unlike some, we have policies we follow. We don’t block people because we don’t like their view point, only when they are abusive or cheat. Having said that, I have been tempted to switch off the database, cluster and spotting engines and see how everyone gets one with enjoying SOTA when the infrastructure is removed.

1 Like
188

Andy, actually I don’t agree with the idea that anyone in the program must have any kind of privileges but, do you think really that this … statement… would solve anything?
I can imagine which would be the normal consequence of that. And I think you can too. And I do not like it at all.
73, Mikel

189

I’ll add a bit more. We’re looking at the bigger picture here. We are looking after the international future of SOTA.

In the early days, the then SOTA MT did not have access to the mapping analysis tools and skills that it has now. Furthermore, as a very young SOTA was first trying to expand internationally, it would have been politically difficult from the then MT to have been less accepting, especially without the means to check and verify.

Since then, we have developed the skills and IT tools to analyse topography much better, and have some real experts in this field both on the MT and in association teams around the world. With this, we have developed (over a long period) a completely objective and consistent set of conditions for when an association may be considered for P100 (for instance ON and PA). Also, for the circumstances when an association may apply for a subsection of it to be P100 (for instance F and parts of Texas).

These conditions are consistent and apply the world over. Since we developed them, all new associations have adhered to them and produced sterling work alongside the MT in preparation of the data and documents. Furthermore, all these associations have cooperated superbly in ensuring that we don’t have duplicate references for border summits - another long time “legacy” issue for SOTA.

These consistent, objective and stringent conditions have been fully observed and worked with as SOTA has grown across North American and into Australia and Russia in recent years. All with virtually no problems.

If we are to continue to grow and develop SOTA internationally, it is only right and correct now that we bring the small number of existing European associations into line with these international standards. Yes, we know, expect and accept that there will be resistance and unhappiness at the loss of summits. But please look at the bigger picture - SOTA can move forward, and finally, after many years, have every association in-line with the universal standards.

No points will be lost. All previously gained activator and chaser points will be totally protected. Nobody loses out. Some countries/associations will have had a number of years of SOTA activity with a lesser prominence requirement than their area allows. See that as a bonus, and the logs and points for that period will never be taken away.

As a further bonus, there will be many months yet to still activate the summits that are to be delisted. A long notice period will be allowed as we recognise the wish of some activators to still have the opportunity to visit some of these summits.

As a further further bonus, several of these older European associations have rather generous points bandings with high percentages of 8 and 10 point summits, and/or 2/4/6 points bands coming in at low altitudes. Compare the points bands in the EI association to the GM association for instance. Some of these scoring bands would simply not be permitted with the better processes and formulas we now apply to new associations - but we will not be interfering with the existing scoring bands of associations.

We are at the point in the international growth of SOTA where continuing to do nothing is no longer an option. A stronger, more consistent and objective SOTA is what will emerge from this.

190

Agree, Tom, but could they be known? - as they might be of the interest of every participant, IMO…-

2 Likes
191

Fritz, PA/PA-004 should be part of the prominence discussion as the highest point in the Northern part of the Netherlands is 110 meters. PA-005 is less than 100 meters above the “saddle” and when you study the terrain profile between PA-004 and PA-005 you will see that these two can’t be separate summits.
Therefor PA-004 and PA-005 should be deleted and replaced by one new 110 meter high summit that just meets the P100 requirement.

73, Hans HB9/PB2T

192

I have not argued that DM should remain a P100 association; I only suggested a pragmatic way forward.
Hans

193

It comes down to fair play, Hans. If we are pragmatic and allow DM to continue using P100 summits, then in fairness we should allow all the P150 Associations to use P100. That means something like ninety Associations having to re-analyse their topography, identify their P100 summits and the critical cols, and re-write their ARMs. If we assume that there are as many P100 summits as there P150 (just for the sake of the discussion) then it means that world-wide something like 66,000 new summits will have to be documented. It seems to me that it would be easier in terms of time and energy expenditure to get DM to move in step with the rest of the world than it would be to make the rest of the world get into step with DM.

It has been suggested that the P100 summits be retained but score a nominal one point instead of the present score of up to ten points, but the same applies, moving the rest of the world in line with DM in the name of fairness - but here there is a further point, as not only do the new summits have to be established and the ARMs re-written, but I suspect that the database program would have to be re-written, too. Another point, there are several new Associations about to come on line - how will their teams feel at the news that instead of going on line they have got to do the whole job again?

I appreciate your concern to defuse the current tensions with a pragmatic approach, but the MT have to weigh the consequences of every proposed solution and see what new problems it would produce.

Brian

5 Likes
194

One last comment: This wasn’t exactly what I meant. What is going to happened is that DM is going from a P100 association to a P150 association, and the question is if its non-P150 summits still shall remain valid. If so, I cannot see all the consequences you see simply because these summits fulfilled the requirements at the time they were approved. Concerning other P150 associations: These are P150 association, and they have never at any time had the opportunity to have non-P150 summits approved. Thus, I cannot find it unfair not to open up for non-P150 summits for these associations.

Hans

1 Like
195

Several years ago I, along with a number of others, put forward an argument for England to be P100 on the basis that it would significantly increase the number of summits in the south of the country and so would encourage people living there (actually where the majority of the population resides) to join SOTA. The proposal was discussed on the reflector and the outcome was that P100 was not adopted for England, nor for any other part of the UK.

Since that decision was made, HEMA (HuMPs excluding Marilyns Award) has been formed, spearheaded by Mike G4BLH with the relevant database being accessible on the Summitsbase website. The rules are the same as for SOTA apart from the prominence of the hill. While the program has no connection with SOTA, it does run as an additional scheme for those that wish to activate P100 hills. Would not similar schemes be appropriate in countries where interest extends beyond P150? Indeed, is there a case for HEMA to become an International effort?

Gerald

196

Hi Ladies
and Gents,

I’m sorry to see some discord over the P100/P150 Rule. SOTA is by far the best group of hams I’ve
associated with in more than 50 years. Yes I have had disagreements with the MT but I remind myself of the following.

#1 It’s an activity dreamed up over a meal and a few beers in English pubs. Warning, some eccentricity may be seen.
.

2 Even games such as cricket have the rules changed. Six ball overs instead of eight still annoys me. Bats the size of a car door now allowed, sigh. The same sort of down-the-track changes apply in all games that I am familiar with. None of us like changes but if we want to participate then we follow the rules.

About the worst/most difficult thing that can be done is to introduce or allow a relaxation of the original rule - P150 to P100 - and then try to reverse it on the basis that the previous MT made a mistake.

You can be brave and face a serious backlash but have more consistency by enforcing the P150 rule.

Or you could take the existing P100 peaks to be a historical peculiarity and let them stand. This will increase pressure from other associations to have new P100 peaks and grumbles about not being even-handed.

Now IMO it is reasonable to have some sort of summit density rule to invoke if there are few or even no P150 summits in a country. Whatever the density is there will be people who disagree. I disagree wrt one association but am not pushing that barrow any more.

SOTA needs a strong but fair MT, which I think they have. It’s not well paid (it actually costs them money to do the task) and their customers are often wingers. Not a job for me thanks. I’m grateful for their efforts as it has given my hobby a whole fresh outlook. (pun intended).

I thought the MT and AM’s had resolved the P100 changes with those associations
that were affected. If this is so then lets accept their agreement and move on. Yes some people will be disadvantaged but that’s life. Arbitrary rules are just that. Goal posts do get changed.

73
Ron
VK3AFW/AX3AFW

6 Likes
197

Hi Andy, you missed quoting the reason for the question which followed. This was that the difficulty of a contact for the chaser is inversely proportional to the height of the summit (at least at VHF) . My extended point was that there are lots of things that we would like to have in the rules to make it “fairer” or more consistant or … but they simply are not practical to implement and manage - so make do with the rules at the time however they are at the time of operation.
Ed.

198

Perhaps in this scenario there would have never been a German SOTA association? As nobody would have been interested in a “summits on the air” with most of the existing summits excluded?

I still do not understand the underlying problem. What harm has being caused by the DM association during the past six years? @G4OBK and many others are fine achieving both chaser and activator points from DM.
Looking at the 2014 activator scores world wide I cannot see the current DM summit list skews results.

Regarding achieved points the most successful DM participants are position 12, 25 and 26. Jana, DG5WU is registered in DM but gained her points mainly in OE and DL. So with OK, SP, HB9, W, VK ahead regarding points what’s the problem?
Regarding number of activations OK, SP, OE HB9, W are again ahead DM, so no issue there, too.

This is the point to come back to Tom:

In my email to the MT dated 29.01.2015 I suggested changing the height bands in DM to change this. There was absolutely no response from the MT to this suggestion. Well, there was absolutely no explicit response to any of my arguments.

What is the logic behind this? Changing the scoring bands is not considered but deleting a majority of summits is. To my mind changing the scoring bands is the way better solution in case all the dispute is about points. And reading some postings in this thread I very much feel the real cause are the points.

Perhaps in the early days of SOTA in 2003 with Germany as the first European association apart from UK/EI, the MT was glad about the growth? Perhaps the MT deliberately made some concessions in order to promote SOTA in Germany? Without a strong German association perhaps SOTA would have failed outside UK? But now beeing overwhelmed by about 100 associations there is no need to bother about Germany, anymore? Just my personal two cents.

Once DM is converted to P150 not only you but all SOTA participants will pay this cost. Is it really worth this cost?

At least you unterstand my situation. Thanks for this.

I have already read this view in Barry’s posting with some bewilderment.
@GM4TOE
Can you explain what is considerd abuse?

To my mind both the MT, me and many SOTA participants have the same objective: Promoting SOTA activity. But at the moment especially members of the MT think of destructive actions regarding SOTA. Quite strange in my mind, isn’t it?

73 de Michael, DB7MM - DM association manager

3 Likes
199

Micheal you have convinced me. Germany needs special treatment.

200

Hi together,

just discovered this thread. And wow! This is post #194 within a few days, if there isn’t anyone faster than me. So usually you only read activation reports from me. But this time I also want to say something to the change of SOTA rules.

I am very upset to hear that the association DM will loose its P100 status, which was once granted by the MT. The impact was already discussed here and I don’t want to repeat the numbers again. But in my opinion to many mountains will be lost for SOTA. The MT says they are correcting an error. But I don’t think so. Correcting an error in my opinion is something like changing the number of points of a particular mountain. Example Pico Grande CT3/MI-002. This mountain listed with 10 points but only worth 6 points. Reason: The height of Pico Grande is 1654m. But when the association was set up an transcription error was made, and it accidentally got the height of 1864m.
But applying P150 instead of P100. Is changing rules.

Okay lets change the rules, but with what effect? You will get less mountains to activate in Germany. As I have learned in this thread only 40% of the original granted P100 summits will remain. This also means that 575 summits can never be chased again. This is a great loss! The SOTA program is attracting many hams, and maybe is also responsible for some to make the licence. SOTA is responsible for lots of activity on the bands. Not only HF. Also VHF and UHF.

Maybe some of you have not realized it, but amateur radio is some kind of dying. We live in time where everyone can communicate with everyone else everywhere. Amateur radio has lost that unique priviledge. Our new hams are not interested in talking with people all over the world. This is nothing exciting today. But mostly they are interested in playing with technical things and assembling them. SOTA does fulfill this. You take part in a game and you can invent your own portable equipment. This is fun! But for DM a lot is lost.

I am afraid if we loose so many summits the activity on the bands will also be reduced. Maybe some users will disappear complety. Others maybe will appear less. I don’t know what is the reason for calling a male ham OM – old man. But in fact usually I talk to old men when having QSOs. To annoy SOTA participants, removing granted possibilities for having activation on the bands, just for having some consitent numers in a database, is quite dim. Maybe there are possibilities to keep the summits in DM.

Your young lady greeting the club of old men,
Jana DG5WU

11 Likes
201

Well said Jana, thanks for all the summits, from a OM :blush:
Cheers
Mike

202

A lot have been said in this topic. Let me add my feelings too.

10 years ago when preparing SOTA HA we asked for and been granted the right to use P100. We did a thorough evaluation work first based on topographic maps and then on mil-grade digital survey data. As we got better data and acquired more skills in evaluation summits were removed and added in subsequent Handbook revisions.

We have never received a complaint like “why do you have so many summits”.
Or “how come XY in HA made MG in two weeks”.
The only question that always came up was if there could be a summit added here or there. These ones were clearly answered based on the P100 criterion.

So life seemed happy, activity flourishing.

Now here comes this P150 issue. The effect for HA is a plain disaster: we would need to say a sad goodbye to 2/3 (yes, 67%!) of our SOTA summits.
I was thinking who would benefit from this?
We in HA certainly would not.
Would the silent majority out there? I don’t see that either.
And the same logic applies to other P100 associations.
So where is the win-win solution here?
Why ruin well established and functional associations?

73, Zoli
HA5CQZ
SOTA AM HA

4 Likes
203

The same argument could be presented against “summits on the air” in all the 90-odd Associations around the world - but look at the reality!

The core of the matter is not the points, the core of the matter is that the SOTA in DM is not the same SOTA the summit rich Associations have, and make no mistake about it, at P150 DM will not be short of summits. Perhaps you are right, and the summit banding is too generous, but there is a wide variety of summit bandings around the world and that would have to be examined and discussed carefully. Consider a few comparisons: at P150, DM will have an SD figure that is less than 960 - I cannot give an exact figure because I do not have an area for DL to subtract from the total area of Germany. The SD for England is 1384, for Sweden it is 1030 and for Poland it is 1415. You claim that DM will collapse with P150 yet it will still have more summits per unit area than many of its European neighbours!

There is no indication of concessions to Germany in 2003, the MT did not have the maps and assumed that the rules were being followed. The only concession came when P100 was requested for DM on the basis that so many summits had been removed that without P100 the DM Association would not be viable, and the MT accepted that argument without thinking about it carefully enough.

Can you give a simple and understandable reason why the DM Association should not follow the same rules that the rest of the summit-rich Associations follow?

Brian

1 Like
204

Your Association has an area of 90,028 km^2 and 242 P100 summits, so it has one summit for every 384 km^2. If your figure is correct and 67% of those summits are removed from the program in a shift to P150 then you will have one summit for every 1163 km^2, comparable with many EU countries. As for the other P100 Associations, many of them have a valid claim to P100 - make PA move to P150 and their SD would be infinite!

Brian

205

From some old figures I have
HA P150 summits =109
HA P100 summits =242
HA area 93030 km^2
SD = 93030/109 = 853

G P150 summits = 176
G area 130395 km^2
SD = 130395 / 176 = 741

It’s easier to express SD in its upside down form, i.e. 741 means 1 summit for every 741 km^2 rather than 0.00135 summits per km^2 and if you compare the figures there’s about 13% less in HA than in G.

The figures we have enable the whole of the USA/Canada to be represented in SOTA. A huge land mass with a diverse topography. Of course, these figures work in Australia too.

But apparently not in Europe.

206

PA-002 is a hill with a height of 216 metres asl - I don´t understand why…

Karel