I was not contesting the numbers.
The question is if anybody in USA/Canada, Australia or wherever will have more fun activating or chasing after the removal of “superfluous” HA summits?
73, Zoli
1 Like
TP is essential, SD is essential, so the numbers are substantial.
Others not so significant.
I also do not like it.
Just stone-hard rules of the game.
And the game is the game…
Karel
Simply because its prominence is not the same as the height above sea level. I don’t know PA-002 prominence off hand, but let’s say it is 135m. That means to get from the summit of PA-002 to any piece of higher ground you must descend at least 135m. If the there are no P150 summits in PA then the SD is
41526 / 0 = infinity
I understand the rules so - if only one hill is within the association, then its prominence counts as asl.
But maybe I misunderstood it.
So I think it should be there:
41526/1 = 41526
Karel
No, the divisor is zero because the number of P150 summits in PA is zero.
I am afraid incorrect. Prominence is always relative to the land mass. Hence the prominence of Denali is defined relative to Aconcagua which is the highest peak in the Americas and the col/saddle that defines the prominence is on the Panama canal. Denali height 20,321 ft (6,194 m) prominence 20,073 ft (6,118 m)
But reading rules - if only one hill is within the association, then its prominence counts as asl.
So PA-002 has TP of 216 metres - within the rules of SOTA program even when the real TP of the Vrouwenheide is smaller.
So the divisor - within this rule of SOTA - is one…
Karel
I know what is TP and how it works.
In other words, I think: If only one hill with a height of 216 is in PA, then it is OK for SOTA PA P150(!) list.
Karel
Measurement of TP is not limited to borders. It is based on the land mass - or “the real TP” as you put it.
G0CQK: Yes, I understand your topic. But I think something else.
If you work with SD in PA (see G8ADD and MM0FMF), you should also limit TP to PA country. In this case, the rules take into account PA as an island. Units should be the same, otherwise it does not make sense.
Karel
Wrong again! Read Topographic prominence - Wikipedia
And if you disagree with that then you are in disagreement with the whole of the rest of the world.
Jim
I do really understand, but I have something else in mind in my posts.
Karel
There is an old Scottish story. A mother was watching her son in the military passing-out parade. Watching the soldiers marching she said to her husband “Look Angus, they are all out of step but our Jock.”
1 Like
HI, we have similar story in OK.
Now I have a question:
Think only about PA country. Think only about the Vrouwenheide (216 asl). Let say, its TP is only 50 metres. Can this hill be in SOTA PA P150 list (containing only this hill)?
Within the rules of SOTA - I think so.
Karel
I don’t fight against the definition of TP. That is simple and clear.
I work with the SOTA rules.
Karel
I can think of another well-established and time-honoured statement:
“If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!”
73,
Walt (G3NYY)
1 Like
I understand what you are suggesting Karel. However, that is not permitted under SOTA rules. We do not operate a “cut-off” at national / association borders when analysing TP.
Imagine a landlocked country, where the border was at 200m ASL all the way around. The country is almost completely flat, with a “summit” of 201m at its centre. The countries that surround the landlocked country all have high mountain ranges rising up from the 200m border.
You are suggesting that the rules of SOTA allow for the 201m point to be a P150 summit? Well no, this is not the case. Analysis of TP does not stop at a border.
Fully agree Walt. We are fixing this. You can deduce the reason for that from your own statement.
If the analysis of TP does not end at the border, then there is the problem with peaks on the border between the states.
They are often shared by both associations - and there is zero topographic prominence and almost zero distance!
Karel
We recognise this Karel and are in the process of removing all duplicate / border summits. We have the association managers to thank for their cooperation and work in dealing with this. Many duplicate / border references have already been deleted.