I would like to have it, please
1 Like
I also did not get it, as I started OZ.
Original posting of where it is defined at 2000 or where the concept of summit density was first mentioned?
Youāve got it as you put EA2 together Mikel.
Which association are you putting together such that you need it?
The one where SD 2000 was introduced as criterion for P100/P150.
73 de Michael, DB7MM
2 Likes
Sorry, I do not understand you, Andy, and also Babelfish translates nonsense. 
I started 2010 as OZ AM the OZ Association. When it was ready and running I wanted a native OZ as AM and I found Peter OZ1FLI, he is now OZ-AM. What I want to say is, that I missed these documents where Brian and Michael were talking about. I remember that I got a āpatternā (is this right word?) for the Association Manual.
73 de Mario DL4MFM (OZ7CCC)
When you created the OZ association you were sent all the files you needed to do the job, a template (pattern) for the ARM and a list of P100 summits. That is all there was at that time.
Sorry, Iāve probably missed something, cause as long as I can remember I wasnāt given any doc.
F.i., the first time Iāve read anything about density criteria was at this threadā¦
No - thatās not true
I can assure you that every new association, since the time that Brian has already described, which has had the potential to be a P100 association, has been advised of this even if they didnāt ask. Just look at the number of P100 associations in the US flat lands. Any that we believed did not have the potential but have requested P100 have also been advised.
You took over a established P150 association. You never questioned whether you might have a P100 association. So why are we going to send out to you what is effectively an irrelevant position statement given that you took over an established P150 association. Would you really expect us to send out information telling you that you can have a P100 association while at the same time telling you canāt because wouldnāt qualify anyway.
Jim G0CQK
It was before I joined but you say you got a ARM template (pattern) and also on Jan 4 2010 you were sent a list of OZ P100 summits. Maybe you received more documents.
You were the OZ AM till Feb 2011 when you introduced Peter OZ1LFI.
In an attempt to inject a bit of humour, and a reality check, these are the āsix phases of a projectā that have been described as:
- Enthusiasm,
- Disillusionment,
- Panic,
- Search for the guilty,
- Punishment of the innocent, and
- Praise and honor for the nonparticipants.
I have to admit to usually stopping at number 2ā¦
Iāve read through a number of the exchanges and, as a simple reader, it seems that thereās a clash between the ārulesā and how the original list of summits was set up.
The issue, as I see it, boils down to the ārulesā saying that summits that do not qualify to a rule that was introduced after the German summits were defined, or else the summits were defined under a qualified relaxation of a rule, should not be allowed.
The contra view seems to be that they were allowed, and some of what is left after applying the āruleā are not either worth activating or are difficult to clear due to local issues.
Since I am a simple soul, and not part of any MT or AM or anything like that, Iād put forward my own points of view to try to help.
Iād say that the original list, given that it was originally authorized, should stand. However, no more summits could be added, or taken away, in future and that the German list would, therefore, be locked.
That this would be only applicable to the German list and that any other country that wanted to add summits would have to apply by the P150 rules (whatever they are - sorry it seems a bit arbitrary to me, but hey, like I say, Iām a simple soul.)
Oh, and if a summit had to be transferred from the German list to another country list then it had to comply with the P150 laws.
I doubt if this will stop the squabblingā¦ Sorry, debate on the rights and wrongs of the rules, but we know from the debates about DXCC and which places do, or do not, count that even within Amateur Radio we are not free from political debates.
The only other options, from what I see of this thread are either 1. The German group leaves SOTA or 2. Some compromise is reached.
I hope that compromise will be reached.
3 Likes
Well I did say 4d and 140+/- posts ago that I agreed that Germany need special treatment but nobody noticed.
2 Likes
Dear Jim,
I donāt expect anything unusual.
I was told that Iāve already be given the docs related to association procedures.
I would like to say thag if there is some sort of rules concerning this, they could be at AMās disposal. Iāve already mentioned the āneed to knowā policy as badly appliabled to SOTA, IMHOā¦
I can give some examples about some surprises I had when I gave a list of possible new and āerasableā summits to IƱaki then EA2 AM, but I think this is not the proper place to discuss this. I feel sometimes as being considered of some kind of, I donāt know how to describe it exactlyā¦ spies, intruders,ā¦ trying to do something suspiciousā¦
Could it be so strange my aim of knowing the rules that rule SOTA, even while not being apliables at this time/ this place, while trying to work to make it go forward?
These kind of answers make me think that a so big structure as SOTA is at the present might not be ruled only by a small group of people, rejecting any kind of participation from the rest of the said 100 associations, almost as a consulting branch.
I beg your pardon in advance as I am convinced that my poor english doesnāt allow me to express my opinions as kindly as I would want. Iāll never want to go against the work done. But as Iāve been reading all these post, I can cleary feel that something might change on the structure for the future of SOTA to be the best. I do not want to leave it, or activate volcanoes, lakes, or springs. I would want to fix this situation.
Just my last words, and I will later keep quiet.
For instance, and imaging an unreal situation, which of you people on the forum would think that if EA2 association ask for a Pā¦ lets say P58 rule, and this would be rejected after being voted for all AMs representing all nowadays SOTA associations, would be so many complaints as now has been being? How many of you think that all the problem is just a P100 or P150 issue?
Iāll not say anything else, thanks for reading, and sorry if anybody has felt attacked or offended.
2 Likes
Well said. I may have misunderstood but I think there are also parts of the OE list who are also threatened with this cull, they too should be included in the compromise.
Andy,
bet Iām not the only one who did. But I wondered if this was meant ironically.
Maybe you can put it in more detailed words?
Ahoi,
Pom
Good point. We can probably compromise on needing 4 QSOs, operating from a vehicle and needing to be in the activation zone too. I mean, theyāre only rules that a bunch of unelected dictatorial buffoons have enforced on everyone.
1 Like
Have you studied the OE summits? If you really have done then you would see the number of summits with less that 50m prominence and some down to zero prominence. It would take some time to list them all but here are just a few VB-059 zero prominence, VB-029 max 25m, VB-036 zero, VB-008 max 47m
Thereās a saying somewhere about sarcasm and wit, Iām sure someone will remember it.
I think the better saying about sarcasm is ādonāt confuse it with ironyā
That may be true when you look at the current situation but you donāt seem to have realized that we rectified this by cancelling these summits in the the update proposal we have already submitted:
478 summits are currently valid in the VB region, out of which OE proposed the removal of 198 summits as they were far below P100 (for whatever reason I canāt say because that happened long before my time).
From the remaining 280 summits only about 90 will pass P150!!
And these are the mountains Herbert OE9HRV is talking about! Just look at the high number of summits that have never been activated in that regionā¦
73, Sylvia