I think the concept of SD statistics is not a good idea. It does not reflect the natural geomorphology of the Association. The only advantage is that its math is simple - but at the same time is not powerful enough. The problem clearly lies in the phenomenon of undersampling.
Based on the SD statistics you could say: 176 giraffes live in UK. Then I have to be careful to not collide with them. In each circuit containing 741 km^2 could be one giraffe. But they are concentrated only in zoos and parks.
I understand that this is extra work, but it would be more apt to consider a more robust âsophisticatedâ criterion than SD is, the principle of which would use a suitable sampling density of the terrain (Association).
This method is often used in topography and often is considered meaningful.
Your argument is a good one Karel, and in fact we do already have elements of what you describe. We have the structures to break a DXCC into two or more associations to address this issue and others. In some cases we even break up states / call areas into multiple associations. We also have the facility to split an association into a P150 area and a P100 area.
There has to be some sense of limit though to just how far we divide down, otherwise every province / county / field (!) could be getting individual consideration.
With over 80 weeks skiing in Eu I can certainly understand the arguments from those there that they will just be left with many many peaks that are inaccessible to the ordinary walker.
my reading of such comments from the MT as:
are just very patronizing.
But most of all I read the messages from the normal people in OE, and DM, (including the association managers), the people I talk to on the radio on a regular basis and they say this will be a big problem in their countries and more, that they have been dealt with in what looks like a rather shoddy way, and I am convinced by what they say.
Many posts ago there were some comments along the lines of âit isnât broken, donât fix itâ, with replies from the MT going on and on about how broken it is and how they absolutely must fix it.
Where is it actually broken? I would say just in the minds of the MT. As far as I can see it seems to have worked quite adequately for the normal punter for quite a few years.
But what do I know, Iâm just a punter, and a fairly recent one to active participation in SOTA at that (do not forget though, I have been licenced since 1976 so am not totally ignorant of this). From what I read the MT will plough on regardless, IMHO I suspect SOTA will be the weaker for it and you may be sowing the seeds of its death (or replacement).
In 2009 when the first 3600+ summits were removed and DM created people were saying things like âitâs the death knell for SOTA in Germanyâ and a German ham said âif this happens I will quit SOTAâ etc. It wasnât the end, activity figures show DM is very busy with chasing and activating, itâs there with the busiest associations. The guy who said heâd quit, heâs done 250+ activations since and chased 7800+ summits since writing that. Just imagine what heâd have achieved if he hadnât quit SOTA.
Well if you base your knowledge on the 0.7% of SOTA participants who have commented in this thread you will get possibly a distorted view. If you base your knowledge on comment elsewhere, say Facebook, where one of the groups is run by someone with an axe to grind because he was permanently excluded from SOTA then you certainly will get a distorted view.
Your opinions do matter. If peopleâs opinions didnât matter there would be little point in any of the MT taking part in this threads like this.
I have no prior affiliations, I just see what I see. As Iâve said before âIâm just in it for the walking and wirelessâ (I doubt Iâll ever be a chaser), but I do have a keen nose for what I see as injustice. Iâm not sure it sits well with me that I perceive a belief that the MT own SOTA. And as for the right to permanently ban people, whoever they may be (?) I cannot see that as a right.
I am not a member of the Facebook group in question but, interestingly, I understand that group now has at least 235 participating members. Does that say anything? I donât know âŚ
Whatever, it does at present look like the MT is creating a rod for their own backs. This is certainly the most contentious issue that has arisen since I first became involved with SOTA some years ago.
Well, weâll find out and maybe then harbingers of doom can say âwe told you soâ and I get my free time back as I donât have to do background running SOTA activities.
I was invited into it, it was good for around 1.5 months. Then the QSL Card spam started flooding in âŚ
so I left.
Respectively though we have to keep the arguments here constructive, taking one-shots at your most hated counterpart is NOT giving a good representation of how friendly SOTA is generally. I would prefer to keep the traditional representing image to new participants. That was the original idea with the Facebook group in question, due to the reflector becoming over righteous and argumentative. Some elements of p100/150 are a prime example of this.
This should be concluded and terminated in 50R as soon as possible, otherwise its going to loom over the top of SOTAWATCH2 like a bad smell reflecting the esoteric attitudes and interests contained within. Designing something via a committee always ends in a trifle.
This could be solved by the respective AMs, Tom. I think it is not necessary to burden MT on this issue. AMs know their country best. Why yearn for excessive uniformity when specific terrains are comparable only within the simple statistics? In addition, it is often said that SOTA is not a competition.
Just follow hamspirit - and know the meaningful and clearly defined conditions.
The denser sampling is the better. AMs know their country not only from the map and digital models.
Just only clear conditions, for example:
The original SOTA idea is P150 and it is respected.
After that:
No P150 (whether difficult to conquer or non-existent) within a radius of X kilometres, then select just one P100 there.
No P150 or P100 (whether difficult to conquer or non-existent) within a radius of N*X kilometres, then select just one P50 there.
Hypothetically, for really large flat area:
No P150 or P100 or P50 (whether difficult to conquer or non-existent) within a radius of MNX kilometres, then select just one dominantly prominent P25 there.
Something on this principle.
Nobody makes money on it fraudulently and specific associations would be more accurately represented in the game.
Itâs just a very first idea. TP could also be part of the scoring (could act as an adding or multiplying factor).
Perhaps it would defuse the present situation if a temporary compromise was agreed.
Cancel immediately, or as soon as possible, (for future activations only) ALL summits everywhere which do not satisfy P100 and accept this as an ongoing worldwide process whenever an anomaly is detected.
Consider changing the disputed P100 areas to P125 and see how that looks as a step towards eventual progression to P150.
I think it worth mentioning again that SOTA is not a democracy; it is a âtake it or leave itâ organization which requires hard work from the volunteers .who run it. It also requires experts in the relevant fields.
If we make life difficult for these people they might just walk away and spend their time enjoying mountain walks or amateur radio instead.
It would be interesting if you would enlarge on your suggestion, Karel. I donât understand from your words exactly what you are proposing. Perhaps you could offer an example - perhaps it would be clearest if you applied your suggested procedure to a difficult Association, such as Ukraine with two relatively small mountain areas and the rest a monotonous plain, but Iâll leave it to you.
You need to ask, who created the bad smell in the first place, Jonathan? It certainly wasnât the âparticipantsâ who make up the vast majority of SOTA, as theyâre not allowed to create anything. This is the 21s century, unfortunately, the MT lives in the seventeenth. Having said this this, the Reflector âappearsâ to be going through a shift towards âglasnostâ something which which seems to have happened since the creation of the Facebook SOTA Free Expression Group. Three months ago, this thread would have been closed after 10 minutes.
I tried to explain more in my previous answer to Tom, Brian. Of course, itâs still a rough idea.
If the country is predominantly uniformly flat, then just one sample, that is, the current SD criterion, is sufficient.
In general, the characteristics of the terrain is better captured by denser sampling and then there are more possibilities to work with.
I donât use the word âbanâ, I use the word âexcludeâ, but that is just semantics.
âBanningâ people from the Reflector is as a result of flouting the Acceptable Use Policy which you can read by clicking on it at the bottom of the Sotawatch page. It is the final resort, if a poster is breaking the rules he gets a warning. If he continues then his access is cut off but will be restored if he makes a simple declaration that he will abide by the AUP. If he offends again he permanently loses access to the reflector.
âBanningâ people from the SOTA Award scheme can happen, has happened, but is very, very, VERY rare. It WILL most definitely happen if somebody is caught cheating. SOTA works on an honour system, if you say you did a valid activation you are believed. If you are actually caught cheating then you bring the whole honour system into doubt. Such people do not have the ârightâ to continue in the program.
You do not see that as a ârightâ, well the program runs by rules and you are expected to follow those rules. There is no point in having rules if there is no penalty for breaking them. If you want an award scheme with that right missing then you will just have to organise it yourself. I will not join it. It will be anarchy.
After reading almost all of the 350 posts here I decided to add my point of view here as well.
Last autumn I helped Sylvia, OE5YYN, to do the review of the OE/OO-region. We mesured almost every single summit with different mapping tools and have eliminated all summits not fulfilling the P150-rule. These changes will be implemented soon (I hope). We will loose about 25% of our summits in OE/OO.
Close to my home-QTH I will loose some of my favourite summits as they do not fulfill the prominence-rule for just a few meters. OE/OO-282 has P145, OE/OO-061 has P140, OE/OO-316 has P135 ⌠I think we found about 30 to 40 other peaks between P120 and P150 in the OE/OO-region alone.
In the south of OE/OO we will loose a summit (OE/OO-015) with an âhiking elevation gainâ of 1100m just because there is an (unwalkable) ridge to the next higher summit (OE/OO-011).
In these cases I believe the P150-rule is ânot exactly the ideal solutionâ.
Now thinking about the topography of OE/VB, OE/TI and OE/SB I can understand that the RMâs of these regions are not too happy about P150.
Its not a democracy Mike, people donât seem to grasp that concept very well. The point in time does not bare any point to democratic attitudes either, but people will try; even if doesnât effect them remotely.
Well one member of the constabulary has created this; wouldnât you agree ?
Interesting point, maybe the MT can confirm if they have become more accepting to open opinion. I donât think your group has been a direct cause of any more allowable intake of opinion on here personally. People forget how easily indexed this reflector is on major search engines, it does need tight control.
You do need to control the Spam though, that is the only reason I left your brainchild. I do agree it felt more relaxed but that was more down to FBâs dynamics; rather then the attitude of the MTâŚ
What I donât understand is what you are sampling, Karel.
The basic unit of SOTA is the summit. A summit is defined for SOTA purposes by its prominence. If I understand you correctly (but this remains to be seen) you are suggesting that prominence is treated as a variable and its value is related in some way to the frequency of undefined summits. This is where an actual worked example would help me understand.
We do have some summits here in the UK that require advanced technical skill and/or equipment to reach them. We do not have a nearby lower point that is easier to access as an extra/alternative reference for each of them. That is not how SOTA is supposed to work.