p100/p150

Summit Info
369

I was asking for the initial post, where SD 2000 was introduced as criterion for P100/P150 14 hours ago. Still neither @MM0FMF nor @G8ADD were able to post a link up to now.
As I have just learnt issuing an ultimatum is the preferred way of discussion in SOTA administration I will do so:
In case no member of the MT is able to publish a link until today, 18:00 UTC the MT agrees to the following statement:

Implementation of the SD 2000 rule has neither been pubilished in the SOTA reflector nor in any official SOTA documentation.

2nd point:
Still I have not received the the documents explaining how to set up an association. As the MT wants me to convert DM to P150 I think really require this information. Otherwise there may occur errors like in 2003 and 2008, again.

73 de Michael, DB7MM - DM association manager

2 Likes
370

I sample territory, not hills, Brian.
I think it would be a good idea to adapt an area size that is used to calculate SD on the basis of the terrain complexity, not only to average the whole association.

Tom wrote something similar above.

Now I have to cook lunch.

Karel

371

The policy hasn’t changed. I made a reply to Rod who asked about this about 200 posts back. Threads which get heated are suspended and restarted such as this one has. It allows people to cool off and consider that they should attack the premise of an argument not the person.

You can search the archives back a long time, we had them imported when we switched to this software.

372

Ufffffffffff,
after very carefully climbing around summit “p100/150-Topic” the outlook seems extremely miserable deep in the woods. Outlook so far showed:

MT decided to get completely even standards across the world - seemingly at any prize (Andy mentioning at least twice like “I could shut infrastructure down and do something else” - unhappy state of discussion which of course always requires two :frowning:
MT of course can simply do what they want - like it is up to their perception to see critics only as “vocal minority” which may or may not be the case.

Dispute so fierce that even good arguments get somewhat insulting replies: “Granny-stopper” against Sylvia’s very sound remark about some/many then remaining p150-ies in OE never been activated due to alpine climbing requirements for me is beyond, hmmm (don’t want to get banned), “friendly discussion” :wink:

Prominence may IMHO very well be contested in its defining power. I have the impression - which may be contested, too, - that it may more easily fit to G-geography than to other regions. Even with p150 I would feel a striking inconsistency between i.e. DM and DL/OE - so IMHO prominence is much overrated (that said beyond the actual DM-/OE-debate and not promoting inflation of 20m-“summits”) - especially when the much more striking inconsistency remains untouched: Point values regardless of “drive-in”-possibility, association differences etc. Of course it is more than difficult to judge them - but there seem to be double standards about the importance of consistency of criterias.

Densitiy of summits averaged over an association made me - sorry - laugh, best illuminated by Karel’s example of giraffes’ distribution in G. Everday hams define their SOTA-life by driving radiuses and necessary time investment based on their QTHs not by “associations” which in real life and geography are simply artificial. If one looks at the many hams besides “power activators” the simple formula rules: How many SOTA-summits are in a distance possible with the given QTH and radius fitting to everyday-life.

As easy as this.
The fewer summits the more you have to rely on “power-activators”. Those will be interested more in multiple short activations reducing the number of QSOs.

So it is up to the MT to balance things out - which IMHO goes far beyond the question of worldwide even criterias.

It is like a hamradio contest has to balance the interests and needs of important big guns and evenly important medium and small guns. What is the ultimate goal: To have score lists as equal and just or promoting as much of the desired kind of activity (without taking out any challenge and also accepting restrictions by geography like when in IOTA…)?

As a “DM” I’m of course biased and therefore not to be taken much into account. I have no goat in the race and tried only to hand out as many Qs as possible especially from rarer summits. But SOTA is not the center of my ham life so portable activities will shift when reachable SOTA-summits disappear.

Thanks for reading and 73,
Chris DL8MBS

3 Likes
373

You are skating on very thin ice, here, not because of your opinions but because of the language that you use to express them. Besides being a little short on politeness you are very wrong in your ideas. This thread would most definately NOT have been closed three months ago, it isn’t even the first time that there has been a debate about prominence. I do not exclude people for their opinions, I never have done, I never will do. I believe in the right to think, to question, to criticise. I only exclude people for disruptive behaviour, for breaking our simple rules of participation. I see the anarchy and prevalence of ad hominem arguments on the major sites such as eHam or the Zed and I am determined that this reflector will be a civilised place by comparison. Civilised behaviour does not include accusing the MT of living in the 17th century, although being part of the “Enlightenment” can’t be all bad.

Since you bring up your so-called “free expression” group, it may be noted that it seems to work the opposite way around to this reflector. Here we exclude people for repeatedly flouting our Acceptable Use Policy. There you prevent people from joining if you don’t like their opinions. Free expression? Only if your face fits. Frankly, its a bit of a sick joke, and that is a shame because in many ways it is a great idea.

Now to return to the point. If you have opinions, express them, but don’t use them as a hook to hang insults on or you will find yourself excluded.

Brian

374

Hello all…

[quote=“MM0FMF, post:352, topic:10456”]
In 2009 when the first 3600+ summits were removed and DM created people were saying things like “it’s the death knell for SOTA in Germany” and a German ham said “if this happens I will quit SOTA” etc. It wasn’t the end, activity figures show DM is very busy with chasing and activating, it’s there with the busiest associations. The guy who said he’d quit, he’s done 250+ activations since and chased 7800+ summits since writing that. Just imagine what he’d have achieved if he hadn’t quit SOTA.

Ok Andy…let´s start with this…
Because SOTA is no democracy, it´s useless to say anything more about this theme.
I will delete my complete log (chaser and activator) today. I will be on SOTA-summits in the future but will call CQ-GMA, and upload the log only to the GMA-Database. Thanks to the regular chaser for all the QSO´s and i hope to hear you also in the future under the changed conditions.
Over and out!

best 73 de Tom
DL1DVE

375

It will easier if I do it for you. I’ll do it after lunch if I don’t hear from you.

376

This is probably a case of not understanding the idiom. Amongst hill walkers in this country “Granny Stopper” is an expression that has been in use for many decades to describe a step in a path or a part of a path that is a great deal more difficult than the rest of it, it is not used in a pejorative sense, it is just part of the vocabulary. Much more to the point I gave the UIAA grade for the route.

Brian

377

I’m sure you have some … but if you take a look at the topography of Vorarlberg (OE/VB) you will realize that there is a huge difference between G/GW/GM and VB.

About 100 summits will stay in the VB-list, but most of them cannot be activated by normal hikers because of terrain, difficulty and snow … not even during summer!

378

OK Andy…please do this…

Thanks
DL1DVE

379

Tom, it’s a shame to see you leave SOTA.

Thanks for all the contacts over the last 3 years.

73
Victor GI4ONL

1 Like
380

That is yet no answer to the OE-argument that they have real alpine summits now excluded when p150 comes into real existence.

May I quote from a fresh post of OE5REO:
“In the south of OE/OO we will loose a summit (OE/OO-015) with an “hiking elevation gain” of 1100m just because there is an (unwalkable) ridge to the next higher summit (OE/OO-011).”

With all due respect: Can there be a more striking example against the power of taking prominence as the final sword?
Heaven - a summit with 1100m height difference excluded while zillions of SOTA-summits not even have 1100m total height?
I’m nearly ashamed to fellow Austrians to claim points from a region with no summit above 1000m and having to really circle constructing a route with 500m height difference.

Of course criterias are needed - but don’t they have to reflect and represent the basic idea?
I can’t help but to think that one cannot go with bare figures but have to take “soft criterias” into account which derive from local knowledge like that presented with the unwalkable ridge.

73, Chris DL8MBS

2 Likes
381

Hi all
I don’t really believe that white smoke will run out of this discussion due to the different and almost antagonistic positions.
As SOTA database have about 8424 registered users, which visit regularly the site, why don’t you create a polling page so everyone can express their opinion?
Two or three questions like i) I agree with P100 or ii) I agree with P150 or even iii) Let it be like it is now, should be enough to auscultate not only the “handful of vocal complainers” but also the quiet ones that don’t want to express their choices on the reflector.
At the end, I hope, MT would follow the majority even if it is “something different to what it was set up to be”.
Happy Easter to all

3 Likes
382

Do you really imagine that this only happens in OE? It happens everywhere! Why do you think that Scafell, the second highest summit in G/LD, is excluded - one of the great mountains of LD, a quality ascent by anybodies standard, but it only has a prominence of (IIRC) 138 metres. Do you imagine that we don’t regret the loss of that summit? Prominence is our metric and you can’t argue with the figures.

Here is a challenge for you. You devise a shadow SOTA with your own metric. How will you define summits, define in such a way that it will work all over the world, that it gives a simple yes/no answer. It is easy to criticise, but when it comes to suggesting alternatives, real solid ideas are a bit thin on the ground. You don’t like prominence? Right, come up with an alternative, let’s see you do better!

Brian

383

That is a great idea. Constructive feedback.

Jonathan.

2 Likes
384

Sounds like the guest mocking about the menue to get the reply by the cook: “Make it better yourself”…

Btw, I already had a proposal in my post. To rewrite:
“I can’t help but to think that one cannot go with bare figures but have to take “soft criterias” into account which derive from local knowledge like that presented with the unwalkable ridge.”

Of course this is no easy Yes/No-solution based solely on figures and would mean decisive influence of Associations and their judgement.
But common sense very often generates solutions much better fitting to the general idea and goals (which would still allow to cut some but possibly not all p150ies from the list).
The more when we are talking about a hobby.
Of course it is up to you and the MT to decide that simplicity of metrics for yes/no-decisions without human influence and knowledge has to decide. So then no further discussion were necessary with seemingly unwelcome input even if moderate in tone.

But why is it then that you “regret” Scafell being excluded?
Chris, DL8MBS

(Quote G8ADD: “Scafell, the second highest summit in G/LD, is excluded - one of the
great mountains of LD, a quality ascent by anybodies standard, but it
only has a prominence of (IIRC) 138 metres”)

385

This would be one approach to problem solving, but it would also open Pandora’s box, as in future there would be justifiable calls for referendums on lots of issues. It would represent a step change in the nature of SOTA, and the MT would cease to be a group making decisions and providing a free and optional service, and become unpaid employees of the participants, doing their bidding - a far less attractive proposition, I would think, and I doubt whether it would put an end to all argument!

SOTA doesn’t control access to the big outdoors, or the operation of radio equipment, or indeed the existence of challeng/award schemes.

If a significant proportion of the 8,424 participants feel strongly that they want a scheme with different criteria, and in which the participants can vote for change, then there should be plenty of willing volunteers to set one up. The data already gathered locally could be used as a basis (so the effort in gathering it wouldn’t be wasted), and the scheme could run happily alongside SOTA, GMA, and all the others that exist or may exist in future.

I’ll stick with SOTA, but might well participate in others too.

73
Adrian
G4AZS

2 Likes
386

Walt, I think it does say something.
235 members is hardly representative of the SOTA community at large.
There are other FB groups, (that don’t require “free expression” in their title) the largest having over 10 times (2,300) as many members.
They are pleasant and happy places to visit and are not fixated on the internal destruction of the scheme.

The free expression group, on the other hand, (which incidentally I was banned from for free expression :smiley: ) is a dark, vitriolic, deceitful and slanderous place where you must “toe the party line” if you wish to participate. You need to be “vetted” to participate and if you don’t fit the mould the resident troll will be on your back like Quasimodo’s hump.
The aim of it’s founders (not the membership as a whole), AFAICS, is to wreck the scheme by means of “divide and conquer”.
The irony of the FE title is not lost!
Anyway they are planning the introduction of their own breakaway brainchild soon (at which time they will no doubt drop the “sota” from the group title).

All of which is irrelevant to the ongoing debate!
Now back to the main discussion.
Happy Easter to all. :rabbit:
Enjoy.
Pete

5 Likes
387

If you allow subjective criteria as you suggest you still need someone to have a final approval to the selections. Who would that be? Let’s say that it is the MT (just for argument). If the MT disagree with your “soft criteria” selections what then? Does the person proposing get their way? Or is the MT decision final?

If the MT doesn’t finally decide what is in or out then you will descend to anarchy… Association Y says Association X has added summits so we shall propose a new “soft criteria” and add more summits. Then Association Z says “they have more than us we must add more.”

In the end someone decides the criteria. That someone is the MT. If an association does not wish to abide by the rules then it cannot take part.

If you have an objective criteria which can be applied that works everywhere please say what it is. We’ve been working on these criteria since 2009, over 5 years and they have enabled an objective analysis to work over the entire land mass of the USA producing 29810 summits.

When we allowed “decisive influence” in the past we got the situation we have now and that is something being resolved.

388

I’m not sure that the ‘thin-end-of-the-wedge’ argument would actually pan out in practice.

I, personally, doubt that there are many issues that have caused the same amount of interest even on here. You might, actually, find that the majority tend towards the status-quo rather than radical change which, strangely, seems to be what the MT wants to do with the move from one method of measurement to another in this case.