Much of our US Associations summit data comes from http://listsofjohn.com/ and I am pleased that many of our US AMs did not simply “help themselves” but made a contribution to that source site.
I don’t see how HEMA/Summitsbase have helped themselves to SOTA data. HEMA specifically relates to P100 summits that are not Marilyns - after all, it is the HuMPs EXCLUDING Marilyns Award.
Show me how HEMA / Summitsbase / Summitswatch has links to SOTA, other than when Mike set up the scheme he chose to adopt the same activation parameters for the sake of simplicity. Is that a crime?
Thankfully, some of us enjoy both schemes for what they INDIVIDUALLY offer.
Hi Gerald
Of course, that’s a fair point you make about the specific HEMA summits! I don’t see any acknowledgement on the site for where the data comes from. The UK Marilyns data used by SOTA in the “home” associations is the copyright of Alan Dawson, Relative Hills of Britain, and used with his permission.
I haven’t looked at the Summitsbase site for a while, but just taking a look now it appears that all the SOTA summit data (Marilyns) has been removed. I can only see HuMPs and Wainwrights on there. When it was there, it was clear to see that it had been lifted directly from SOTA resources, as opposed to sourced directly and independently.
Well Tom has replied that the “helped themselves” data has been removed. Here is a page that listed all the SOTA data that was available from Summitsbase in April 2008
You could descend those links and recover all the SOTA data for those associations along with the watermarks that we embed in our data.
GMA has directly lifted the SOTA data which can be verified by comparing some of the CT3 summits for example. There are some typos in our data and the same errors are visible on GMA. A simple “helping themselves” without asking if we mind or not.
I should add most app authors producing iOS and Android apps have contacted us first seeking our position on them using our data in producing apps for SOTA. Not surprisingly when we are consulted up front we are happy to work with people. It’s only when you see all your hard work on someone else’s website and they didn’t ask if it was OK to use it that you get a nasty taste in your mouth.
I’d add a bit to that comment Andy.
It’s only when you see all you hard work on someone else’s website and they didn’t ask if it was OK to use it and then that ‘someone else’, or people associated with that website complain and criticise that you get a nasty taste in your mouth.
2 Likes
True, those people say whatever we do is wrong but our hard work is ok for them to “help themselves” to for free. There’s a word that we use to describe that… hypocrite.
Back it off a bit, guys, the AUP is definitely getting a bit bent here.
Brian
Dear Andy,
sorry to step in here, but the General Rules Document S0.1, issue 1.20 from 30-Mar-2015, cleary states on page 22:
“If an Incorporated Association finds itself without an Association Manager for any reason, the responsibility will revert to the Management Team until a new Association Manager can be appointed. In the meantime, any management of that association, such as updating will be undertaken by the Management Team.”
You have posted three days ago in the “Statement on DM Association” that “The MT is sad to announce that the DM Association will be administered from today by the MT.”.
Michael’s statement on QRZ.COM “From July 2014 to 15.04.2015 I was SOTA DM Association Manager. As I refused to implement P150 in DM, the British SOTA Management Team has displaced me from this position.”
Your statement in this thread “Micheal DB7MM specifically did not resign as DM AM and the MT has not replaced him. He is still DM AM.It cannot be any simpler but I can show this in pictures if this will help in anyway?”
So, either Michael or you are lying to the SOTA community. Please clarify.
vy 73 de Robert, DL5RT
1 Like
Robert, Micheal’s statement on QRZ is wrong. He has not been displaced, he is still the AM.
As Micheal has published this elsewhere, here is what he said.
And once more, we have not replaced him or sacked him. He is the DM AM.
Dear Andy,
in that case you are violating your own rules. According to the General Rules, the MT can only take over, if there is no AM. See SOTA General Rules, as referenced in my post above.
Cheers,
Robert
1 Like
Where does it specifically state that? One thing it does say: “Specifically, it [the MT] is
responsible for creating and maintaining the General Rules and for determining the suitability
of proposals made by Associations and approving these.”
The AM has proposed to not change to P150 and the MT has not approved of that proposal.
Brian
WFF is dead now, as far as I know. I am now active at WWFF which has totally different background, nothing to do with SOTA data.
Ruda OK2QA
I would like to register a formal protest at the way in which the P150-issue is being steamrolled through by the MT by ignoring all legitimate objections. It’s degrading and shamefully for the seasoned AM’s and RMs of the association in question.
DF6PW / RM of DM/SR
By example, this one should never be a SOTA summit:
In SP we also had some summits with prominance lower that p150. SP AM and MT just removed these summits about year ago. Did anyone hear our cry? I don’t think so…
Thank you Ruda for that info.
Where did you get your data from, Victor, and have you calculated the summit density that would result from these changes?
Brian