Your protest is noted.
Brian
Tomek, here are the number of recorded activations in SP since 1/Jan/2009.
2009: 30
2010: 42
2011: 195
2012: 465
2013: 754
2014: 831
2015: 937 (predicted*)
The 2015 figure is predicted based on the number of activations logged to 1/MAR/2015 compared with the same period in 2014.
We had very warm winter in 2014 compared to 2015 (we still have snow on SP summits today), so I think your prediction is conserative. As we see, in SP we have costant growth, year by year with p150 summit list and low summit to surface ratio. So implementing strict p150 rule in other assosiations should not stop SOTA growing, in my opinion.
3 Likes
This is precisely the effect of terrain undersampling. Simple SD concept is mathematically weak to make right decisions.
HA … 93030 km^2, so 46 of P150 summits would be enough and no P100 summits need to be added to the list.
Simply resolved, but it could be done better.
Karel
I needed a simple but rigorous yes/no test and came up with the SD concept and a reasonable boundary. You say it could be done better, well my friend, talk is cheap, so tell me how you would do it. Remember the unit isn’t random terrain sampling, it is summits and their prominence.
Brian
Yes, talk is cheap, but the discussion was rather one-sided. What then can be done.
I understand and know that the more sophisticated criterion would mean more work.
Its basic principle has been recently described in the long locked thread. I thought it was clear. I do not dare to say that it is the only right method. I just like both mathematics and topography.
In my opinion, the constant SD should be determined from smaller areas and should not be taken into account only all the association, even though it is relatively small. Your method simply averages the terrain and does not somehow reflect its characteristics.
Terrain with somewhat more complex geomorphology can not be described simply.
Karel
PS: I have to go to chop wood now.
We are not describing terrain as such, the basic unit is the summit as specified by prominence. Summits may be defined simply by prominence, the complexity arises when you need to describe a greater range of features, but for the purpose of SOTA we can ignore other features and look at just the summits. They are absolutely fundamental to SOTA so we have to work with them. The rules permit a smaller area of a large P150 Association to have subsidiary P100, defined by area and percentage, but this is limited because we see the need to avoid Associations getting complicated by becoming mosaics of differing prominence.
Brian
For the point of accuracy. I never mentioned resignation I said “departure of two AM’s - Germany and Spain”.
Mike
HI Brian!
There is a list abt the deleted HA summits on the local SOTA mailing list, that’s my map’s source.
The summit density is not my business, just wanted to visualize your change.
73 Viktor HA5LV
For the point of accuracy Micheal I never said you did.
Viktor, if such a list exists and is accurate in identifying the P150 summits then really we should get on and get HA compliant. There isn’t time to update HA for the 1st May but possibly 1st June is viable. That would give everybody around 13months notice to get out and activate/chase/S2S/complete the summits before they get removed.
Hi Tomek!
Can you explain why? If you have any evidence, please provide, if not please think before accusing without any basic. All the summits in HA SOTA list (except one) meet the former p100 criteria. The summits on picture are EM-043, EM-051, EM-057, and have prominence 308m, 121m and 108m accordingly. Which one do you think “should never be a SOTA summit”?
73!
Janos
2 Likes
Hi Brian!
It’s only a rough estimate, based on computer analysis of DTED level1 terrain elevation data of Hungary.
73!
Janos
Hello Andy, well you introduced the word…resignation ? … then of course then things followed. No more from me but I guess as the cull dates loom there may be some further queries etc.
Mike
PS: Micheal is spelt Michael.
1 Like
OT
Helpful hint #101
Forum software allows you to quote previous posts.
It’s what Forums do.
There is no need to paste screen capture images.
This is not FB 
3 Likes
You’re right, Janos. My mistake. Sorry.
1 Like
Hmmm, an expression involving petards springs to mind at this point.
Hello Brian,
SOTA General Rules, p. 22:
“The Management Team shall appoint an Association Manager for each Association, normally
a resident national, who is responsible for advising on the Programme’s operation in that Association. In particular, the Association Manager creates and maintains the Association Reference Manual for his Association and agrees its contents with the Management Team. 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.”
It is stated clearly that the AM is responsible for the Programme’s operation in that Association. Only in the case that there is no AM for any reason, the responsibility will go back to the MT.
With your above mentioned statement on DM association, you have reverted responsibility back to the MT, which is not possible as long as an AM is in place.
Just my 20 cents…
Robert
Much of the logic expressed in this thread reminds me of the thesis my cat has four legs, indeed all cats have four legs, therefore my dog is a cat because it has four legs. Far too many non sequiturs.
To me, it boils down to a simple question:
Who is responsible for the DM associaton? Still Michael or the MT team?
1 Like