In reply to M1EYP:
.perfect Tom, in addition
look at regional hiking Forums
e.g. for OE:
www.gipfeltreffen.at
www.bergfex.at
e.g. for GM:
www.walkinghighlands co.uk
look at national SOTA-forum
e.g. for S5
forum.sota.si
and if there is no info, do your own
“Expedition” - experience and success is 50 percent
of each activation- hi!
73 de Chris, OE3CHC
In reply to GM4TOE:
Is that the Trail magazine which graded the Lairig Ghru as an easy
winter walk??(For those who don’t know the Cairngorms - this is a serious long
distance walk in summer with some difficulties; in winter it is a
full-on arctic expedition with very deep snow, low temperatures and
avalanche probabilities. No shelter either except in one refuge and
one bothy)
Ahh Barry - that just goes to prove my earlier comment about subjectivity. Actually my comment was aimed more at the explanation for their ratings, which I felt were good for a beginner, rather than their accuracy.
Like Tom I tend to do so much research before I activate a summit (I’m sure many would say too much), I have a pretty fair idea before I go. In LD for example I will read up on my summit on maybe a dozen photographic walking blogs along with Google images, Google earth, Street view and those resources suggested by Tom. Sometimes I’ll find 5 people saying easy and then 1 person mentions something that sounds an alarm and I’ll research that point maybe in the forums. As a result, when I go on a walk, it usually seems quite familiar (in good visibility). I never rely on one resource but I know plenty of people who are confident enough to just look at the map and go. If Barry’s system comes to fruition it will be in addition to not instead of my existing research.
Thanks for clarifying.
73
Karen
I have no plans to grade each SOTA summit in England with this grading system that is proposed by Brian G8ADD. As I work full time, I feel that I do not have the time to grade each G SOTA summit with “WALK-IN”, “APPROACH TERRAIN”, “TYPE OF ASCENT”, “NAVIGATION” and “SUMMIT CONDITIONS” in the G ARM.
Jimmy M0HGY
G - Association Manager
In reply to M0HGY:
I have no plans to grade each SOTA summit in England
I had the distinct impression that Brian was planning to do it for you Jimmy. I can quite understand why you would not wish to do it.
73 Richard G3CWI
In reply to the thread:
Lets take some of these points in order:
First, Les G3VQO, a good suggestion, Les, worth thinking about but a problem comes with it! There is mention of car parks in the first digit and I hesitated over that for a long time as car parking facilities are subject to change without notice - and the same goes for access. I have tried to minimise the “upkeep” of the system, but an access digit would indeed be useful.
Ian, G7ADF: this system is intended to be an “at a glance” first step in selecting a summit to activate, giving a rough idea of what to expect. The data and resources that you suggest is more useful when you have selected your summit and are starting to look seriously at the map. Naismith, though, is no more than a very approximate rule of thumb, moderated by the conditions underfoot, the weather, the condition and state of mind of the climber, and so on.
Karen, 2E0XYL, OT, really, but I found Tryfan by the south col actually harder than the North Ridge. There is one hiatus on the North Ridge, a trench and short wall, that looks a lot harder than it is once you stop looking and start moving, otherwise you can more or less go around every apparent difficulty! And I WAS a climber: reaching my seventies and a touch of Menieres has slowed me down a little!
Eric KU6J, interesting point, but many of our walk-ins over here are just that, vehicles forbidden: my third example with the 27 mile round trip would be on foot or partly by mountain bike. I think that the sort of information that you list belongs properly on the Resources section of the summit page.
Richard and Karen, I looked at various systems, particularly the two main ones used in the Alps, before coming up with this one that is designed to be as SOTA-friendly as possible. This brings me to Tom, M1EYP. I agree with you, Tom. The way I would use the grading system is to compare the gradings for the various summits in an area that I was going to visit, select some likely prospects, then research them in accordance with your reply - though good luck with finding anything in the resources section for the majority of GM summits - the Scots guard their secrets closely, the SMC guides are a little more forthcoming!
This brings us to the old 64-dollar question: who does the work and where should it be kept? I suppose over the years I have climbed nearly all of the 2 point+ summits of England and Wales, and a reasonable selection in GM for somebody who has never ticked lists! I could set up a website to refer to the elements of the grading system and put a suggested grade for each summit in mainland UK in the resources section. The point of starting this thread was to firstly see if suggestions would be forthcoming to refine the system, and secondly to see if enough people would find the idea useful to justify the work. Further afield, though, it would have to be up to volunteers to step up to the plate, I wouldn’t care to grade summits that I have never set foot on or can not talk to other people who have done so.
73
Brian G8ADD
though good luck with finding anything in the resources section for the majority of GM summits - the Scots guard their secrets closely, the SMC guides are a little more forthcoming…
A salient point. If the information is not available, who comes up with a grading and how do they do it?
If the information is available - then it’s available and why do we need a grading system? If the information is not available - then how do we determine a grade?
From a safety point of view, I would rather people took responsibility and did their own research anyway, rather than any impression be given that the SOTA web resources could provide the definitive assessment of each mountain.
Tom M1EYP
Having considered the grading proposal for some twenty-four hours now, I believe it is a non-starter for a number of good reasons.
The sheer size of the task is daunting. Splitting the summit list into chunks will make the task easier, if there are sufficient suitable volunteers, but that leads to an inconsistent scheme of marking across the board. Such variation will, in turn, cause difficulties because somebody who has achieved a 12321 in Association A without difficulty may be falsely encouraged to attempt a 12321 in another Association which is of a totally different degree of difficulty.
There is also the issue of potential liability. If somebody injures themselves, or worse, on a summit graded 11111, there could be repercussions in any subsequent legal action against SOTA as a whole, or the “reviewer” individually, as the victim’s lawyer seeks to show it should have been a 22222 at least.
The outline proposal from Brian is, as is so often the case, noticeably UK-centric. The world and its topography do not always conform to the “rules” as applicable to a small group of islands off the west coast of Europe. In the British Isles there are very few un-activated summits. Elsewhere there are thousands that are not only not SOTA-activated but are as yet unconquered.
I think that the bottom line is that SOTA should not embark on a task which is constantly expanding due to new Associations, is of limited utility to the suggested end-user, and diverts resources away from more valuable and achievable objectives (FAQs anyone?).
73 de Les, G3VQO
In reply to G3VQO:
…I think that I can see where this is going.
In reply to G3VQO:
I think you have missed the point that this grading system does not directly measure difficulty, it is not analogous to either the adjectival or technical grading of a rock climb. Instead it maps out the conditions of the ascent: distance to the start of the climb, type of terrain on the walk-in, type of ascent, the type of terrain on the summit - and the one more directly adjectival grading refers solely to how much attention you need to pay to navigation - and it cannot be too strongly emphasised that if you can’t navigate you should not be on a hill. Thus in your example a 22222 is not harder than a 11111, it is just a different set of conditions. Even where scrambling or rock climbing is mentioned, there is no technical grading as such: scrambling, you need to put hand to rock, rock climbing you need a rope and protection. The rest is up to you. Not that I have heard of any court cases arising out of the grading of rock climbs, where the potential for disaster is so much greater.
Given the above I don’t think that the system is all that UK-centric, at worst there might be the need for expanding the number of digits: Approach Terrain 6, beware of bears, Type of Ascent 6, oxygen masks needed, for instance.
Finally, this is not a task for SOTA, it is a task for willing individuals for the benefit of SOTA, something like the mapping project. No “resources” would be diverted - and as I pointed out in another thread, the FAQs are done and just await the availability of operator time to insert the file. I’m not a computer man myself, I have to find other ways to serve the community, like compiling the FAQ file!
73
Brian
In reply to G8ADD:
Hi Brian, I think it is good idea. But I think, it will be difficult for all activators, to evaluate the same way hardness of the reaching summit. Maybe will be better use something easier. For example horizontal and vertical distance on the trail. This values are detectable from the map or GPS navigation. For example: Additional point will be 0.1 pts/km long and 0.005 pts/m high. I will start my SOTA trip to the OK/JC-024 from my cottage and horizontal distance will be 10 km and elevation 400 m. I get 10 * 0.1 + 400 * 0.005 = 3 additional points. My friend chooses other way and get 2 km long and 100 m high. His additional points will be 2 * 0.1 + 100 * 0.005 = 0.3 additional points for the same summit.
In reply to M1EYP:
Here’s my “summit rating system”:
+1 for this approach.
Especially item 2.
Maybe because I’m a mountain person first and a radio amateur second.
73
Gerald
MW0WML
In reply to G8ADD:
Finally, this is not a task for SOTA, it is a task for willing
individuals for the benefit of SOTA…
This reflector already exists, activators often choose to post reports on summits, and it is impressively searchable.
I wonder, then, if your proposed grading system could be used as an enhancement, rather than a new standalone resource?
eg within a report, the author could include some or all of the categories that you suggest - perhaps at the end of a much more descriptive and entertaining passage.
Then, if I’m wanting suggestions for, say, a Scottish summit with an easy walk in, I could search the Reflector for GM + “walk-in 1”
(I would of course research a chosen summit much more before setting foot on it, as others point out)
That would involve very little extra work for anyone. All it needs is an agreement on the key words etc.
Adrian
G4AZS
In reply to G4AZS:
All it needs is
an agreement on the key words etc.
They could even be in the FAQ 
In reply to G3CWI:
Where’s the FAQ?
73
Gerald
MW0WML
In reply to MW0WML:
In reply to G3CWI:
Where’s the FAQ?
That’s an FAQ.
In reply to G3CWI:
Bada boom…
G
In reply to G8ADD:
I can see you have spent a long time thinking about this Brian.
But as others have said, “grading” walks is a nightmare.
Most I know of really just do two things.
Think I’d stick to the minimum. The easiest way for people to pick a hill would be on the timing piece and check the description to see if there was anything “special” to think about such as narrow or steep sections.
I can’t stress too much that I think the key thing is people should consult a map AND KNOW HOW TO INTERPRET IT. I don’t care if it is paper or electronic, but is does need to be a proper topographical representation like the UK ones from the OS (1:50K or 1:25K), the French IGN, Swisstopo for Switzerland or the US Geological Survey.
Edit: although, I will concede there are summits that this is not necessary, where the walk in is just a few minutes or where there is clearly no chance of any hazard as the “summit” is not really a “hill” or “mountain”.
73
Gerald
MW0WML
In reply to M1EYP:
Here’s my “summit rating system”:
Hi Tom,
You have all this information for example at http://www.camptocamp.org/ . But that does not exclude of having a “summit rating system”, which I would see as a complementary information to all the other necessary data.
73, Jaakko OH7BF/F5VGL
In reply to G8ADD:
Hi Brian,
number of views corresponds to the number of contributors. My opinion is a bit romantic.
Almost all in the countries around us is described, not only in the maps, but also in the tourist guides. A real discovery is already scarce. If I had not seen the Pyramids in Giza, I would know much about them - until it offended my imagination - from: The Great Pyramid consists of an estimated 2.3 million limestone blocks… etc.
Simply, I really like reading and studying maps and thinking about possible ways.
In addition, better than biased information is no information…
Therefore, I would have tried to ignore proposed grading.
73!, Karel
OK2BWB
In reply to G8ADD:
though good luck with finding anything in the resources section for the majority of GM summits - the Scots guard their secrets closely, the SMC guides are a little more forthcoming!
Here’s a hint Brian, there’s this big American company that’s been indexing all the web based data for the last 10 years. They’ve got this really cool context sensitive search system that can be uncannily magic at reading your intentions.
There seems little point regurgitating all that into yet another database. The real value is putting extra info in our database such as recent access restrictions.
Andy
MM0FMF