There are many summits listed in the SOTA summits list that have restricted access. By restricted we mean that you cannot access the land or operate a transmitter without permission.
Not every country allows unfettered access to private land, in many countries you need to obtain permission from the land owner to access the land. Other reasons why you may not be able to access the land are:
military installations
proximity to a national border
religious sensitivies
science installations (radio astronomy)
contaminated land
and as already stated, private land
The SOTA summits lists list every summit that has the required prominence for the association. That’s the only requirement for a summit to appear on the list. A summit will be listed whether anyone can access it or not. The reason for this is the access limits are not permanent but subject to arbitrary change.
For example, a military installation can close, be demolished and access returns. Likewise science installations can change their purpose or close. Private land ownership can change and a new owner may be happy to allow access. In the extremes, contaminated land can be cleaned up and access returned. It’s even possible for borders to move.
If we only listed summits were there was known permission to visit, the summits team would spend their entire time adding or removing summits as the access restrictions changed. This would be extremely wasteful way to run the program. Instead every valid summit is listed and the SOTA rules make it very clear and plain that IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO CHECK YOU CAN LEGALLY VISIT THE SUMMIT. We get regular requests to delete summits because they cannot be accessed. This is not going to happen.
As stated, all valid summits are listed, you have to ensure you can legally visit and operate.
The contaminated land reason may seem extreme but Mount Umunhum W6/CC-052 was originally closed to the public due to waste, contamination and unsafe structures from a former Cold War RADAR station. Over the years there has been significant removal of contaminants and contaminated land and repair or removal of dangerous structures making the site safe to visit. It’s been activated 177 times.
We will continue to list all summits that qualify whether they can be accessed or not. So please make sure you have permission to visit or that access is free before you visit a summit. Or you may end up being stopped by armed soldiers and police and subjected to detailed questioning about your activities like some Polish hams experienced in Norway recently.
It should be added that all this is covered in the General Rules, section 3.7, and though these General Rules are rather voluminous all participants should be familiar with the sections relevent to their participation, activators, chasers, SWLs. The MT has received letters from angry landowners requesting the deletion of “their” summits from our lists, which we have respectfully declined. It is up to them to signpost private land, and up to us to repect such signposts.
In that case, if an activator sneaks into a restricted/protected area without permission and submits a log, how do you verify the violation and remove the log from the system?
Is there any fact finding to validate the claim that it wasn’t a valid activation? There are several summits nearby that aren’t open to the public but activators have managed to get special permission to activate on occasion. For example, W4V/SH-028, not open to the public, has been activated a few times with permission. I, and another activator, got invited up there after meeting one of the community residents on the air during an activation not far away. But, if we had shown up at the gates uninvited and without a local contact, we would have been turned away.
W4V/SH-049 is another that is technically closed but local activators have managed to get permission when they speak to a person with that authority.
Point being, I would hate to see people lose credit for summits they were specifically granted access to without hearing their side of the story first.
I have read and fully understood everything.
Removing difficult activity zones like military facilities or border areas is inefficient. However, the existing data for validly registered SOTA summits is inaccurate, leading people to operate from incorrect locations. To fix this, regional managers need to regularly verify and update the database. Unfortunately, the South Korea SOTA database has not been updated for over a decade, and the regional manager’s activities are currently on hold.
As a result, operators continue to conduct activities and log entries at the wrong locations, which is why I am requesting these corrections to set things right.
Each country’s regional manager holds full authority to edit or delete their respective database.
If members legitimately request corrections but the manager fails to respond, operations will continue at wrong locations.
As this incorrect data accumulates, fixing it in the future will only become increasingly difficult.
Additionally, when a regional manager is too busy with their professional or daily life to process data updates, an assistant manager could be appointed to make modifications and registrations on their behalf. However, South Korea SOTA currently operates under a single-manager system, which causes these ongoing issues.
It is also true that we face difficulties due to a lack of communication between the manager and the members. Ultimately, all members of the South Korea SOTA Club simply hope for the cooperation and understanding of the SOTA Management Team.
Thank you for taking the time to read this long message.
​Sincerely,
Myung-Soo Lee
In more detail, we wait for a complaint (or where we know of the restricted status of a summit) we verify by contacting the activator, and if not satisfied we remove the activation in such a way that it can be restored if proof is forthcoming. We all know that cheating occurs, where we are sure we will (and have!) penalise the cheat. Mainly we are dependent on alert AMs and their assistants. Sometimes it is a direct complaint from the landowner - we really don’t like getting those!
Even after waiting for ten years, it still won’t be fixed. There is no activity in the AM. All I hear is 'wait," so who should I ask for corrections? How long do we have to wait?
Well for a start you do not hijack threads about a different topic!
I can assure you that since the last flurry of posts on the subject things have started to happen. I am not the person to give you details, my responsibility is this reflector, but I can tell you that a team is being assembled and data sources have been identified. As for how long? Well, since it involves an effective re-working of the whole country it won’t be quick, certainly some months, so I’m afraid you will have to be patient and wait for announcements - but several other new Associations in waiting have been pushed back so things will happen as quickly as possible.
In general, I find it unfortunate that these “forbidden” summits can still be activated within the database.
I would like to see them removed—just like summits that fail to meet the topographical criteria (e.g., DM/BM-372)—and perhaps even those where access is regularly restricted on a temporary basis (e.g., FL/VO-079) during that time.
However, I also understand the workload this places on the MT and the reasons for their reluctance to take such action.
Any activation of a restricted summit inevitably leads to others following suit (e.g., FL/VO-156). I find the “no plaintiff, no judge” attitude somewhat problematic in this context.
The very fact that such summits have been activated in the past tempts others to go there—often because the specific requirements for activation were not communicated clearly enough.
I urge anyone who activates such summits due to special circumstances (such as soldiers with specific access rights, or biologists/geologists with special permits) to document this on the respective summit pages. This ensures everyone can see that it was a highly specialized activation and not something feasible for just anyone!