In reply to DF2GN:
the uk-mt sets the “marylins” “prominence” -summit
criteria as a standard to all
other assocs. a summit definition that is made for uk summits !
why they not set also the points per height list as standard to the
countries ? so all is ok and no more discussions about these points.
sure, hard to understand why a summit at example here in DM gives 10
and only a few kilometers away in F or HB9 only counts as 1 point. i
really understand why some activators see there no sense .
so set the uk- hight/points table as standard to all other assocs, as
it with the summit-definitions.
so most F,HB9,DL-summits are 10 pointers, but by the way …why not ??
vy 73 Klaus DF2GN
SOTA originated in the UK and uses the Marilyn list for UK summits because the Marilyn list was conveniently available BUT the prominence value of 150 metres was decided on first. Some other prominence such as 100 metres would have used a different list, such lists are available, we are great at making lists, it seems! The point is that 150 metres also works out to 500 feet which is also a convenient number, many of us older ones still think in feet, and after a long discussion by email amongst a group of enthusiasts the 150 metre prominence was decided on as it represents a worthwhile minimum ascent which is not just only possible for mountaineers. A hill with 150+ metres of prominence stands out amongst all the other hills in the area, it is clearly special. The prominence value is obviously extrapolatable to other countries, the effort in ascending 150 metres is the same everywhere.
The height bands here were set up specifically for UK conditions, our old and worn down mountains don’t reach much over one kilometre in height, but it was realised from the beginning that these height bands would make little sense in the Alps or Pyrenees, for instance, and the height bands were left to be set by each individual association. That is why you get big differences between neighbouring Associations. But there is another thing to bear in mind. The Alps are a clearly defined mountain range, they terminate on the north side in a clearly defined “front”, you can see the sudden change from the eroded “dekken” of the alps to the more gentle scenery of the low lands as you travel from Austria into Bavaria. It would make little sense to impose the same height bands on the young and rugged Alps as on the lower and older hills beyond the Alpine front. How these problems are solved is left to individual Associations, and this is right because there is clearly a difference in style and height between, say, the Bernese Oberland and the Stubai Alps. It is inevitable that the change between the bands for high mountains of the Alpine chain and the lower mountains elsewhere will lead to some odd looking juxtapositions, but we have to try to adapt to the extremes of geography.
As for your final question, Klaus, my own personal answer is that the highest score in points should reward the greatest effort, and to a first approximation height goes with effort, and whilst our highest mountain, Ben Nevis, is 1344 metres, in Bavaria you have busy main roads running through green rolling countryside at that sort of height.
B rian G8ADD