SOTA-summits in Germany (questions)

In reply to DL4FDM:
Hi Fritz…
With this decision SOTA is dead for me…
See you in the GMA…without this P100 rules.

best 73 de Tom DL1DVE

In reply to DL1DVE:
What rules are you having, then?


Brian G8ADD

In reply to DL1DVE:

Here in Belgium for us is the same.

Actually we are not satisfied with the P rules.(P100 and P150)
We understand that there must be rules, but apply then to areas with where have high mountains and not on the low areas countries.

I had asked to work out a program under SOTA for the low countries (ON-PA-DL/RP/DM ect…) where counts all the summits higher than 100 m.(*) However, no action … shame because it was a good thing for us all, it had certainly been possible with an effort and a small change of the rules for the low countries. We will have to bow to the rules, with disastrous consequences.

Now we must drive large distances to reach a ON or DL (RP ect …)summitplaces. So with the result that SOTA will be here at a very low level. We will go on with sota … but at a very low level. Sri it costs us too much money.

It is nice that we have some more in 2009 (Tot:22). Thank you !!!

But, probably we go start with our own program here with the SOTA-group in Belgium, so we can do something here in the neighborhood with no P … rules.

Merry Christmas


(*) Note: Perhaps Luc, but probably not something that would be developed and managed within the existing SOTA programme. Maybe you could try and set something up yourself?

In reply to DL4FDM:

Various factors have delayed the compilation of the new list which will not be ready until sometime in early 2009. However, when it is published, all non-compliant summits will be marked as valid until 31/12/2008. Therefore, anybody considering activating a German summit in 2009 is advised to check with the AM to ensure that the summit will actually be valid. Any inadvertent “activation” of such a summit may initially be accepted by the database, but will be retrospectively removed as invalid when the new summit list is uploaded.

Although the imminent loss of so many summits may cause some dismay, analysis by the MT has revealed that there may be a significant number of qualifying summits which have not yet been listed. In the longer term, then, there will be new German summits available to activate and chase.


With the adjustments and the enforcement of the rules I personally have no problem, even if it is a pity that so many peaks disappear. it will therefore also the activities in minimizing dl. sota is a nice program because it is internationally and not only on a limited arable.

But my real question is: if I am from January to May 2009, a summit where should I do as Activator know whether I am the summit from May after a re-examination will be deleted.
I find that very unclear.

joerg dg0jmb

In reply to DG0JMB:
“But my real question is: if I am from January to May 2009, a summit where should I do as Activator know whether I am the summit from May after a re-examination will be deleted.
I find that very unclear.”

Yes, the present situation is not at all satisfactory, but it is the best we can do at present as the German revision is behind the schedule. Marc has put in a truly heroic effort, working day and night, to review all the German summits in a couple of weeks with his new software, and he has passed on his results so now all we can do is wait for the revision to appear. All we can suggest is that before activating a summit you contact the AM and find out if it will remain on the list or be deleted, nobody wants to waste time activating or chasing a summit only to find a little while later that the summit is deleted. However, I hope that the many new summits that Marc has found will be a compensation for you.


Brian G8ADD

In reply to DG0JMB:


you are right. Tom confirmed that lists are not finalized for Germany. This means that - with MT having the last word- the AMs are in no position to tell us activators with certainty today which summits are to be valid under future rule.

My suggestion would be that the MT corrects their announcement concerning German summits and suggest a more practical proceeding for activators of German summits until the new lists are published - or publishes the lists by Jan 1st.



In reply to G8ADD:


could you give us a glimpse on the ratio of dissapearing vs. new summits?

…and the best the MT could do would be to keep the old lists valid until the new ones are verified and released.



In reply to DF9TS:

I’m sorry, Gerd, I don’t have that information, my laptop is too feeble to run Marc’s data. However, you can be sure that the MT members that were in last night (I was out drinking beer!) have read your comments and you will get a response ASAP.

The date for the deletion of the invalid summits was set several months ago, at that time the MT believed that sufficient time had been allowed. The situation is under constant review (the MT have exchanged about 50 emails on various aspects of the situation in the last few weeks) and I can only say “watch this space!”


Brian G8ADD

In reply to DL4FDM:

Marc used the revised summit list as a basis and checked it with his software, then looked at the maps and found more summits, but the MT does not consider that it is its task to supplant Association Managers; Marcs data was sent to be checked over for possible errors and the AM will decide on what steps to take.

Actually, Fritz, having spent a lot of time checking over G/LD 1:25,000 maps to see what effect a possible change to P100 would have, I can understand what a huge task checking over a whole country can be, its not at all surprising that there might be errors and omissions. It is good that developments in software will make the task easier in future but it will remain a big and time-consuming job.


Brian G8ADD

In reply to DL4FDM:
Hi Fritz

I merely checked the 4,676 summits that were included in the submitted DM and DL ARM’s for P100 prominence. These results are back with the AM’s now.

Although I saw many unlisted P100 summits, I did not include these. As you say, this is the job of the AM.

Vy 73 and Merry Xmas… Marc G0AZS

Marc G0AZS has now completed his detailed mapping analysis of all DM and DL summits. Some summits were found to be still not P100 compliant, many were OK. Of those that are OK some, need the coordinates checking. MT has passed all the results to the DM and DL Association Managers a few days ago.

We hope that the finalised ARMs and Database information will be completed by the Association Managers and sent back to MT ready for the 1st January 2009. If not, then activators need to be aware that not all listed summit refs will be valid, but they can check ahead with the AMs who do now have all the results from Marc. So even if they don’t manage to get the ARMs and spreadsheets finished in time, they will at least be able to advise potential activators whether a summit will be valid in 2009 or not.

Hopefully, the updates will all be ready in time. If not, ask the AM who has the information.


In reply to DL4MFM:
Hi Mario

The GIS analysis was carried out using either 3 arc sec. (second generation void filled) SRTM data for less mountainous regions and 1 arc sec. DEM data (for extra accuracy) in the more mountainous DL regions. Both sets reprojected using UTM projection before analysis.

73 Marc G0AZS

In reply to DL4MFM:
Hi Mario

Actually this is the process I used to check all 4,676 summits:

Analyse DEM data for Germany and make a P100 peak list using GIS SW
Convert to kml and view in Google Earth
Load ARM summits as kml files and compare with above
In case of further map detail being needed, yes I used Radio Mobile Deluxe to make some maps with other features too (contours, roads, vegetation etc).

So yes you are right in that the SRTM data might not give the same absolute elevations as regional survey data, but it seems quite OK for relative comparison which is what we are doing with prominence analysis anyway.

In any case, the 1 arc sec. DEM data I used is based on surveys and not SRTM anyway and should be even closer to the “mapped” values for elevation.

But as stated, the results are in the hands of the AM’s for their review now.

73 Marc G0AZS

Did I miss something? To be honest, I am a bit surprised to find the new summit lists are now additionally being cross-checked by the MT. If I knew that before I wouldn’t have spent multiple! hours to revise the list by myself. The MT could have done it all out of their seat. In conclusion, I am very keen to know for what reason the SOTA programme will be in the need for Association Managers /Regional Managers in the future except of an alibi function perhaps? May I have an explanation please!

73 Bernhard DL4CW

In reply to DL4CW:
Hi Bernhard

Do not worry, we need your great efforts. As I said to Fritz earlier, I merely checked the proposed lists as part of the QC process. The question of what summits that the Association Manager wants to identify, list and propose in an association was, is and should still be the responsibility of the AM (and the regions within).

I have already had some discussion with AM’s wanting to use a similar process and would be happy to share the details with other AM’s (detail off the reflector of course) if they so wish.

73 Marc G0AZS

In reply to G0AZS:

Thank you Marc,

that’s about what Brian wrote before. I should have read the whole thread in detail!

Merry Xmas to all SOTA friends!

73 Bernhard DL4CW

In reply to G0AZS:

Hi MT,

after spending many hours earlier this year to identify non-P100 summits in my region DL/MF

it is an other frustrating experience to learn now that you apply a SW which is doing the same, A FEW DAYS before the deadline expires.

You shall have done that beginning the year, then it would have avoided the work of RMs.

And you start NOW a discussion on some of the summits which don’t comply to the criteria which this SW uses.

Why don’t you create a worldwide P100/150 list with YOUR criteria, all AM & RM work is obviously unnecessary - and clearly avoiding the illusion that RM or AM have any function ?

I take my consequences where to invest my valuable (very small) spare time in future.

73 andy DL2DVE (RM DL/MF)

With respect Andy, it is not the job of the MT to produce the summit lists or the ARM. That is the job of the RMs and AM. Once it is submitted, we on the MT can check it. We can only check it once it has been submitted. The DL and DM lists were submitted last week. That is why we did not begin the checking process earlier in the year.

There should not be different criteria between MT and AM/RM. P100 should mean the same for everybody. There must still be some confusion though, for so many non P100 summits to remain after this year’s updates and reviews.

It has always been the objective to have this all sorted ready for 1/1/09. MT are working very hard, as I’m know are AMs and RMs to achieve this goal. Let us continue, as friends, towards that aim.


In reply to DL2DVE:

Andy, Tom omitted to mention that this software has only very recently become available to the MT, so it could not have been applied at the beginning of the year. Also, once the software has been applied to the task, manual checking still has to be carried out to pick up any errors, glitches etc. until we are convinced that the software is infallible - if ever!


Brian G8ADD

In reply to DL2DVE:
Hi Andy

I hear your concerns BUT I feel I must explain.

Our task was to check proposed summit lists for P100 condition’s when they were provided to the MT a couple of weeks ago. We cannot add the invaluable details that an AM/RM will provide.

Although we can make a list of P100 locations, we do not know the names, the topographic or geographic character to be described for a region and most importantly the AM/RM would know the location, elevation, prominence and hopefully location of saddle that defines the prominence for any summit in their lists. i.e. The detail we need to cross check together after submission…

Like you we value our time and would not have the time to just prepare “lists” with no detail for the whole world and thus the work of the AM/RM in identifying summits and filling in these details is critical.

Rather than feel concerned, if I were you I would feel happier that we all have a set of known selection criteria that we can apply much more consistently now and thus avoid some of the discussions from earlier this year.

This is why I was happy to join the MT and share some of this knowledge. Please feel free to contact me directly if you want to understand in more detail.

73 Merry Xmas es HNY Marc G0AZS