Why are you asking Matt? He’s not on the MT.
I was mistaken about it, but my questions are based on answers being given to me.
Would you be so kind as to give me your opinion on this?
Karel
My opinion is the same as I said 2 days ago viz. if you are at all serious then use the link “Contact SOTA” at the top of the page to contact the MT and you can start a dialogue about what you want to do. More importantly, the workload for all involved can be reviewed and assigned so that it fits in with all other work being done on new associations and other reviews by the MT.
I’m serious and I do the same for the Czech tourist maps or the GMA program. Just my hobby.
Moreover, it would be only a few hills, I don’t have much time or desire to travel far because of it.
I couldn’t insert pictures or anything into SOTA contact form. Now all is described above.
I’ll send a message, but I don’t know how to describe it all again.
Karel
I think my post made it clear enough. It is now time for you to contact the MT directly. It’s no use posting here. Sorry if I gave the impression I was on the MT, I’m not, I was commenting on the actions of the MT, which seem clear enough to me.
73 Matt
The point that you are missing, Karel, is that this is not the place to conduct a dialogue with the MT. On the open reflector anyone can join in and bring in any irrelevancies that they wish, and if the discussion is long then the 100 post limit may be an inconvenience.
You don’t need to describe it all over again, just open a dialogue with the MT, who have already been discussing the matter between themselves on a private reflector and who have some interesting technical suggestions.
Just based on what you described there? No - it just looks like you updated a webpage. But Brian’s post above gives you some idea of what would be needed to see:
- Accurate measurement and location of summit point.
- Accurate measurement and location of the col height.
- Proper explanation of how you’ve come to the point to describe both as being “accurate”, including methodology, intermediate calculations, upper bound on accuracy, datums used, etc.
Simon mentioned the Relative Hills of Britain surveys in other threads. These multi-page reports going into a lot of detail, and we’d expect similar from someone doing this for fun.
When I was in the army, I was a topographer and I drew maps. An old experienced bearded captain taught me a lot and I still enjoy it. But he didn’t teach me to write multi-page reports.
Why? I measure and find the position and altitude of the highest point on the summit or ridge, nothing more. Basic data taken from trig database and LIDAR altimetry. No P calculations. I do it mainly for tourist maps. Just my hobby.
It was my offer, not my request.
So I take it you’re not interested only in a more accurate summit’s altitude and position.
In addition, without multi-page reports going into a lot of detail.
For existing summits, sure, but again you need to demonstrate how you reached that conclusion, otherwise how can we tell if you are actually telling the truth and not just saying, “Hey this summit is 5 metres higher”?
If you want to restore other summits for the list, then you need to show us the prominence. That means measuring col and summit. I think we have made it abundantly clear that prominence is the only criteria we care about.
Note too that if you show us a big difference in summit height it probably also calls into question the accuracy of the col height too, in which case if the summit is 5 metres higher, you probably want to make sure the col height isn’t 7 metres higher, turning a P151 into a P149 and inadvertently losing another summit in the process.
If you have LIDAR data, share the LIDAR data.
Nope. Your conclusion is wrong.
Please read my first post again and very carefully. Imagine the topographic situation on the summit under consideration. Then try to think a bit deeper about my post number seven (@VK3ARR … looks like you updated a webpage.)
Once again: The highest point of the summit was never measured. The trig point may not ever be the highest point. The LIDAR cannot penetrate anything, again, please read carefully my first and seventh post to understand the real situation.
LIDAR altimetry is made publicly accessible. Very accurate, but maybe in Czech only:
All your points about the summit height and topography/forest cover/location of the trig could equally apply to the col height too.
My point remains. We care about the prominence. Update the summit heights if you want, but if you want to get a summit listed in SOTA, you need to prove it has a prominence of 150m. To do that more accurately than what we have now, you are going to have to measure the col height and the summit height.
We seem to be going in circles here. If you want to survey summits, go for it. If you want to change the SOTA lists, prove to us that the prominence is >= P150. The latter requires col height and summit height measurements and some description of your methodology so we can evaluate it.
Basic logic:
If P is going to be > 150 m, because the summit’s altitude is higher than expected, based on the same assumptions the col’s altitude could be only LOWER.
So P > 150 m
But if you don’t know what the col height is, how can you say it’s P150? You need to measure the col height. If you’re sending in data, it’s your responsibility to prove it’s P150, not ours.
You’ve now been presented with a bunch of requirements on what we want to see and all you’ve done is tell us why we’re wrong. OK, fine, you don’t have to agree with us. We also don’t have to list summits you haven’t proved to the required standard to have a P of 150m.
You have the standard we require. All this arguing does is destroy any goodwill we have towards your efforts.
Thanks for the LIDAR link Karel.
It was an offer to specify the altitude of some summits, nothing more.
Here I am not interested in the P, as I do it for tourist mapping in our country primarily.
And the SOTA program is only interested in P. There is your problem I think.
73 de Matt
1 Like
Why? I don’t understand. I have no problem with this. I like SOTA program with its P and I’m still loyal to it.
But I’m not interested in measuring the col’s altitude at the moment. So only the measured summit’s altitude was offered.
You want it all and …
Maybe other time.
73 Karel
You’re welcome Simon.