Other SOTA sites: SOTAwatch | SOTA Home | Database | Summits | Video | Photos | Shop | Mapping | FAQs | Facebook | Contact SOTA

UK Association Prominence

Hi All.

I have received 22 emails on this subject since it was raised on 2nd June based on this figure alone there seems to be no strong feeling for a change.

Of the 22 emails 12 were in favour of the Status Quo and 10 were in favour of a change to P100. However some of these emails were follow ups from the same individuals.

There were 8 individuals in favour of the status quo and only 5 for a change to P100.

Several good arguments have been put forward both for and against a change. Most people are aware of them but for clarity I will repeat the main points below.

1 A change to P100 would increase the number and variety of hills.
I agree that this is the case but question why we need more hills when no activator has completed those we have at the moment.

2 A change to P100 would enable people who live in the south more access to the program.
Again I agree with this and it would most certainly benefit me. I can present no hard evidence here but I suspect us “Southern Softies” would soon get fed up with activating bumps and lay byes.
However overall I think this is 1 point in favour of P100

3 A change to P100 would increase access for those of a lesser ability.
Very difficult to argue against this as it would introduce more “easy” summits. However disabled access to the SOTA programme is 100% achievable as a chaser and therefore the programme is already all inclusive.

4 A change to P100 would reduce fuel costs for activators and be more “Green”
I do not believe that this will be the case. Many activators will travel further and burn more fuel to activate the new unique. Those that continue to activate locally may well be tempted to activate several smaller summits and thereby use up more fuel. I am sure that for some the costs will reduce, but I think there would be an overall increase in the carbon footprint.

5 A change to P100 would increase the level of trespass and bring SOTA into disrepute.
I am almost certain that this would be the case. We all know that there have been activations carried out from private property and it is suspected that permission was not obtained on all occasions.
Reducing the prominence level will result in more hills on private property and will most likely result in conflict with landowners.

Perhaps the most compelling point is that of viability. The idea of P100 is to assist where more hills are required to allow for a viable association. The English association is perfectly viable as it stands and the levels of activation remain high. I therefore stand by the old adage of “If it isn’t broke, don’t fix it”

Conclusion.

There has been no new evidence in favour of a change. The number of people looking for change remains relatively small.
Therefore there is no need for change.

73,

James M0ZZO

Hi James,

This is a triple celebrition. In this week I’ve completed my GCSE’s, today’s my brothers birthday and there willbe no humps. Thank you James I’ve been waiting since the summer holidays for this moment.

Jimmy M3EYP

In reply to M0ZZO:

James

Thank you for your measured response to this potentially divisive issue. The title of the thread seems slightly misleading though as I understood the discussion to be about England only.

Understandably, the HUMPS supporters will be disappointed. However, they could easily activate a HUMP tomorrow (or even today if they are quick!) because the Summitsbase lists them all, together with reference numbers.

73

Richard
G3CWI

In reply to G3CWI:

OUCH!

Being a Scot I get annoyed when people mix up UK, GB, British Isles etc. so I can’t think what made me do that. Perhaps I am just averse to writing England?

73,

James M0ZZO

In reply to G3CWI:
I wonder it the 5 voters have been out doing the wota side of things, or are there 5 just chasers who want to boost their score, also when where they last out doing sota ?? Just a thought, steve m0sgb

In reply to M0ZZO:

James, when did this morph into a vote?

As I understand it, you merely asked for new arguments on the P100 question, taking the previously offered arguments “as read”. Since the main arguments had already been offered, it is hardly surprising that few people responded, as they felt that they had no new argument to offer. Lack of new arguments hardly amounts to a quantification of the desire for or against change, does it? Yet as I understand it, you then take the paucity of response as evidence of a lack of interest, and evidence that those in favour of P100 are outnumbered.

I’m sorry, but your conclusion does not convince me.

73

Brian G8ADD

Hi Brian.

It wasn’t a vote. I only stated the number of responses for completeness as I am fairly sure, had I not done so, I would have been asked for the information.

Given that a decision was taken 12 months ago based on the discussion that took place around that time, I felt that requesting new grounds for change was the only way to avoid another circular discussion.

Had there been a serious body of people seeking change, I am sure that something would have been forthcoming.

There are a few people with very strong views on either side of the discussion but the silent are definitely th majority on this occasion.

The only new “evidence” came from the staus quo lobby. This is the argument that, as the association is viable then no change is required.

Overall I feel that nothing has changed in 12 months therefore the decision should be for no change.

73,

James M0ZZO

In reply to M0ZZO:

James,

I would like to say that I am with Brian on this one. I am not not at all convinced by your decision or your reasoning.

Many may be wondering why I as a reasonably prolific activator should be in support of a change to P100 in England. Well, to illustrate where I am coming from (and I have thought a lot about this), I have decided to copy my letter to you as none of the points that you have set out have changed my opinions one iota.

“I write with regards to the possible adoption of P100 instead of P150 in England. I support the adoption of P100 for England as I believe this will encourage SOTA in areas of the country that are currently under-provided for in terms of the number of available summits. Take Devon and Cornwall for example where the number of summits would increase from 7 to 29 and the South Central area which would increase from 13 to 33 summits. You have activated many if not all of these summits and I am sure that you will agree that the addition of summits within these areas would be an enhancement of the programme and a great encouragement to those living in those areas.

I have yet to see a conclusive argument that the amount of effort will be reduced by revision of the prominence parameter from 150m to 100m. Examples can and have been cited proving specific situations, but I remain unconvinced that this would lead to a significant dilution of the awards scheme since the majority of the additional summits would be of a low points value. The inclusion of 210 single point summits and a small number of summits having a higher points value will not suddenly create a rush of activators attaining MG status. Anyway, we are told time and time again that SOTA is personal and non-competitive. If anyone wants to achieve MG status on the current summit-base (and I include myself in this category), then they don’t have to activate any of the P100 summits, but they should not prevent others from wanting to include P100 summits in their tally. To do so is elitist and in my opinion wholly contrary to the spirit of SOTA.

I do not accept that concepts such as “easy” and “serious” should be considered. The grading of a summit is relative to one’s personal situation - SOTA is meant to be a personal challenge. What is easy for one person may well be extremely difficult for another, as I am sure you well know. Furthermore, I do not accept that a change to P100 would affect the character of SOTA in England.

Every activation requires preparation. With more summits it might possibly be easier and quicker to get to a summit, but ascents still have to be made, antennas have to be erected, QSOs made, etc. Besides, there is no evidence of anyone involved in SOTA purposely choosing to activate only those hills that represent the least challenge to them in order to maximise the points gained relative to the effort expended.

Some argue on the grounds of environmental viability. I do not consider this to be an issue that affects the P100 versus P150 argument, though I do accept that as far as possible we have to act responsibly in respect of this issue. Whatever hills there are within the programme, activators will activate them regardless of the distance involved, but we need to apply common sense in respect of how we activate them. For example, ten trips to an area to activate ten summits on ten separate occasions is a total nonsense. We should be looking to economy in respect of our travel arrangements and this goes hand in hand with the cost issue which some have raised. The problem is that in many areas in the southern half of England, potential activators will be put off SOTA as a result of there being insufficient summits within reasonable proximity of each another. Not everyone is able or indeed capable of rushing around 5 or 6 summits spread over several tens of miles such as I do on occasion.

Personally I am happy with the number of summits currently available in the programme since I accept that because of where I live, it is necessary to travel considerable distances to carry out activations. However, I am concerned that the topography of England is such that there are large areas where there is little, if any, opportunity for those living there to participate in the activation aspect of SOTA.

Just one other point – that of access. It has been suggested that P100 includes many private summits with no public access. Regardless of whether this is true or not, we already have summits in the scheme that are on private ground and in respect of at least one of them, Upper Park GW/MW-032, a definite refusal has been issued in writing by the owners. Adequate guidance on access already exists in the General Rules. Summits such as Swinside LD-057 and Myarth SW-035 have already been successfully activated with permission from the owners. I am of the opinion that all P100 summits within England should be included in the programme and selection should not be made on the basis of access, particularly as the situation can change in respect of ownership. This is not done for the current P150 summits, so it should be the same for P100.”

Living as what might be described as “on the edge of SOTA”, I am sorry to see that the opportunity to expand SOTA within England has not been embraced. The issue of whether SOTA is viable or not is totally irrelevant. SOTA will always be viable in the area where the summits are located and there will always be sufficient activators to maintain this. I see this issue purely as a matter of widening the opportunity to participate.

73, Gerald

In reply to M0ZZO:

What a pity the G association has once again refused to allow change on the prominence issue, however if is exactly what I expected. This lack of flexibility seems to be totally at odds with SOTAs own environmental statement. And whilst were at it wheeling out the reason about trespass on private land etc - why not exclude such summits from the scheme full stop. Anyone who thinks p100 will only bring in smaller easier summits want to try tackling Bow Fell from Langdale with a pack full of radios & slabs etc.

“The English association is perfectly viable as it stands and the levels of activation remain high.”

Its nearly 2pm on a Saturday afternoon with perfect activating wx - and we have a total of ONE spot for G. Not what Id describe as a high level of activity. Anyway I`m off down the pub - may or may not be out tomorrow.
73

In reply to G1INK:

Whenever I have been to meetings of the SOTA gang and you have been there Steve, my Dad always used to say there ya go Morgy, thats INKy the most prolific activator in SOTA, my Dad says Gerald OIG is catching you up and doing lots of summits too, well… you used to, but if you guys are the best why dont the bosses at SOTA listen to you when you guys think P100 would be best.
For most people to join SOTA they need local hills to climb, a lot of people dont have the facilitys to drive everywhere in the country to climb a hill, and I cant think how more summits will harm SOTA can you ?

Morgan
M3LMP

In reply to M3LMP:

Morgan

There is no need to worry. Your dad is coming to the rescue with his very own award scheme. It’s called Adventure Radio and he thinks it will be brilliant. I am surprised that he forgot to tell you about it! It’s all here:

http://www.adventureradio.co.uk/

There is also a forum there where you can chat to your mates. You would feel quite at home there I’m sure.

73

Richard
G3CWI

In reply to G3CWI:

That site doesn’t appear to be working Richard.

Andy
MM0FMF

In reply to G3CWI:
Hi Richard.I had a look at that Adventure Radio Site and the next time I went on I was informed that I was BANNED with no explanation.All The Best Geoff G6MZX

In reply to MM0FMF:

That site doesn’t appear to be working Richard.

Hi Andy

Odd; it works here. Have you been banned too?

73

Richard
G3CWI

In reply to G3CWI:

I have done SOTA with my dad for a long time, and I enjoy it, I am not involved with the other hobbies he does apart from shooting.

I may only be 11 years old Richard but I understand and recognise sarcasm, and the old saying that it is the lowest form of whit, and my Dad says it is a pretty low approach and not a good example to set for younger readers of this reflector for you to be like this towards me for no reason. Does Jimmy EYP get told to go and play with his mates elsewhere, or is he not a suspect user. I have never cheated at anything, so treat me properly please.

Morgan
M3LMP

In reply to M3LMP:

I agree with centiments on both the fact that due to enviromental, cost and time reasons more hills need to be available especially down south. I have notice a distinct lack of activity apart from on CW which is great if you have the time to learn it.

For myself and Nathan this isn’t feasable at the moment due to school and other commitments and I’m sure it would be same for others.

For all these reasons I think that more hills the better.

73’s

Brian
M0OYG

In reply to G3CWI:

In reply to M3LMP:

Morgan

There is no need to worry. Your dad is coming to the rescue with his
very own award scheme. It’s called Adventure Radio and he thinks it
will be brilliant. I am surprised that he forgot to tell you about it!
It’s all here:

http://adventureradio.co.uk/

There is also a forum there where you can chat to your mates. You
would feel quite at home there I’m sure.

73

Richard
G3CWI

Richard, I find your comment quite rude considering it is directed at a minor.

You may also want to direct people to the right URL, http://www.adventureradio.co.uk/

Steve

In reply to 2E0KPO:

Steve

Thanks for the URL correction. Firefox adds the www automatically.

I am told that you are the Adventure Radio awards manager - congratulations on that. Is there a timescale for the launch?

73

Richard
G3CWI

In reply to G3CWI:

I guess the launch is… when we are ready…

Steve

In reply to G3CWI:

Have you been banned too?

How can you be banned from a site where one of admins has a signature extolling the virtues of freedom of speech? That would be puerile hypocrisy of galactic proportions.

But sadly it does appear that hypocrisy of galactic propotions is taking place. Using a different IP address get’s me to the registration page.

Andy
MM0FMF