In reply to whoever actually wants to listen:
This is yet another example of thread that, when read by an outsider/newbie, paints SOTA in a bad light. It started off as a very relevent and important thread and decended rapidly. There is absolutely no need for sarcastic, off-topic jibes.
How many times does it have to be said? Please, please, please, please, PLEASE remove this reflector from the Spots/Alerts page and tuck it away so that it can’t do any more harm.
Thanks
M0EAV
In reply to M0ZZO:
I am all for it staying as it is. Why reduce the challenge? Without the challenge the all thing is reduced to something that is probably no longer worth doing.
I remember something a few years ago called hills on the air or some such thing which was set up to work all hills, and how long did that last I worked one hill then it disappeared.
Coming down Fairfield last week I did a couple of Wainrights I was amazed at just what the Wainrights are. The first, Hart Crag was just a rocky mound, the second Hart Sop Above How was an even smaller mound on the path. Do we really want to go down this road.
Just think of Crowborough SE-007. A bench on the side of a main Rd. Do we really want more of these?
In the end if we get P100 I will probably activate them as I go over them on route to the proper summits.
Don’t reduce SOTA to little more than a walking club or I can see its demise,
Roy Hartley G0HDX
In reply to G8ADD:
In reply to MM0FMF:
22 people replied. If those 22 people had new
arguments, pro or con, I find it a surprisingly high figure in view of
how thoroughly the topic has been discussed in the past.
Only 1 person in the pro 100 had something new to say and even that was not strictly speaking in support of a change to prominence. However that activator has asked me not to reveal their identity and I have to respect that.
3 of the pro 150 introduced the new point regarding viability. i.e. as the association is already viable and indeed still vibrant then why change.
No vote has been held.
Thanks for reminding people Brian.
Also there is not a current vote despite postings here which suggest otherwise.
Since I posted my initial response, I have been contacted by 3 activators who are in favour of retaining P150 but do not want to participate on this reflector as they do not like the tone of some responses. I guess there will be people who are pro 100 in the same position.
I would therefore ask people to be wary of counting opinions / statistics based purely on what people post on reflectors wherever they may be.
There was a suggestion that a simple majority vote would resolve this issue. I do not believe this to be the case. I have been involved in a couple of single issue votes in the past, where the proponents for change lost. All that happens is those people continue to campaign for change and ask for another vote. I am not suggesting that this is wrong or that lobbying for change should be discouraged. I am merely pointing out that having a vote may well not resolve the issue.
I note that this thread has diverged in places and would ask people to do their best to stay on topic.
Please continue to discuss the issue though. Despite what people have said, I AM open to persuasion, I just don’t think that there is a strong enough case for change.
73,
James M0ZZO
In reply to M0ZZO:
"i.e. as the association is already viable and indeed still vibrant then why change. "
I`ve just studied the “spots” for the last 48 hours. On a beautiful summer weekend we had 4 activations spotted on Saturday and 6 on Sunday. I cant look at figures for previous years, but I cant help feeling the trend is downwards - hardly the sign of a vibrant association.
73
I activated NP-029 Sharp Haw yesterday and just gave some points away for the contests that were on. Although 2M was quite busy I only worked eight stations on SSB before I lost interest, I didn’t even try FM.
I’m really struggling to find motivation regarding SOTA lately. Too many cracks appearing and large cracks at that too.
73 Chris 2E0FSR
In reply to G1INK:
In reply to M0ZZO:
"i.e. as the association is already viable and indeed still
vibrant then why change. "I`ve just studied the “spots” for the last 48 hours. On a
beautiful summer weekend we had 4 activations spotted on Saturday and
6 on Sunday. I cant look at figures for previous years, but I cant
help feeling the trend is downwards - hardly the sign of a vibrant
association.73
I can’t speak for anyone else, Steve, but I aborted a trip out to our local summit yesterday - it was just too stonkin’ hot!
73
Brian G8ADD
In reply to G0OXV-2:
Yes vote here. I would appreciate some P100 hills too in some class of SOTA association. Scafell would be back in the scheme for instance - a proper mountain and the choice of hills in less bumpy areas of England.
In any form, I think SOTA is very good and makes amateur radio more interesting. David M6WOW
In reply to G8ADD:
“I can’t speak for anyone else, Steve, but I aborted a trip out to our local summit yesterday - it was just too stonkin’ hot!”
Nice diplomatic reply Brian! Personally I can`t think of a better reason to lounge around on a summit with its characteristic cooling breeze. Kinder was a pleasant 14C yesterday morning.
p.s. impressive ground wave contact on 10m.
73
In reply to G1INK:
Yes, about doubled my best tropo distance on 10!
I agree, the summit would have been great, it was the thought of toiling up there…and that lovely pub in Clent village would have tempted me off again all too soon!
73
Brian G8ADD
In reply to G8ADD:
That lovely pub in Clent village…
Brian you have your priorities wrong. You call in there first and then use the activation to walk it off 
73, Gerald
P.S. Being on the MT, can you provide evidence that the P100’s are just a bunch of Crowboroughs? I thought that was a one off. Certainly I’ve not found anything quite like it anywhere else.
Briefly sticking my head above the parapet. I argued for P100 in a private
email to James last year, but didn’t send anything to him this year, since
I felt I didn’t have anything more to add. My arguments have mostly been
covered by others, but on the subject of terrain I was making a particular
case for those areas of open but relatively rolling moorland (e.g.
Northumberland) where P150 summits are relatively sparse.
FWIW (which is probably very little) I am still of the opinion that a
change to P100 would be of benefit for at least some regions,
primarily those where the terrain is such that there is a relatively
low density of P150 summits.
Looking at James’s points 4 and 1 from a purely personal perspective,
I think that P100 would make my activating more green. Since I live so
far from any summits, my activations normally take place as the result
of a visit to an area where I find a base which will then give me
reasonably short journeys to a variety of hills (and I like a variety
so that I can choose a hill based on weather conditions, since my
activation pattern gives me little flexibilty on when to activate).
Despite living in G, most of my activations this year will be in GM or
GW since that’s where I’ve found bases that fit my criteria: had we
had P100 in G, at least one trip would have had a G target.
I understand James’s point 5 about trespass being a concern. I support
Steve (G1INK)'s suggestion that summits not on CROW land or accessible
via PROWs be excluded from the scheme. This might be taken further to
say that only P100 summits which are on CROW land are included: this
would bring in more summits in areas of open countryside, without
adding a lot of the “town” or “drive on” summits.
Ducks head back below parapet.
Caroline M3ZCB
In reply to M0ZZO:
OK then…as this seems to have become an issue of ‘votes’, why not have a formal vote, over a period of time - say a month, advertised on the SOTA front page?
I would suggest a vote would be an email with callsign (has to be SOTA registered) and P100, or P150.
Dead simple!
That should end discussion for good!
Just a thought
Rob (G1TPO)
In reply to M3ZCB:
Many thanks for your post Caroline. Some very well thought and reasoned comments. I particularly agree with your comment in respect of holiday based activations, which for many will be the only opportunity to activate summits outside of the area in which they live. With P100 there would be excellent opportunities to spend a week, two or even three in Devon / Cornwall or Dorset / Somerset.
One thing about P100 that has been raised that I don’t buy into is the trespass issue. The issue has been raised to muddy the waters and is a complete Red Herring. It is totally irrelevant. We already have P150 summits on private land, some of which have been successfully activated with consent, some for which the owners have refused permission. It is likely to be a similar situation for P100 summits - some would be activated with consent, for some consent would not be forthcoming. In the case of all of these summits, P100 and P150 alike, the ownership can change and for that reason alone, it is not logical to exclude summits from the database.
73, Gerald
In reply to G4OIG:
In reply to G8ADD:
That lovely pub in Clent village…
Brian you have your priorities wrong. You call in there first and then
use the activation to walk it off73, Gerald
P.S. Being on the MT, can you provide evidence that the P100’s are
just a bunch of Crowboroughs? I thought that was a one off. Certainly
I’ve not found anything quite like it anywhere else.
Just switched on again as the light show drifts away eastward - I’ll wait a bit before putting the antennas back in the rigs, but a thunderstorm does break the monotony! Anyway, back to the thread de jour!
No, I can’t provide anything more than you would get from a list of HuMPs. Sheer logic dictates that the numerical distribution with height will closely parallel that for Marilyns, but starting at a lower altitude, and no access/too easy road access problems will be concentrated in the lower summits. New summits will appear in all height bands, including (as has been pointed out) the restoration of the Scafell pair. It is as well to recognise that while P100 would provide lots of new summits in the southern part of the country, to the benefit of the most concentrated population areas, it is not going to do a lot for East Anglia, so it is not a cure all! It is also necessary to recognise that in terms of summit density England as a whole is not too badly off, being about a third of the way down the list of Associations, check it out for yourself sometime!
73
Brian G8ADD
In reply to G8ADD:
As a follow on from Brian.
I really didn’t want to get involved in this debate, my earlier posting was an attempt to diffuse a thread that was becoming a ltttle fractious. Unwittingly it unleashed a watershed.
Right just how many extra summits per region ( as it would have to be across the board ) would p100 cause. The only reference to other summits is on the summits base. Not knowing what criteria is used there I looked at one hopeful award scheme which would involve 200+ extra summits. (yes I know there not all P100) just for the Lake district alone.
So if a said list exists can someone publish as a table for each region existing and proposed summits. I don’t need the names just numbers.
Eg
Sp existing = 17 after p100 = 200 etc.
I think a lot of people would be better informed if they know just what .will be involved. Once invoked there is no going back its ok saying there will be more hills in the flatter areas but the lumpy areas have to be considered too.
You also create a mismatch to the rest of the uk, how long will it be before someone moans they have no further challenges there in say Wales?
Oh dear tin hat time…
List anyone as requested above ( no weblinks where I have to register pse).
k.
In reply to G0OXV-2:
PEAKLIST - Prominence lists and maps has lists for many countries and prominence levels.
A rough figure, counted quickly so subject to error, would increase the number of LD hills from 56 to 80-ish. The SB region would go from 8 to 26. NP goes from 30 to 60. TW goes from 5 to 15.
The increase depends on the terrain. SB region seems quite hilly as you drive and walk through it. But it’s not very hilly when measured on P150 and much more so when measure on P100. LD region is well hilly at P150 and not much more so at P100.
Andy
MM0FMF
In reply to MM0FMF:
I just had a quick look at Summitsbase (www.summitsbase.org.uk) and the HuMPs are listed for each SOTA region, except my local region (CE) doesn’t work at present. So, excluding CE, it seems that P100 would give G an extra 241 summits, more than doubling the number. I haven’t bothered to look at the height distribution, it would take too long to do a proper analysis, someone else can have a go.
73
Brian G8ADD
Hi Brian,
CE has 30 humps.
Jimmy M3EYP
In reply to M3EYP:
Thanks Jimmy, great! So, in all G would gain 271 summits to a total of 450.
73
Brian G8ADD
Thanks to all who replied especially Andy for the peak list.
This list is prepared by Alan Dawson.
at a rough count for England P100 will give an extra 264 summits compared to the existing 180 summits giving a grand total of 444.
Is this really what we need ? I think not. despite some interesting summit names.
rgds k.
ps this reflector seems to be playing up… probably all the debate.
