In reply to G0OXV-2:
Having just got back from a weeks activating in the lakes
I would like to say i am in favour of keeping P150
Regarding activty this weekend we had to cancel our proposed activation of High Stile due to
bad weather low cloud and very heavy showers on Sat (we were traveling back on Sun)
We activate most of the summits we do by public transport so there are already green ways of
taking part in Sota
i note the points being raised about summits that are on private property and agree these should not be included regardless of being P100 or P150
The MT has discussed this matter of summits on private property several times.
The fact is that ALL land is owned. It isn’t a matter of whether the land is owned, it is a matter of whether there is access. Access arrangements can change, the hills don’t. Hills that are inaccessible now may become accessible tomorrow. There are over 3,000 summits in the UK, so keeping track of access is not an easy task, but it makes more sense to do that than to delist hills that may at any time become accessible again.
I’m pleased the MT have discussed the access issue. Having the full list is certainly the only logical option. After all, once I’ve blagged my way into Lord XXXX’s pheasant shooting party and have got pally with him, perhaps he’ll let me activate that well known off-limits summit near Welshpool. Then again, I’m not into pheasant shooting, so that’s a non-starter
Anyway, in respect of another aspect of the discussion, it is interesting to see that the number of summits in England has been put forward as a reason for maintaining the status quo. I just wonder whether anyone thinks that 1214 summits are too many in the Scottish Association when the geographical area is considered and bearing in mind that there are considerably fewer activators there? No, of course not. So why complain about the prospect of an increase in English summits to a lower density than in Scotland?
You don’t have to aim to hit the pheasants, Gerald (or was that a mis-spelling of peasants?)
The number of summits in the various UK Associations was never decided on the basis of how many summits is the right number of summits. The prominence parameter was chosen and geography then dictated the number of summits. P150 was chosen for several reasons: a well-maintained list was available, P150 made a good round number in Imperial units, too (you may think that is irrelevant today, but the USA Associations do their measuring in feet, and P100 does not make a convenient round number in feet!) and then there is the psychological factor, 150 meters of prominence looks a lot more prominent than 100 metres!
What a lot of people are afraid of, is that if P100 is adopted for G, it isn’t going to be long before the more prolific activators work their way through the supply of P100 summits, and as sure as eggs is eggs, somebody is going to start making noises about P50, and we will go through this whole sorry rigmarole all over again! There are also some active participants that say that P100 Associations are second-rate Associations, though I think most of us would not subscribe to that view.
I sometimes muse on the possibility of a two-tier system, an elite Sota at P150 and a more mundane tier at P100, but the trouble with that is that it would reinforce this viewpoint that the P100 Associations are inferior - it would probably make SOTA more competitive, too.
One GM remarked the other day that if people in the south want more summits, they should move north - I wish!
“What a lot of people are afraid of, is that if P100 is adopted for G, it isn’t going to be long before the more prolific activators work their way through the supply of P100 summits, and as sure as eggs is eggs, somebody is going to start making noises about P50, and we will go through this whole sorry rigmarole all over again!”
Brian - nobody has managed this feat with only 180 summits in 7 years. By my reckoning if we do get the 444 or so p100s, we wont have to worry about your fear for at least 18 or 19 years by which time Ill be sat in an old peoples home wondering who dressed me today.
One GM remarked the other day that if people in the south want more summits, >> they should move north - I wish!
…But there are over 90 GM SOTA Summits that lie at a more southerly latitude than the most northern summit of the G association so you don’t have to go very far.
73
jim
I have been really surprised and quite amazed about your statement:
“I sometimes muse on the possibility of a two-tier system, an elite Sota at P150 and a more mundane tier at P100, but the trouble with that is that it would reinforce this viewpoint that the P100 Associations are inferior - it would probably make SOTA more competitive, too.”
I would like to invite you (and others who say that P100 Associations are second-rate Associations) to cross the Jubiläumsgrat between Alpspitze and Zugspitze. There are a couple of summits having P100, and I will see you activating them. How about going for a nice morning stroll along the ridge and picking up 10 pointers, guys?
Yes, we are a “mundane” P100 Association, but nobody does go into the Alps and activate these “mundane” summits. Anyway, we are happy that we made use of P100 instead P150, otherwise we would have lost dozens of beautiful summits and kept just ones for hard core climbers.
I am sorry to say that, but such kind of thinking shows just the arrogance and impossibility to finally grasp that the prominence is not the decisive criteria to be an “elite” or a “mundane tier” association.
Which bit of “the trouble with that is that it would reinforce this viewpoint that the P100 Associations are inferior” are you not understanding Dzianis?
You are too ready to take offence, Dzianis, I did not say that I myself thought P100 Associations were second rate, nor do I think it. Having been to the Alps in Switzerland and Austria (but not, alas, Germany) I’m well aware of the challenge that they offer to the keen mountaineer.
Prominence may not be the decisive criteria to be elite in the Alps, but we do not have any alpine ridges to traverse in England, and this discussion is about the English Association.
My remarks about two tiers have to be taken ONLY in the context of the G Association.
Well, there are 23 people with more than 180 uniques activated, so the feat was not impossible, was it? People just chose differently.
Look, Steve, I’ve got you, Norby and Dzianis all cutting up on me, and for what? Telling you what OTHER people are afraid of! Take a deep breath, and realise that you will not get anywhere in this debate unless you stop being prickly and settle down to trying to persuade people.
Brian - I am not “cutting up” on you. I merely quoted your words, said I disagreed with them, then offered my reasons why. This is called healthy debate in my book.
As a pro p100 person I wouldnt want "neutrals" in this debate to be swayed by nonsensical reasoning without offering a counter argument - which is all I did. Norby did exactly the same as me - you stated if we have p100 then people would start screaming for p50. Well the DM association & others do have p100 but Ive not heard the shouts that they want p50 - maybe you know different.
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.
To use the same principle as used by Keith, would it be fair to say that with over 1200 summits available in the GM association that they need to apply P250 to “thin them down” as there are obviously too many summits per the amount of GM activators available. That would level the ammount of uk summits out per association.
Barry 2E0PXW
P.S. I have read many well thought out and sensible valid reasons for a change to P100 but not one single good reasoned arguement against.
Steve, I think it’s a foregone conclusion that once you reduce the prominence for some of the reasons suggested (increased viability, greeness etc.) that there will be people asking for a another reduction in 4 or 5 years time. Or if not a reduction, some other criteria such as multiple activations of the same summit per year.
Those people may not be anyone of the people currently in support of P100, but there will be requests to extend the number of hills.
I know that I’m not the only person to think this as it has been mentioned by some others possibly in previous threads.
Andy, no one is asking for a rule change here and that is the main point. There is just a request to apply what already exists within the rules and within other associations already. The rules already cover any further requests for prominence of less than P100 so that problem can’t arise.
Barry 2E0PXW
P.S. for someone who expressed that all was well in GM and as such did not want involving in G assosiation affairs, you are adding a fair amount of input of your opinion.
Brian, Andy, look, we have P100 in the SOTA Association and we support GMA, i.e. you can activate any alpine stone having a name and any hill around Munich. But nobody is running around and activating these stones and hills. Why???
I suppose, a similar situation will arise in UK, if you launch an additional association with P100 and/or Pxxx, splitting your current association in two tiers.
I understand, there is a discussion about the G-Association, but I have been quite scared that you were going to propagate these ideas among all SOTA associations In my view, P100/P150 or Pxxx is completely depending on the topography of the particular association, but you’d better choose one!
My own feeling is that the P100 suggestion has been hotly debated by a small number of people. A look at the database shows 340-odd activators in the G Association, with 126 with scores of 50+. Since most of these people have expressed no opinion, one has to assume that there is no groundswell of support for a change. I would suggest that the debate is becoming sterile and we ought to put it to bed before it becomes acrimonious.
My own feeling is that the P100 suggestion has been hotly debated by a
small number of people. A look at the database shows 340-odd
activators in the G Association, with 126 with scores of 50+. Since
most of these people have expressed no opinion, one has to assume that
there is no groundswell of support for a change. I would suggest that
the debate is becoming sterile and we ought to put it to bed before it
becomes acrimonious.
73
Brian G8ADD
Brian, the lack of interest as you call it was most certainly brought about by James M0ZZO’s opening gambit which basically, in a wave of his wand, discounted all previous reasons for change. A bit like a school master dismissing his children. Start afresh, put it to an open vote on the Reflector and let the true picture emerge. It seems that when logic prevails, you put up the usual shout of “time to put this to bed”.
In my view, P100/P150 or Pxxx is completely depending on the topography of the particular association, but you’d better choose one!