Wanted to do a bit of analysis for trip planning. I was going to look at the API, but the summitslist.csv is fine for what I want to do at this time. I grabbed a copy from https://www.sotadata.org.uk/summitslist.csv
I was a bit amused to see that the association name for W6 listings is simply USA. I see that’s the case for some of the other W associations as well, but not all.
This won’t be a problem for me, but figured it was worth a mention. It’s hard to argue it’s worth the bother to tidy up.
The first 4 US associations were W1, W2, W3 and W6. The associations encompassed the same area as the call area. Then we started on associations such as W7 which was one association to start with but was split into individual states as the number of summits was large. Also Europe had a big advantage in the awards as there were lots of associations to chase compared to a massive W7 association. So it was split into states sized chunks to give people more associations to chase.
W7 new associations got names like W7W - Washington to help people understand W7W in relation to the W7 call area. But W6 has never been split so its name has never needed to be more than W6. It could be W6 - California, USA but what would we call W1 which is several states?
Maybe ‘USA - W6’ for W6 and ‘USA - W1’ for W1? Better than ‘USA’. I did peek at the cover page for the W6 ARM and it would suggest ‘USA (W6)’.
Nitpicky I know, but the exceptionally high quality of all that SOTA data sets a high bar, no?
And, yes, there may be a cost or downstream impact of doing a name change. I don’t need it, but noticed and figured I’d ask about it. Historical background does explain why it is the way it is a bit. Tnx.