BTW Mike, if you have the figures for Jan/Feb 2008 against Jan/Feb 2009, for worldwide, for UK and for G, then please share them on here. I would be very interested to see them (and it would save me a job hi!).
Tom
In reply to thread:
Going back to Cat Bells, a fine hill which I did over the weekend, but as said, it wouldn’t even make the HuMP list. High Spy on my map looks remarkably close to being a Marilyn, it can only miss by a few metres and would be worthy of Marc’s attention: if we could annexe it to SOTA it would make a terrific addition to Dale Head and Robinson!
73
Brian G8ADD
In reply to M1EYP:
BTW Mike, if you have the figures for Jan/Feb 2008 against Jan/Feb
2009, for worldwide, for UK and for G, then please share them on here.
I would be very interested to see them (and it would save me a job
hi!).Tom
You should be able to accomplish that without my help.
Mike
In reply to G8ADD:
High Spy on my map looks remarkably close to being a Marilyn, it can only miss by a few metres
Yes Brian… High Spy is the parent of Cat Bells and misses being a Marilyn by 2 meters actually. It has a prominence of 148m. I don’t think the RHB folks have a plan to survey but I’ll look into it for you 
73 Marc G0AZS
In reply to G0AZS:
Its worth it, Marc, 2 metres when the tolerance is +/- 3 metres!
73
Brian G8ADD
You should be able to accomplish that without my help.
Indeed. But if you have already done the calculations, there’s no point me redoing them. Or were you going off a hunch?
At present, I have no plans to collect the figures for monthly comparison 2008/2009 G activators, but may do so later in the year. But if you have them Mike, I will certainly take a look at them.
Cheers,
Tom M1EYP
In reply to M1EYP:
The data might be used in my news, so I don’t wish to go public with it as yet. I’m sure you will sort your own set of figures out, in fact, it will be interesting and fun to see how both sets of figures compare when you do.
Mike
In reply to GW0DSP:
In reply to M1EYP:
The data might be used in my news
You’re such a tease Mike! The only way that I can see for you to get your data is to examine all 613 activators logs for 2008 individually and then compare them with all the activators logs for 2009 (most will be common of course). That’s impressive work.
…unless you subscribe to the Vic Reeves school of statistics of course:
Just a minute, chaps.
Haven’t we just had the coldest winter for 20 years? Certainly in this part of the country we have been more interested in getting to work on icy ungritted roads than playing radio. Don’t you think that might just distort the results a bit?
On a happier note, last weekend was super and a foretaste of good activating weather to come - and with good radio conditions on 2m as well. What more could you want?
73, Richard
In reply to G4ERP:
In my case, Richard, a radio that worked on the summit would have been a real treat!
73
Brian G8ADD
There some great hills out there that are not in
the SOTA programme, but any idea of not walking up them because you
won’t get any SOTA points seems weird!
True, but then why have SOTA in the first place? Anyone can take a radio up a hill with them, as I have done for years.
But if they are not SOTA summits, you can’t publish that you will be activating them here, and most chasers won’t be interested in trying to contact you while you are there, so a lot of the incentive will be lost.
I remember a wonderful walk taking in Cat Bells in my youth… one of
my first in The Lakes. However, even as a Hump, Cat Bells would not
qualify as it is parented by High Spy.
I’m glad someone mentioned Cat Bells, as that was one of the fells I was thinking of when I started this thread. I’m sorry to learn that it would fail to qualify even under the modified 100m rule that some have suggested.
I’m looking at this from the point of view of a newbie who is interested in starting to participate in this. And what I saw is that many of the LD summits are a full days outing for people with a fairly high level of fitness, whilst a lot of other well known fells that could be activated by people with less time and energy to spend are not included. And bear in mind that most radio amateurs are well past the first flush of youth and fitness.
I seem to have started a war over “dumbing down.” Unfortunately the arguments against it start to look to me a bit like the arguments you see all over the place against no-code and foundation licenses by people who would prefer to remain part of an elite club rather than encourage wider participation.
To G3CWI
Aren’t I just, I have had a good teacher, you taught me well master.
To G4ERP
The snow only lasted for one week in the UK, but it didn’t effect every country involved in the SOTA scheme, in fact most of mainland Europe are used to activating in the snow, it’s only the UK who seem to go into shock and close down.
To G8ADD
I think you are jinxed Brian, hi, better luck next time mate.
To G4ILO
Well done Sir, basically, you have accurately weighed up the situation in a few emails.
Mike GW0DSP
In reply to G4ILO:
I seem to have started a war over “dumbing down.”
Unfortunately the arguments against it start to look to me a bit like
the arguments you see all over the place against no-code and
foundation licenses by people who would prefer to remain part of an
elite club rather than encourage wider participation.
No, you didn’t start it, it has been grumbling in the background for a year or so!
When you look at it, the arguments for changing SOTA are on a par with arguments for changing the definition of countries (or “entities”) in DXCC, or Islands in IOTA. Yes, the definition could be changed, but is there any overall advantage in doing so?
The arguments against are nothing whatsoever to do with elitism in the perjorative sense that you seem to have intended. A hill with 150 metres of prominence is a more distinct and dominating eminence than a hill with 100 metres of prominence; in an area like the Lake District with many hundreds of named summits, there is a relatively small elite of summits with a prominence of at least 150 metres. This summit list is derived from RHB, which is a well-maintained and regularly updated reference. The fear is that reducing the prominence requirement will result in less significant hills being included at all heights. “Dumbing Down” was perhaps not the best way of expressing this fear, since as an instance adopting P100 would permit the inclusion of Scafell Pike, which in many ways is not a mountain for the faint-hearted! A fear that is also well-founded is that permitting P100 would bring in a significant number of minor summits which are technically inaccessible due to being private property, and the inevitable trespassing would bring SOTA into disrepute - and trespass IS inevitable because it has already happened under P150 although there are very few such private hills under P150. The argument that more hills would become available for activation by the less physically capable amateurs is superficially attractive, but note that it would increase the numbers of hills at all levels of difficulty, so that no overall gain would occur.
The truth is that the arguments for and against a change to P100 for the G Association are very finely balanced. The Association Manager has indicated that he will re-examine the issue in the Summer, and I think you will agree that it would be much more sensible to offer rational arguments, pro or con, at the proper time rather than indulge in emotional and perjorative arguments at this time. The AM will be intent on the unenviable task of deciding whether the advantages of change outweigh the disadvantages of change, and emotional arguments on either side will not make this task easier.
73
Brian G8ADD
In reply to GW0DSP:
Well done Sir, basically, you have accurately weighed up the situation
in a few emails.
Thank you! However I don’t really have a strong opinion about changing the whole SOTA programme. Whilst I can see some logic in adopting the same criteria for defining a summit as other European programmes, this would not address my specific issue in that many well-known Lake District fells would still be excluded.
What I would be in strong support of is a programme that included all the Wainwright fells. Could not SOTA support standalone regional sub-programmes, in addition to the existing system? Scafell Pike could be LD-001 and also LDW-001 in a second database of Wainwright fells, which people could activate and chase for a separate award? I’m sure this would be popular with people with only VHF capability who find it difficult to work summits that are much further afield, as well as the many who visit the area. Although I’m using the Lake District as an example, I presume that similar schemes could be used in other parts of the country.
Obviously there is nothing to stop any individual from going ahead and setting up a “Wainwrights On The Air” website and issuing awards and so forth. But SOTA is already well known and has this excellent website geared exactly to this type of activity, so it would be far better if my suggestion of regional schemes with a greater number of summits could be implemented within the existing SOTA framework.
In reply to G8ADD:
Surely your argument against a change to P100 is actually an argument against using any rule-based method of determining what is or is not a summit, which is that it will include things you would rather were not included, and exclude things that would be nice if they were included.
As I stated in my last post, I have no strong view over changing the existing programme, and certainly take your point of comparing this to a change in the DXCC or IOTA rules as being very valid.
So does my idea of introducing regional sub-programmes for areas like the Lake District have any merit, and would there be any practical difficulties in implementing it?
In reply to G4ILO:
Let us be clear on one thing, I personally favour a change to P100 and have made this clear in numerous posts. What I tried to do was remove a discussion about rule changes from the field of emotional argument to the field of rational argument.
A program of this sort must be based on a consistant set of rules. “Nice” and “rather not” are not expressions that have any place in such a set of rules, they would lead to rules being specially tailored to include or exclude certain specific summits, whereas the rules of SOTA were engineered to be pretty well universally applicable everywhere in the world.
What is taking place here is NOT an argument about the rules of SOTA, it is about how the Association Manager applies the rules within the discretion allowed in those rules. As such it is not at this time a matter for the MT, who are concerned with wider matters, it is a matter for the AM who must show that any change is for the benefit of the Association, and in a matter of this kind where there is no question of the rules not being properly applied, any member of the MT may express a personal opinion as a participant in SOTA if they so wish.
With regard to local award schemes, they are indeed permitted under the rules of SOTA, and would be set up and administered by the AM and his team, not by the MT. I would urge you to make any suggestions for local schemes to the relevant AM.
73
Brian G8ADD
(small edit applied to clarify point)
In reply to G4ILO:
The scheme was born with the Marylins list as it’s summits list. To be fair, the concept was a brilliant idea and still is. My opinion is that times have changed but SOTA hasn’t changed as much as it could do to move into 2009. There are green issues involved these days, activators have to travel huge distances to find new summits unique to them, there is a credit crunch and expensive fuel costs incurred in traveling those huge distances. With the exception of a few drive on summits, the scheme excludes the unfit and the disabled.
P100 is in force in mainland EU countries and is “available” to the UK in theory, in practice it is not available due to the proccess required to obtain it, this has to go through two stages.
Any proposed changes to the scheme regarding the Wainwright Lakeland Fells that fall below P100 will never happen irrespective of adding additional references to them. The Wainwright Lakeland Fells above P100 have a very slight chance of being included, but don’t hold your breath.
Mike
GW0DSP
In reply to GW0DSP:
I see nothing in the rules to exclude summits with a prominence of less than P100 from a purely local or even purely national scheme, although the question has not arisen as yet due to an apparent lack of appetite for the setting up of such a restricted scheme. As an instance, a scheme could be set up based on the summits described in Wainrights lovely little volumes, or more widely, perhaps on the more restricted lists of summits described in the various Poucher books. Such a scheme could follow all the rules of SOTA but with the prominence rule set aside in favour of a “from such-and-such book/s” list. This would fall under the supervision of the appropriate AMs who would no doubt recruit teams of helpers to prepare and run the schemes.
73
Brian G8ADD
In reply to G8ADD:
In reply to G4ILO:
A fear that is also well-founded is that permitting
P100 would bring in a significant number of minor summits which are
technically inaccessible due to being private property, and the
inevitable trespassing would bring SOTA into disrepute - and trespass
IS inevitable because it has already happened under P150 although
there are very few such private hills under P150.
73
Brian G8ADD
I don’t see how you can justifiably use the trespass argument when such summits on private property already exist in the current SOTA summits list.
It should surely be a case of removing such summits from the current database if the private land argument is to be used, you can’t use the private land argument to discredit summits of less than P150 when already ignoring it for summits which are P150. We can’t have our cake and eat it too.
73
Mike GW0DSP