In reply to M1EYP:
All current summits in G can be accessed - either by ROW, permitted
path, or by successful requesting and gaining permission.Tom M1EYP
As could those below P150 using the very same guidelines.
Mike GW0DSP
PS the current SOTA summits list is based purely on Marylin status, not accessibility issues.
In reply to G8ADD:
“A hill with 150 metres of prominence is a more distinct and dominating eminence than a hill with 100 metres of prominence;”
I know you would support p100 Brian, but I dont think the likes of Bishop Wilton Wold etc are “more distinct and dominating” than for example Bow Fell or even (the Matterhorn of the Peak District) Shutlinsloe.
In reply to M1EYP
“All current summits in G can be accessed - either by ROW, permitted path, or by successful requesting and gaining permission.”
Come on Tom - every square inch of the UK can be accessed with the owners permission so your reasoning seems a bit superfluous.
ps just had a good farmers breakfast & real ale in the Assembly Rooms.
73
In reply to GW0DSP:
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.
It also makes participation more difficult for people who live in flat parts of the country. Many years ago I used to live in Essex, which certainly has hills, though probably few or none of more than 150m (or even 100m) prominence. Allowing regional schemes with a more flexible definition of what “counts” would enable even places like that to have some form of participation. The definition could be as simple as summits that have a trig point on them, or a name with “hill” in it.
I’m just seeing this as a potential activity for getting people out of doors and having fun with radio, a bit like geocaching is for GPS users. It does not actually need to be done under the auspices of SOTA - a local club could run it or even an enthusiastic individual - but there is an obvious synergy, plus SOTA is already a well established name and even more importantly you already have the necessary software.
In reply to G4ILO:
In reply to GW0DSP:
It does not actually need to be done under the auspices of SOTA
- a local club could run it or even an enthusiastic individual - but
there is an obvious synergy, plus SOTA is already a well established
name and even more importantly you already have the necessary
software.
There’s your answer in a nutshell, SOTA already has the software, especially the database where scores are tallied. If other schemes had a database for scoring tallies, they might be as successful as SOTA. SOTA is not competetive, yeah right! hi, but it is the scoring system which holds most peoples interest.
Mike GW0DSP
Just because SOTA already has the database, tables and the spotting/alerting system, does not mean that it should be compelled to include new aspects of portable activity that it currently does not cover.
We all know that James will look at it again in June, and that nothing will happen before then, so we might as well wait. At present, this is an emotive, but ultimately pointless debate.
Last time, a clear majority expressed a preference of retaining P150 in G, and it would not surprise me if the same happened again. There isn’t actually that many different people calling for a change.
Anyway, what of the rumours of an English “franchise” of the GMA to include the smaller hills people want? Is there anything coming of that? Also, the summit database on Summitsbase.org.uk includes all the HuMPs and Wainwrights, so they can all already be activated for the Summits Knowledgebase S2S award. Whatever happens here in June, there’s nothing to stop anyone activating a Wainwright - as part of a recognised amateur radio awards programme - now.
Furthermore, it would demonstrate interest in doing so, if you believe the interest is there. Why not give it a go? I might even take a wander up Shutlingsloe or The Roaches and try for some S2S to add to my Summitsbase S2S awards.
But I think that the balance in G SOTA is perfect, and am one of the many that would prefer to see its parameters unchanged.
Tom M1EYP
In reply to M1EYP:
I think that the balance in G SOTA is imperfect, and am one of the many that would prefer to see its parameters changed.
73
In reply to G1INK:
So am I
In reply to M1EYP:
Clearly SOTA cannot be compelled to do anything it doesn’t want to. However the fact that it has a name that most people interested in taking up summit chasing will know, plus a site with facilities to publicize summits that are being activated and record contacts, makes it a much better choice as a focal point for any other summit-chasing activity than some other third party site. You actually helped prove my point, as I had never heard of the Summitsbase site until you mentioned it, and having been there it appears to lack the facilities SOTA has that I mentioned. Also, the S2S award appears at the moment to only count contacts between SOTA summits.
If I’m going to take a radio up Cat Bells then I can’t advertise that fact on SOTAwatch, since it isn’t a SOTA summit, and there is nowhere else I know of where this fact could be published for interested chasers. And as anyone who has taken a radio up on the fells knows, if you are relying on people happening to be listening at the time, you can often come down again having made no contacts. The point of becoming involved in SOTA for me was to provide a focal point to the activity that made me actually do it.
The site you directed me to contained a link to a site containing details of “easier SOTA summits”. So there is clearly a demand for the sort of thing I am suggesting, even if not apparently from active participants of this reflector.
So the question is whether SOTA is interested in promoting an easier and more accessible form of summit chasing? The existing scheme need not be changed in any way. I’m really not interested in that argument. What I am proposing could be run as an addition to the existing programme.
My feeling at this point is that the best solution instead of discussing it here would be to just go off and create my own “Wainwrights On The Air” programme. The only thing stopping me right now is the knowledge that it would take more than just a static web page giving the rules and list of summits, and I don’t have the skills to develop it. Plus I hoped to spend more time out doors and on the radio, instead of finding yet another excuse to sit in front of the computer. 
In reply to M1EYP:
Last time, a clear majority expressed a preference of retaining P150
in G, and it would not surprise me if the same happened again. There
isn’t actually that many different people calling for a change.
Sorry Tom the figures are open to debate just as 24/24 same person?
Anyway, what of the rumours of an English “franchise” of the
GMA to include the smaller hills people want? Is there anything
coming of that? Also, the summit database on Summitsbase.org.uk
includes all the HuMPs and Wainwrights, so they can all already be
activated for the Summits Knowledgebase S2S award. Whatever happens
here in June, there’s nothing to stop anyone activating a Wainwright -
as part of a recognised amateur radio awards programme - now.
GMA could easily rival and overtake SOTA as it includes all recognised summits - not much DM/DL SOTA activation now is there?
But I think that the balance in G SOTA is perfect, and am one of the
many that would prefer to see its parameters unchanged.
Perfection, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
Tom M1EYP
Tom
I love SOTA but it is increasingly becoming obvious from the tone of MT postings that whatever a vote says, and I’m very dubious that this can be verified without a totally independent adjudicator, any change will be vetoed (as is their right within the rules) by the MT.
Roger G4OWG
In reply to G4ILO:
Hi Julian
You can debate this issue openly without fear of “rocking the boat” at http://www.sotaforum.co.uk/sotaforum/index.php then hit the chat button. You will need to register, using your callsign as your username.
We are all sota participant on that forum. By all means carry on on the reflector but tread carefully!
Mike
GW0DSP
Quote-I take the view, that any ‘dumbing down’ of an existing, well conceived and managed scheme would be a mistake. Each to his own, I suppose!-unquote
I agree with Frank G3RMD that if we had Humps it would dumb down a well managed hobby. Humps could encourage people to trespass on to private land and it would bring more summits you can drive to the top of. Most of the top activators are against humps and I’m against Humps.
Jimmy M3EYP
In reply to M3EYP:
Sorry about this Jimmy, you know I have plenty of respect for you and how you conduct yourself in SOTA, and you are also entitled to your opinion but your comments above are absolute rubbish and unfounded and untrue.
Explain to me and the rest of us how humps would encourage trespass, this I gotta hear.
You say that humps would bring more summits that you can drive to the top of, are there some you can do this on now ? and why would that matter if you participate in SOTA as long as you stick to the rules, I hope you are not condoning cheating or casting aspersions about others cheating, needless to say you could also be discriminating against those who would love to take part but cannot due to their physical condition, but would be able to take part if they could drive some part of the way and continue on foot for the final ascent, do you want these people to be excluded ?
THE most prolific activator G1INK, our dear friend INK’y is for humps, as well as quite a few of the others, including me (allbeit not prolific) but I could become prolific if there were some smaller hills I could take my family out on and operate at the same time.
Is SOTA an elitist pursuit ?
If there is going to be a vote like your Dad says, will it be a public vote with an element of transparency, or a covert masonic ding dong that was done in secret without any proof or evidence? The last time this so called vote was done there was a different majority of activators, many new people have come on board since and are FOR humps !!
There was a poll run on http://www.sotaforum.co.uk it is still running actually and the evidence there is public and transarent and it tells a different story to the one you have been reading Jimmy.
remember guys SOTA as we know it today is governed by the “our way or the highway” rules, that will never change, never ever ever until the day the MT are democratically elected and serve the people that participate rather than polish their own ego’s.
Lee
M0LMP
I’ve not really had any great thoughts on this discussion before, however, I have read this current thread with interest and the previous discussion on this topic.
‘I love SOTA but it is increasingly becoming obvious from the tone of MT postings that whatever a vote says, and I’m very dubious that this can be verified without a totally independent adjudicator, any change will be vetoed (as is their right within the rules) by the MT.’
I’m sorry but I also have to agree with Roger’s comments above, whether meant or not, this is what the reader takes from recent MT comments on the subject in this thread. It appears that the, ‘I’m against humps’ is the train of thought by the MT and therefore, interest shown by the 'membership’on change in favour of activating such is completly futile,even prior to James decision later in the year, it appears that the decision to the reader has already been made.
&
‘THE most prolific activator G1INK, our dear friend INK’y is for humps, as well as quite a few of the others, including me (allbeit not prolific) but I could become prolific if there were some smaller hills I could take my family out on and operate at the same time.’
I agree with Lee, petrol prices, credit crunch, family participation, disabled access, more choice of summits and a level playing field with our european counterparts etc, etc…
Why not have a democratic public vote once and for all, for all activators and let this decide if change is indeed required. This will also be a way of ending the ridiculous situation we have on this forum of constantly resurecting a thread of importance to many and of which the membership feel is continuously left unresolved.
Ian
2E0EDX
In reply to M3EDX:
To clarify a mistaken point or two you make Ian…
We are not members, we are participants in a scheme.
We have no right to nor will we have a vote, we may just offer an opinion to the G AM.
73
Mike GW0DSP
In reply to GW0DSP:
Hi Mike
All noted and I agree with your comments on the terms I used. However,I think the point was made in your point 1, in that as participants in such a scheme we should have a say, an autonomous approach to decision making does not bode well to the participants without which there is no SOTA. With regards to point 2, I conceed that we may have no vote, but surely commonsense should prevail and in this way the subject could be put to bed once and for all.
73’s
Ian 2E0EDX
In reply to GW0DSP:
A bit more than that, Mike. You can offer your opinion and supporting evidence. Probably no single person would come up with all the relevant factors, but by combining the differing arguments the best cases, for and against, should emerge.
If the G AM finds on balance that a move to P100 will increase the viability of the Association he will present a case for the change to the MT, and if the MT are convinced by the argument then they will OK the change.
Viability, I suggest, includes not only the ability to survive, which I think
is not in any doubt, but also the potential for growth.
Doubts have been expressed about the role of the MT in this. Some members of the MT have expressed private opinions, pro and con, some not domiciled in G-land are holding aloof. It should not be assumed that the case is pre-judged, I sincerely believe that judgement will depend on any case that is presented.
Discussion that is becoming increasingly partisan and acrimonious is serving to cloud the issue. Whether you are for or against the proposition, think it through, make out the best, most rational and most comprehensive case that you can, and at the proper time present it to your AM.
73
Brian G8ADD
In reply to G8ADD:
Forgive me for sounding blase, but isn’t it enough to just offer ones’ preference without offering reasoning or supporting evidence? This is SOTA, but it’s becoming more like Crown Court.
Brian, there is a major problen involved in the forthcoming debate or application for P100 which you and your MT colleagues should be made aware of.
The following is not an accusation or my personal opinion but a fact. Faith and trust in the G AM has long been lost on a big scale among the participants and unless he is replaced or an open and trasparent “vote” is conducted the result will be questioned and the UK P100 saga will continue to drag on for decades to come.
Mike GW0DSP
In reply to GW0DSP:
By all means express your preference if you so wish, Mike, but the question that the MT will examine is whether a change to P100 would improve the viability of the G Association. Whether or not a number of people would like more summits is not evidence of improved viability, since the G Association is already very active. A decision that P100 would improve viability will depend, amongst other things, on evidence that the proposed change would permanently increase activity. Call it Crown Court, if you like, but the deliberations will depend as much or more on the evidence than on a headcount.
The MT is well aware that the G AM has long been the victim of a prolongued attack by a small number of people on the grounds of unproven accusations. I will not tolerate that attack spreading to this reflector. You must appreciate that character assassination without substancial evidence is highly improper and any further manifestation of it will be erased. Complaints should be made in private directly to the MT.
73
Brian G8ADD
In reply to G8ADD:
Thank you for deleting my reply. Apparently you have made comments which I am being refused any right of reply.
Mike
In reply to G8ADD:
Brian, your suggestions on how how to submit a proposal for change are understood and appreciated, but can you at least accept, the view from MANY not a few is that their confidence in the people who will hear such a proposal is virtually non existent. A lot of effort and time may be put into such a proposal but for what ? how do those people who feel a change would benefit SOTA know that the proposal will be heard fairly, voted on transparently, or even presented to the MT in the first place.
There has been much said against the G/AM which on its own is enough to to make said person look away from any change that may be proposed by the people who are casting accusations, so is the proposal dead in the water before its even heard ?
Is this not a big enough issue, given the amount of comments in this thread alone, to warrant an intervention by the MT to ascertain a correct and transparent way forward with this ?
As an example take the top 5 activators for the last 3 months, how many do you think are for humps ?
I know who they are and so do you, lets publicly ask them on this reflector if they would celebrate the change to P100, shall we ?
Surely you and your colleagues on the MT must have realised by now this issue is not going to go away, there is too much support for it, and above all else the participants are doing this becasue of their love for SOTA and its existance, not to detroy it, kill it or make it worse, those that love the power and control can keep it, that wont change, but the amount of activity in hard times will go down due to costs of travel to summits. To keep SOTA bouyant over the comming months/years we need an addition of extra summits to activate and chase, its called progression and expansion, moving forward, quite the opposite of the current situation which is standing still, and declining.
I cannot believe there is such naivity in the people who are running the scheme.
come on for goodness sake, this needs to be sorted and soon.
What about a gathering of participants to verbally discuss this very topic with an aim to sorting the situation out. The MT, the AM and a show of participants who are willing to travel great distance to show their commitment to SOTA and willing to give their time to help the growth of SOTA for the benefit of future generations of participants. A gentlemans/ladies meeting in a central location to SOTA activity in a mutually agreed place where we can debate this subject correctly and in a dignified and respectful manner.
Please put this proposal to the your colleagues Brian, lets get the ball rolling and organise this meeting. Its never been done before and it needs to be. I have just telephoned the Norbreck Castle Hotel and they said we can have one of the meeting rooms there during the NARSA Rally for a few hours, its a few quid for the use and I have offered to pay this out of my own pocket to help get this meeting under way.
There is a date, there is a venue…
Its not set in stone but its a start. Lets see what happens now, I can do no more than that.
Regards to all
Lee
M0LMP