Why all the cluster spots on SOTA?

Old Reflector
61

In another thread I noted… “There are, at least initially, just eleven summits in a single region, numbered from HB0/LI-001 to HB0/LI-011, all conforming to a prominence value of 150m or more”.

I wonder if this is a ray of light… “at least initially” could this mean more to come…? Are the rules to be changed regarding the statement “all conforming to a prominence value of 150m or more”, guess we will have to wait and see.

I do hope it could be a ray of light, IMHO SOTA is becoming stagnant with nothing fresh and nothing new to offer. We get the same old we know better you, you are just a participant, you have no say… I except I have no say in how SOTA works, but at the same time I have a voice and I can’t except that 6-7 people make a decision for all of us without asking for participant input first.

I am fed up with the comments some MT members can make, yet we see no warnings given. Should the MT not set an example.

I get the feeling MT feel some participants are rocking the boat and sending email warnings of possible bans is an easy option, well IMO the MT are sinking the boat with the attitude they have at times to the participants, participants after all make SOTA what it is!

It’s time to show some respect rather than contempt for the SOTA participants. I look at the MT team and apart from one or two people I haven’t a clue what they have each done for SOTA. The website is out of date and has been so for longer that I can remember, information on there is poor. There is no pride in SOTA and it shows. SOTA is becoming something for a select few and unless you smoke a pipe and sit in a wooden panelled room, drinking port and conform, you are not welcome or at least that is the way it feels at times.

I have a suggestion. Close the forum. Turn out the lights and grow mushrooms… nothing us participants say matters anyway, that’s quite clear.

73, Steve

62

In reply to 2E0KPO:

Steve, if you want something fresh and something new, and if the continuing world-wide spread of SOTA isn’t fresh and new enough for you, make a few suggestions either in a new thread or direct to the MT. I know that all these threads are read by the MT. Personally, I eagerly await the first SOTA DXCC award to a Chaser!

73

Brian G8ADD

63

In reply to G8ADD:

No offence Brian, but the Worldwide spread of SOTA does not really do much for the improvement of UK SOTA does it, it just serves as a “look how good SOTA must be, we have another country involved”

I have made suggestions in the past, as has quite a few other participants, we just get shot down by the MT.

So suggesting I make a few suggestions either in a new thread or direct to the MT, well…… I have been there, done that and now can’t be bothered anymore.

There is only so much someone will put up with.

73 Steve

64

In reply to G8ADD:

Brian, I very rarely contribute on the forum as it seems to get far to personal for my taste but I feel I must reply to your posting suggesting Steve (2E0KPO) starts new threads with new suggestions, I can assure you we have spoke many times and come up with several suggestions to improve SOTA & the awards etc., and he has indeed posted these idea and EVERY time its been knocked back, simple things like improving the award programme to stimulate activators to visit hills which arent often activated etc., MT response, the awards programme is adequate!! Also Brian I do no of other people that have posted ideas and had the same treatment, we might not all post but we do discuss via telephone.
So really its not surprising people loose interest and dont really feel part of the programme.
By the way congrats on your appointment to the MT, hope you make a difference!!

John M0JDK

65

In reply to: G8ADD

Brian, have you ever wondered WHY you were picked to join the MT, has anyone else wondered why ?

When the SOTAForum was set up by myself some 3 years ago, I seem to remember that you Brian were one of the first defectors to the splinter group and joined us with great glee and excitement, as well as a few choice comments about the then MT ??!!

Karma Chameleon ???

73 Lee

66

In reply to 2E0KPO:

but the Worldwide spread of SOTA does not really do
much for the improvement of UK SOTA does it, it just serves as a “look
how good SOTA must be, we have another country involved”

I have made suggestions in the past, as has quite a few other
participants, we just get shot down by the MT.

Dear Steve

can you explain to us not-UK hams what MT and general rules has to do with the “improvement of UK SOTA” ? Perhaps we missing something here…

You have not an AM there? I am sure general rules allow your AM to make any new UK special awards to “stimulate” SOTA there in case he/you feel that programme is “stack” or you got “bored”.

How many such UK awards your association proposed to MT and rejected to blame them now? (or blame SOTA and SOTA other people in general?).

Now if you dont want SOTA be an award scheme, or you dont like the definition of a summit, or you dont like the organizational scheme in general its another thing. You just dont like SOTA and its your right, but then why all these?

I mean i can not understand how and when problems with the implemantation of SOTA in UK become “problems with SOTA and how MT made or making things”.

Someone ill-mannered could say that “ok its natural UK never had enough -summits-to have SOTA”, OR “what do SOTA here? haha SOTA its a UK programme, there the highest -summit- they have is 700m high leave it to them” and such b***t.

Again, implementation of SOTA in UK has nothing to do with general rules, MT and SOTA in general.

“Implementation is the realization of an application, or execution of a plan, idea, model, design, specification, standard, algorithm, or policy”

…you are giving me a not-UK ham the view that you have serious problems with the implementation of SOTA there…

Should i start to see it as a threat to programme? Or should we all change the rules every time you getting bored or what?

General rules have the answer for that. Make any special UK award you like to stimulate the programme the way you think it needs to and, leave the rest of the world to do the same enjoying the programme.

best regards
Panos, SV1COX

67

In reply to G4OIG:and several other posts:

Surely the SOTA programme for each country has to be tuned to suit each individual country’s terrain. It seems unreasonable to apply the same rules to the Alps, Holland, the Rockies, UK and maybe even the Himalayas!

The original system was tuned around what seemed reasonable to the MT for the first associations in the UK and was an excellent start for this interesting hobby! It has been mainly correct but has some anomalies. There are many hills in UK that fail as Marilyns that are significant climbs e.g. Scafell which fails the criteria by only a few meters as the gap between it and Scafell Pike only drops about 140m (from memory, correct me if I am wrong). Equally many of the UK Marilyns have only short hikes from the logical car park to the summit, certainly less than 150m of vertical. But the system (in UK) is consistent and mainly works for our summits.

What each region needs is a consistent system that works for its topology and a ‘one rule for all’ seems illogical to me! However I agree that each summit should be a distinct summit and not just one of several peaks on a high altitude ridge or plateau (otherwise both Glyder Fach and Glyder Fawr would both count!). However the ‘distinctness’ of the summit should be left to the associations to decide, having taken advice and guidance from the MT.

Any global hobby like ours is going to have odd problems like this and hopefully intelligent discussion will ensure sensible resolutions are found. I am sure that the French must be aggrieved that they have to climb (for example) Mont Blanc for 10 points whereas I can go to Wales and walk up the tourist track on Snowden to get the same score! Global Level Playing fields are very hard to find!

I am pleased to work activators anywhere and as long as they comply with their associations guidelines I will continue to do so. I am activating in G/GW this weekend and hope to activate some DM summits in the Harz later this year. I am sure the level of effort will be different but both challenges will be very satisfying.

73 to all
I enjoy my SOTA activities but wish I lived nearer the UK hills!
Keep enjoying this fun hobby!

Happy Easter to all

Mike G4DDL

68

In reply to G4DDL:
A wondefully sensible posting and very correct, you are absolutely right Mike, there can be no hard and fast rules regarding the summits themselves when the topography of the different countries is so diverse.

Cheers
Lee

69

In reply to G4DDL:

Mike, I see where you are coming from, but bear in mind that the prominence rule sets a minimum and this minimum is chosen as representing a worthwhile climb. As long as this award scheme is based on the ascent of summits then it will be necessary to decide what the minimum potential climb must be to be worthwhile. Although there are huge contrasts in topography from country to country, mountain range to mountain range, the point about the prominence rule is that whatever the range, it is human beings doing the climbing and a minimum worthwhile amount of ascent for a perhaps slightly portly and unfit ham rather than a superfit mountaineer should in general apply anywhere. In the greater ranges of the world it would be reasonable to set a greater figure than the minimum, but it is difficult to see how anyone could discuss a prominence rule for the Netherlands without cracking a smile! I have stood on the highest point in Holland, it may be worth a point depending on the prominence rule, but regretably the real Dutch mountains are buried under kilometres of sediment (the underlying geology involves an arm of the Caledonides!) Then again, nobody who loves the British mountains could fail to regret that Scafell and Scafell Pike don’t both count: what an activation - Scafell Pike then the Mickledore scramble carrying the gear to activate Scafell! But that’s the trouble with rules, we can’t do anything sensible from the SOTA point of view without them and with them comes sacrifices!

73

Brian G8ADD

70

In reply to M1EYP:
Tom your comments are not true as far as the Isle of Man is concerned “The MT, together with all the association managers” I am the association manager for the Island and have heard nothing from the management team about the amendments you are all working on! I am also very surprised that I heard about the reflector discussions from a UK activator via a GD amateur.
Before the MT make a final pronouncement on this important issue please ensure that you have taken a view from ALL Association Managers as the effect of the MT pronouncements may not be appropriate for all countries.

John GD0NFN@MANX.NET (Just in case you forgot!)

71

In reply to G8ADD:

In reply to G4DDL:

but bear in mind that the prominence rule sets a minimum and this minimum
is chosen as representing a worthwhile climb. As long as this award scheme
is based on the ascent of summits then it will be necessary to decide what
the minimum potential climb must be to be worthwhile.

73
Brian G8ADD

…but the inclusion of such summits as TW-004, NW-062/064/070 to name a few, even NW-001 if ascent by the train and earning 10 points, don’t include any climb at all but were included under the same set of rules, so I don’t see that “a worthwhile climb” or “the minimum potential climb” come into the equasion.

73 Mike

72

In reply to G8ADD:

I agree Brian, though one of my points was that many of our Marilyns do not involve 150m of climb, I can think of several where it would be extremely perverse to park far enough away to make a 150m climb. I certainly believe (and agree with you) that when doing a ridge walk a significant climb should be encountered between successive peaks on the same ridge for a peak to deserve to be counted as a seperate summit (eg Aran Fawddwy & Glasgwm) and that value may well be 150m in UK. I am aware that the original intent was for there to be a significant physical effort to be made on the Activators’ part to activate a summit and that seems a laudable aim. I am slightly at odds about there being an international minimum, though I am perfectly happy with the values selected for the UK.

I know that whatever the MT and ARMs do they will not satisfy everyone. IOTA had much the same problem when they had to classify what was or was not counted as a seperate island. Some of their rules also seem very strange but they had to pick some criteria in the same way the original MT did. I have not done my homework on the summits that may get deleted but I am suprised at the percentage that some of the alarmists have claimed may disappear. If they are right then we have a duty to re-examine the minimum closely in those associations to avoid them folding altogether and undoing all the good work of the ARMs and local management teams. However I think that any changes to SOTA should be done gradually and not imposed at a stroke and without reasoned debate. Fortunately I don’t think this will happen, witness no rapid decision by the MT on this topic. However the original rules must not be used as a millstone around our necks and drag us all down. They were set to be reasonable in UK and hopefully usable elsewhere but I doubt that the orignal MT sat down with maps of all the EU countries and checked how they could be applied across Europe, never mind the world.

Good luck to you and the MT in trying to resolve this difficult problem. We cannot afford to lose our associations in DM (or anywhere else for that matter) so we must reach a solution that they can live with and still make a scheme that is a fair challenge for activators and chasers. I will shut up at this point and let the debate continue. Thanks to all who have contributed to the reasoned debate, I hope we can reach a conclusion that keeps SOTA thriving in the way it has done since its inception. I for one want to see it continue to grow and it will only do so if we tackle these difficult issues in a fair and reasonable way. It is a hobby and everyone involved from MT and ARMs to Activators and Chasers is doing it for fun in their own time and for no profit.

Good Luck and hoping to contact you all on the air very soon

Mike G4DDL

73

In reply to G4DDL:

I agree Brian, though one of my points was that many of our Marilyns
do not involve 150m of climb

The converse is also true. Getting to a summit may require much MORE climbing than its nominal prominence would suggest (i.e. there’s often down as well as up on the route).

74

In reply to GW0DSP:
Sure, Mike, and you could include a few Scottish summits and GD-001, and a plethora of Alpine peaks reached by cablecar or railway, and you can drive to the top of Greenlowther, but if you want to start applying subjective tests such as “exclude it because no-one in his right mind would climb from the col when you could drive there” then you are opening a real can of worms! Where over easy ways of evading a climb exist, one has to trust the activator, and where the only access doesn’t permit a walk, such as TW-004, you just have to accept it as an anomaly. Think of the over easy ones as a bonus for the very young, the aged and infirm and a counter to summits such as the “Inaccessible Pinnacle” which few are ever likely to do, or Tryfan or the Cobbler which many people would not relish. If you want to follow the discussion go back to the early posts on the old SOTA Group, if they are still accessible, if not I think I have them on file somewhere.

73

Brian G8ADD

75

In reply to M1MAJ:

Agreed and I have had a couple of very long walks to a summit but where very little ascent was involved too!

I guess the hard ones and easy ones balance up if you do enough.

73

Mike

76

In reply to G8ADD:

In reply to GW0DSP:

then you are opening a real can of worms!

Open a can of worms, Me? Never!!:slight_smile:

go back to the early posts on the old SOTA Group, if they are still accessible, if not I think I have them on file somewhere.

People insist on saying go back to the old SOTA Group for reference.
That’s history Brian, it belongs in the past because it was how Sota was back then. Today is a totally new ball game with a new SOTA with the new associations on board, let’s deal with now, not then.

I will say this, it’s a refreshing change to have a constructive and informative debate with a member of MT, well done Brian.

73 Mike GW0DSP

77

“My personal opinion is that a change in the prominence parameter could well offer the compromise that is required to allow us all to sing from the same song sheet. I also believe that uniformity across the Associations is essential to avoid the reoccurrence of this issue in the future… but as I said, the solution is not simple. The MT certainly have their work cut out.”

Just a note to clarify the comment I made yesterday as some seem not to fully understand. What I am suggesting is that all of the Associations use the same method of summit assessment, but not necessarily precisely the same numerical parameter. For example I am very happy that the HA Association has used 100m as the prominence parameter for their summits, as the method used to determine qualifying summits is the same as that in the UK. This obviously suits their topography. It is when other characteristics take precedence over the prominence rule that difficulties arise. It is then that we are not singing from the same song sheet.

73, Gerald

78

In reply to GD0NFN:

John - you joined the SOTA EMG reflector on 17th January 2008, after receiving invites from me. That is where all the discussions have been taking place.

Tom

79

In reply to DL4MFM:
Mario, I hardly know how to reply to you! That “sweaty climb to the summit” is what SOTA is all about! Yes, you have to descend and ascend again to activate a second summit, that too is what it is all about, earning your points by the sweat of your brow! I see no great harm in approaching a summit from a high car park, or via cable car or railway, as long as the final stage of the ascent is a hike on foot, but in SOTA you are supposed to earn the points for a self-powered ascent, you don’t just get the points for being there.

In the British Associations you will indeed find a few - a VERY few summits that could be climbed with a car, and some more that could be climbed illegally with a Land Rover or Jeep, but the overwhelming majority can only be climbed on foot, and those who love the hills do not begrudge a bit of sweat! Yes, the rules could be circumvented in many ways, but you are only cheating yourself!

The objection that I can see to your “range-rule” is difficult to express. This might be a culture difference but in the UK the most eagerly anticipated mountain walks involves a circuit of mountains linked by cols or saddles, known as a “horseshoe” walk. There are a number of such walks which link together two, three or even four “Marilyns” in a single expedition which starts and finishes at the same place. A range rule such as you describe could easily disallow such well loved horseshoes as the “Idwal Skyline” or the “Ennerdale Skyline”. However, that is just my immediate personal response to your suggestion, why not write it up in full detail and send it to the MT? I can assure you that it would be seriously considered.

73

Brian G8ADD

80

In reply to G8ADD:

Hi Brian,

Having read your response to Mario, I was just thinking what a “range rule” such as has been suggested could mean in the UK.

As you know, last Saturday Paul G4MD and I activated GW/SW-006 and 007 which are close together (IO81FU and IO81EU), but separated by a very well defined col with reasonably steep sides. We spent a total of 8 hours on our activation, 2 hours of which were on the radio and a further 1 hour was spent setting up / dismantling the stations. In all we walked 15 kilometres in 5 hours over some difficult ground and I drove over 500 kilometres to carry out these activations for the 16 points on offer (including winter bonus). Had a “range rule” been applied to these summits, we would have had to make two visits and work to an unnecessarily complex schedule to activate each summit separately in conjunction with another summit outside of the specified range which would mean greater distances to travel and walk.

For once I am pleased that the rules are simple and that we do not have any restrictions of this kind.

73, Gerald