Can someone help explain the rationale behind limiting the winter bonus in the W2 region to only 2-point and higher summits?
In New Jersey, all 12 summits are rated at just 1 point, which means none of them qualify for a winter bonus. Meanwhile, other areas within W2 (such as W2/GA and W2/GC) have multiple 2+ point summits that do qualify for the bonus—despite the fact that some of these can be activated by driving up, taking a ski lift, or even an elevator.
If the points system is meant to reflect a combination of topographic prominence and activation difficulty, this feels inconsistent. Many W2 summits—despite being only 1 point—can at times be physically demanding, require real hiking effort. At the same time, some higher-point summits elsewhere require far less effort yet receive the winter bonus.
The stated goal of the winter bonus program is to encourage activity during more challenging months. The current rules arguably do the opposite by removing any incentive altogether. When no summit in an entire region (like W2/NJ) can earn a winter bonus, activators are effectively excluded from the program regardless of effort or conditions.
Why not allow all summits to qualify for a winter bonus? Even a modest approach—such as allowing a 1-point summit to earn a 1-point winter bonus—would maintain balance while better aligning with the program’s intent. This would reward winter effort fairly across regions without disproportionately favoring drive-up or lift-assisted activations.
Personally, I know I would be more active during the winter months if any summit I activated offered even a small bonus. As it stands, the current structure discourages winter participation in some W2 regions rather than encouraging it.
I’d genuinely like to understand the reasoning behind this, and whether a more inclusive approach has been considered.
I have sympathy with your frustration at the apparent arbitrary nature of the winter bonus and points rules.
This subject comes up regularly and the same answer is given each time. To do anything else other than just use specific height bands for an Association results in some type of subjective reasoning for awarding points.
There is no “difficulty” rating as part of the points setting. It is simply about height bands. As you point out this can result in some very easy to Activate summits having high points values and others which are low in height, but potentially difficult to access, have lower points values. I can name lots of examples in the UK - such as GW/NW-001 (10pts) which has a scenic railyway to the summit. Conversely GM/SI-192 (1pt) that is a major expedition to reach (activated only once), requiring a sea kayak to reach a pathless island.
As for Winter Bonus only applying to 2pt and above, there is variation there across the world, but the majority of Associations I have experience of seem to start their Winter Bonus, or Summer Bonus for very hot locations, at the 2pt level. It’s certainly the case in each of the home nations in the UK (G/GW/GM/GI). As the programme originated over here it seems most Associations have followed suit.
As you mention W2/NJ, there are other examples such as G/SE where all 14 summits are 1pt and do not attract a Winter Bonus. This covers the majority of the SE of England containing London and a large swathe of the population.
This may of course not be any consolation that W2/NJ is not unique. The programme has prospered for over 20 years in its current format and I see little appetite to start making fundemental changes. The final decision on the W2 Association lies with the Association Manager working with the SOTA MT, which according to the Association Reference Manual (dated 1st May 2010) is Andrew Pepper, K1YMI.
I fear I have not really answered your question, but I hope this does explain some of what you are enquiring about.
The general principles governing the allocation of a seasonal bonus are stated in the General Rules, Some Associations commence the winter bonus at much higher levels than 2 points, depending on the altitude at which long lasting snow conditions may be expected, but also these bonuses can be taking into account the hours of daylight at different latitudes. No account is taken of the availability of roads and mechanised access on the basis that such access on some summits makes SOTA accessible to older and less able participants in the interest of inclusion.
It is recognised that elevation alone does not indicate difficulty, some low summits can be very difficult, some high summits can be relatively easy, so taking into account just relative height is actually a quick and dirty solution to a problem that has proved intractable - scoring by judging the relative difficulty of individual summits, where in some Associations the number of summits can be several hundreds per region. The actual difficulty of an individual summit can be due to many factors, steepness, ruggedness, difficulty of access, absense or presence of a trail - and its quality, to name just a few, and it is worth noting that actual difficulty tends to be different for different people, adding a personal equation to the problem.
No sir. The GR states that “The seasonal bonus is intended to reflect the fact that for safe travel in the hills during the bonus period, extra safety equipment is necessary plus the skill to use it.” The MT is reluctant to actually encourage winter activity because of the higher level of risk, but acknowledge that people will undertake winter activations even without encouragement. Hopefully in a responsible manner, of course.
To correct this, the summer bonus applies to all points bands, on the principle that heat will be greater at low levels, and although due to the lapse rate the heat will be less at higher levels, the activator will still have to pass through the lower levels.
If the stated intent of the winter bonus is to reflect the need for additional safety equipment and winter skills, then excluding all NJ summits by definition assumes that none of them ever require such equipment or skills. That assumption does not always hold true. Snow, ice, limited daylight, and trail conditions can and do create genuine winter hazards on lower-elevation summits, even if they lack long-lasting snow
I fully support inclusion and accessibility, and I agree that vehicle access should not disqualify a summit. However, the current framework produces the opposite imbalance:
• Some summits qualify for a winter bonus regardless of how trivial winter access may be
• Other summits never qualify, regardless of conditions or effort
This isn’t about encouraging unsafe behavior. It’s about equitable recognition of winter activations across regions, especially when the rules already accept that elevation is an imperfect proxy for difficulty.
A modest adjustment — such as allowing 1-point summits to earn a 1-point winter bonus where no higher-point summits exist — would not undermine safety, accessibility, or simplicity. It would simply avoid a situation where an entire region is structurally excluded from a program intended to acknowledge winter operating conditions.
I’m not suggesting the scoring system be rewritten — only that the current application unintentionally creates regional inequities that the original principles don’t fully account for.
The Summits Team in conjunction with the Association Manager take probability into account. Exceptional conditions can lead to a major snow dump even at sea level, or to an absense of snow on high summits where it is usually present. The bonuses reflect conditions that can normally be expected on a regional scale.
At this point it is 0120 for me so I am closing down. Goodnight all.
SOTA summits are defined only by prominence, and scores assigned only by altitude. That’s geography, and nothing else.
The points (and, by extension, the seasonal bonus) allocation criteria are defined by altitude at the Association level (and nothing else).
NJ is just one region in the W2 Association, and there are four other regions in that Association. W2/WE, like W2/NJ, has only one-point summits. W2/EH has just one (two-point) summit that qualifies for winter bonus, but the relatively high-altitude regions W2/GA and W2/GC each have many.
That’s just the way of the geography, so there’s no point in expecting it to be “fair” (for any value of “fair”).
what is the harm in assigning bonus to activating any summits in winter? Period? Winter is winter and cold is cold. 0 degrees C is 0 degrees C
driving to a summit at 3000ft and getting a bonus because it is 2 points , is much easier then hiking to a summit at 3000ft this is 1 point. Getting a reward for driving to a summit vs getting nothing for hiking…….
The harm is debatable but it’s not what the rules have said for the last 23 years.
From the rules 3.11.1:
There shall be only one seasonal bonus in a year in any Region, up to a maximum duration of
four months. A winter bonus shall only apply to Expeditions to the higher Summits, a
summer bonus will apply to all summits, and in all cases will be three points. The Association
Manager in consultation with the Management Team shall determine eligibility of his
Association for the seasonal bonus, bearing in mind local safety considerations. He shall also
define the inclusive dates that constitute the bonus period and the minimum height of
qualifying Summits.
General Rules 3.12.1.(7), SOTA is not a club with members, it is a privately run award scheme with participants. The participants can take part in the award scheme, they can make suggestions to the management team (MT), who will always evaluate them, but the sole responsibility for running SOTA rests with the MT. The MT at their discretion may put a vote before the participants but are not obliged to do so. The SOTA website has a channel for communicating with the MT, if you wish to suggest a change in the rules you can send a formal message by this channel, which will then be evaluated and discussed by all the MT.
To be clear, although the title of this thread is “Winter Bonus Appeal W2” this is an informal reflector, for chat about SOTA etc, some members of the MT have seen this thread, most have probably not, so if you wish for your idea to be considered by the full MT then follow my suggestion.
This issue resurfaces from time to time, and our answer won’t change. Respectfully, what you suggest is wholly unrealistic, made ever worse as the number of peaks increases with new associations. I have re-written the General Rules several times, and I have no plans to change section 3.12.1 (7).
Now I’m really confused, G8ADD mentions going through a formal process , now K6el is saying he’s re-writen the rules several times and doesn’t plan on changing them…..
We are always happy to consider proposals. However, we may have considered the same proposals 2, 3 5, or maybe 10 times before from different people. If we have considered a proposal in the past and there is no significantly new reasons this time compared with before then we’re going to come to the same conclusion as previously.
… SOTA is not a club, participants are not members …
So it’s that that is not going to change. Other proposals will be considered.
But, to be quite honest, you are flogging a dead horse. There seems to be a regular succession of suggestions to make changes because the status quo doesn’t suit that individual. SOTA has been around a long time and its scoring is tried and tested. If it suddenly decides to award extra bonus points will that be backdated? Or will that annoy those that did those summits in the past and didn’t get the extra credit?
I should say that I am not in the MT. I am just a satisfied participant.
I’ve noticed the same on some local (ish) summits… and indeed some summits on my upcoming EA5/AT trip.
Perhaps I’m weird, but the most important bit for me is to enjoy the hikes and views (maybe shed some of that stubborn bio-fleece that I’ve unwillingly accumulated?!). Secondary to that is to play with the radio in an area free of noise (hopefully).
The best SOTA operator, is the one having the most fun.
You are not weird! My favourite activations are those where I’ve had a decent walk and then spend several hours on the summit trying different bands, working S2S and some DX. Finding the shortest route from some barely legal parking spot, getting 4 QSOs and then moving on to the next one to maximise activator points is not for me. But I’d be pretty disappointed to do a long walk and then fail to get the points. One of the great things about SOTA are the different ways you can play the game.
I’d like to add my full support to AJ2I’s proposal. Having hiked these NJ summits myself, I can attest that AJ isn’t exaggerating the effort involved. Aside from perhaps Palisades (NJ-009), these aren’t just ‘walk-ups’—they are legitimate hikes that become significantly more grueling in the winter wind and cold.
It feels like a missed opportunity for the program. The goal of the winter bonus is to incentivize activators to brave the elements, yet in New Jersey, there is literally zero incentive under the current rules. If the goal is to reward effort and encourage activity, a 1-point bonus for 1-point summits would be a fair and welcome change.
My solution to the ‘not worth it for 1 point’ quandry:
Set yourself targets around uniques or summit numbers or completing a district/region. It doesn’t have to be about points. Sota is a game in which we all get to choose our own goals.