The “questionable” aspect of two summit activations comes from the method of operation on the summit. I have come upon at least one log where contacts with the same stations were logged simultaneously in the logs for both associations. Presumably the activator was walking back and forth across the border between the two. This is certainly one way of giving the chasers two summits in one day. To set up in one association, activate and then move position into to the other association and start a second activation saves all the walking, but the logs will be entirely different, even if all the chasers wait for the change of position / callsign. I have seen logs of this nature and I know which type I personally prefer.
In my opinion the MT did not do enough brainstorming when they changed the rule Les referred to.
Don’t worry Kurt, if SOTA offers an opportunity to double activator points easily why shouldn’t you do so? Dismiss the 2nd set of points? Certainly not! As a matter of fact, your operation was within the rules. Unfortunately I haven’t been aware of this rulechange. Not an overwhelming loss for myself since I had an absolutely great time out there, the focus being on the sportive component. On future expeditions you may find me on both sides of the border, too - provided that the summit will allow. I already did that, but always after two different ascents
Maybe more thought was needed, Gerald, and maybe not, but it isn’t that easy to come up with answers, particularly because it is not a problem that we experience in the UK. What rule would you like to see? How would you word the rule? The MT is always ready to listen to advice!
How would you word the rule? The MT is always ready to listen to
advice!
Personally I would like to see activations undertaken one at a time, i.e. activate in one association, then change to the other. I have no qualms about a single ascent for two lots of points, but I think the activations should be separate.
Maybe the MT should ask what others think.
73, Gerald
P.S. All hate mail can go to my address on QRZ.com!
“Personally I would like to see activations undertaken one at a time”
Well done Marijan S56IAA - activation of S5/KA-002 first, followed by OE/KT-070.
The absence of a response on this subject could indicate one of two things - apathy or agreement with my view, but who knows?
“How would you word the rule?”
Here’s my suggestion for a simple addition to the rule wording:
“Where the mountain peak has been issued a reference number in two or more Associations, the Activator may claim points each Association provided that the Operating Position is always within the jurisdiction of the appropriate Association. Unless the licensing regulations decree otherwise, the position of the Operator is deemed to be the Operating Position. Activations are to be carried out consecutively and not concurrently. The same peak may be activated for points once per year in each Association.”
Thanks for the constructive suggestion Gerald. I won’t be able to discuss this with the rest of the MT until this evening, but your suggestion looks interesting. There remain some ‘rough edges’ though. For instance, what if the activator only got one QSO on his first activation? After 30 minutes of silence, you would forgive him moving his station over the border and having another go from there. Having qualified that reference, what would be your take on him returning to the original reference? Carry on from where he left off, or start again from scratch?
Such questions arise from the experience of a huge amount of in-depth discussion and debate about every conceivable scenario, within the MT. The suggestion that we didn’t do “enough brainstorming” is unfounded, I can assure you!
As I say, I think your wording has merit. My concern is that it is, in reality, unenforcable as a rule. However, the wishes of the SOTA community, peer pressure, whatever you call it, can often be just as powerful, if not more so than the rules. So if the preference from the SOTA chaser community at large is for consecutive rather than concurrent activations, then that is presumably what activators will do.
Most operating habits by most activators are geared towards the preferences of the chasers rather than any rules. Another example being the number of QSOs to qualify - the rules say 4, most do considerably more.
…what would be your take on him returning to
the original reference? Carry on from where he
left off, or start again from scratch?
Personally, I would start again. Anyway, why would an activator bother to move across the border when the summit was not qualified in one association? Surely the logical thing would be to go home and come back another day and try again. It would only be coincidence if moving the operating position / callsign / summit reference resulted in sufficient contacts to qualify the summit.
In my opinion each activation needs to be seen as a separate activity. Okay, the chaser making the sole contact on the first attempt wouldn’t get his asterisk, but they are not mandatory anyway and I would expect there are few logs that have them for every contact.
The suggestion that we didn’t do “enough brainstorming”…
I can see it is difficult to envisage every scenario.
Anyway, why would an activator bother
to move across the border when the summit was not qualified in one
association? Surely the logical thing would be to go home and come
back another day and try again. It would only be coincidence if moving
the operating position / callsign / summit reference resulted in
sufficient contacts to qualify the summit.
If the operator was on VHF or UHF the position culd be very important. Once ‘traffic’ has started, there may be other chasers or even a spot that would justify returning to the original location. If an activator were trying t complete a list, activating in the 1st association may be very important.
Yes, that is certainly one scenario Richard. It can happen with two separate summits as well. For example, I could activate Stony Cove Pike LD-018 and make just one QSO as I am there too early and everyone is still in bed, then move onto High Street LD-011 and activate that summit and then complete my qualification of Stony Cove Pike on the way back. I can’t really argue against that. Personally I would want to get a qualifying run of contacts on both summits, i.e. a consecutive run of 4 contacts, rather than say 1 + 3 or 2 + 2, but I appreciate that’s my personal view.
@HB9AFI. No problem Kurt! I’m sure you were operating within the “updated” SOTA rules. Let me give you some advice how to gather 20 alpine points just in a few minutes. On Sunday Bernhard DL4CW and me activated the Rauhorn in Allgäu having two references as DL/AL-045 and OE/TI-360. I decided to take my old VHF/UHF handy in order to show how one can take full advantage of the new rule. So, I started CQing on the German side as DD1LD/P, after the second run I already “got one on the hook”, during the QSO I made a couple of steps forward crossing the DL/OE border, and successfully finished the QSO with 73 as OE/DD1LD/P. The results were five very relaxed double QSOs in app. 10 minutes and 20 alpine points in the score table. But strangely, I didn’t feel any inner satisfaction …
@G4OIG. Gerald, I’m quite sure you haven’t got any hate mails!? I liked the old rule “descent – border crossing – re-ascent”, in that case I felt that I really deserved these additional 10 points.
In reply to all:
I did not see this topic before ! But it is very interesting.
This is the demonstration that a mountain does not belong to two country ! they belong to nobody !
There is one summit and that’s all ! it should be not possible to transmit with both reference at the same time !on the same summits ! it is a kind of weakness in the SOTA program
So I presume you will ask me which country to attribute the summit !it doesn’t matter ! you give a reference in one country and not in the other ! and then, it is a game ! not a admistrative reference ! if there are 50 common summits, you put 25 to a country and the other 25 to second country and that is all.
If Sota program was european or international we would not get pb. like that !
If Sota program was european or international we would not get pb.
like that !
Bob
If I understand you correctly, you feel that we should do away with national associations. There is merit in such a viewpoint, but SOTA has grown by accretion, an association at a time, because locating and assigning heights and designations to all the mountains of a continent is a huge job which would need many people and a lot of time. Each association has brought its own area into SOTA and the choice of mountain ridges as political boundaries that define the associations is the cause of the problem with one summit in two associations. I fear that dividing up the summits so that each summit is in one association rather than two would lead to bitter disputes where both associations would want a particularly well-loved summit.
You are quite correct - nothing in my in-box! At the moment…
I too like the old rule, but it has changed and now it is possible to carry out two activations for one ascent - if that is how it is, then so be it. I just feel that the protocol should be to undertake one activation at a time. No dancing back and forth across the border, even if it is well defined by a marker on the ground.
I have noticed at least one activator has taken my comments on board and has changed to activating under one reference followed by the other. Maybe others will take suggestion as the preferred method of activating the double summits.
73, Gerald
P.S. I know that I am pedantic - it is just the way I am. When Black Mountain was G/WB-001 I ascended from the English side and operated on the English side of the border as G4OIG/P. When it changed to GW/SW-041, I ascended from the Welsh side and activated it from the Welsh side of the border as GW4OIG/P. As a Uniques activator, I felt this was the only way I could logically activate the same hill twice.
Let me give you an example how the simplest acceptable rule could be realized:
1.Activation of DL/AL-045 as DD1LD/P.
2.Descent to the nearest saddle but at least 150m down according to the summit definition. (It is not necessary to cross the DL/OE border on the saddle side, because sometimes it is quite impossible to access a summit from the opposite DL or OE site. But I don’t see here any problems - if a summit is referenced in the OE/DL ARM, it has P150/P100 at least, and you can cross the border on the top so many times you want :-).
3.Re-ascent and final activation of the summit as OE/TI-360. In that case the minimal difference in altitude would be P150 according to the SOTA rules and one has to climb these 150 meters again.
Let’s play it back:
1.Activation of OE/TI-360 as OE/DD1LD/P.
2.Descent to the nearest saddle but at least 100m down according to the summit definition in SOTA-DL.
3.Re-ascent and final activation of the summit as DL/AL-045 using DD1LD/P call.
In that case you have to climb 50 meters less, but you still have to climb! (And these last 100 meters were complicated enough having climbing grade II)
No additional rules like “an activation within 24 hours without any climbing could be possible”. I know, it’s not an ideal solution, but it’s a quite acceptable and rigorous one – descent and re-ascent according to the summit definition in the respective association! No activation at the same time!
@F5HTR. Sure Bob, your proposal is a really good one, if both association do clarify which summit does belong to which one. But there are two major problems:
1.different scoring systems
2.some “heavy” disputes are pre-programmed like - “That’s a German summit!” – “Oh, no! That’s an Austrian one!”
P.S. All hate emals should be still addressed to Gerald
What a simple solution! Then there would be the greater satisfaction
of having activated 2 summits, not just 1 for the points from two
associations.
73, Gerald
yes, absolutely. Anyone who’d like to claim double points should pull his socks up (any hate mails to my address now please). There are several summit-groups here along the DL/OE border which would offer several grab off opportunities of at least 60 points a day for people in good shape, or easy 20 points for occasional activators if the rule was kept as it is now. Quite inviting also from a chaser’s point of view. Not to mention the confusion which might arise from the “border-hopping”. On the other hand, the DL/AL region always suffered from a lack of activity which could be boosted up a bit if activators were offered this opportunity, but I would vote for Dzianis’ suggestion.
I like the idea to increase attractivity in the alpine region.
One question though: The highest point of a summit is in most cases in one country or the other and not exactly on the political border line.
So how can a summit be in 2 associations in SOTA? This would mean that these summits are outside the associations territory but the activation zone lies within, right?
Also I fail to understand why we deleted all summits in DL that were listed in 2 DL regions to comply strictly with SOTA and now a changed SOTA rule allows summits to be listed and activated in several associations concurrently?
Confused… who can explain this to me in gentle words?
In reply to DD1LD:
If a single summit can be activated if listed in 2 associations but on the other hand in the DL-association we had to delete summits which appeared in two regions “to comply” then the state of the program rules is pathetic and needs fixing.
Could someone explain the benefit of 1 summit double scoring to me?
