[Expo-tech] Caves that don't exist...

Mon May 3 21:47:39 BST 2021

[see email trail below]

Just for the record:
these non-existent but surveyed caves are now auto-detected by the database
loader & survex parser, and put in a 'pendingcaves.txt' list in
:expoweb:/cave_data/
a report is make in http://expo.survex.com/dataissues which is clickable.

If clicked, a pending cave comes up with instructions for how to research
the necessary info from logbooks, past cavers' memories etc. and how to edit
the Cave Description page accordingly.
An automatic dummy entrance is made at the same time.

If you edit the cave description but fail to create a real entrance, then a
different warning comes up the next time the database is reloaded from
files. But you don't need to fix it if you don't want to. But if you don't,
the entrance won't appear on any prospecting lists:
http://expo.survex.com/prospecting_guide/ 

Homecoming is doing something odd though. There should be a long list of
cave surveys listed here
http://expo.survex.com/survexfile/2018-dm-07 
like
http://expo.survex.com/survexfile/204 

even though the directories haven't been rearranged to match its kataster
number yet.
Philip

-----Original Message-----
From: Expo-tech [mailto:expo-tech-bounces at lists.wookware.org] On Behalf Of
Wookey
Sent: 30 June 2020 02:16
To: expo-tech at lists.wookware.org
Subject: Re: [Expo-tech] Caves that don't exist even though we have survex
files

On 2020-06-29 22:23 +0100, Philip Sargent (Gmail) wrote:
> OK,
> (having looked carefully through cave-number-index and the kataster 
> lists),
> 
> we have these directories in the :loser: repo with survex files in 
> them, but "the system" doesn't know that there are 'caves' of these names.

> These are presumably those which are waiting for kataster numbers, but 
> in the meantime we surely should have them "as caves" in the 
> http://expo.survex.com/caves list, or are they too small to be worth 
> bothering with?

Caves which we surveyed but which are too small to officially be caves do
exist (B4 is one, although if we survey it really hard I think it can scrape
in, and probably should do as otherwise it's just get found over and over
again - there are a couple of others). But we still want entries even if
they don't qualify for kataster numbers

> Since they don't exist "as caves" it looks like they don't exist "as 
> entrances" either. Which is a bit of a bummer as they won't appear on 
> prospecting lists (?) despite having been surveyed ?!?
> 
> So what "should" we do with them, and what will we actually do with them?

Most of them just need a cave page adding, fishing out details from
logbooks, notes, people, photos, call-out books. Some caves are not
connected in the dataset because they have a survey but no entrance location
(there is at least one ARGE cave with this status). The propecting guide
existed to summarise this sort of 'what is still missing' info, but has not
been maintained much recently as things changed around it.
'noinfo/katasterable-or-not' is probably best current summary.

Some of them may exist, but as a different cave, having got a kataster ID,
but the dataset has not yet been renumbered to match. We know that we have a
backlog there. Normally the website and loser repos get renumbered togther
but the loser git transition means the loser half is lagging. However this
doesn't seem to be the case for any of these.

I had quick a look to see what info was obvious. More could be found with
some more effort.

:loser:/caves-1623/2007-04
lgobook 2007 description and location. Apparently surveyed by me and Richard
Mundy

:loser:/caves-1623/2007-05
:loser:/caves-1623/2007-06
:loser:/caves-1623/2007-07
These 3 are Atkinson and Lawson. locations and info/descriptions in 2007
logbook

:loser:/caves-1623/2007-12 Jon telling and Morven Beranek. Nothing but a
location
:loser:/caves-1623/2009-01 Frank Tully Location only
:loser:/caves-1623/2009-02 Frank Tully Location only
:loser:/caves-1623/2010-06 Tully and Janke Location only
:loser:/caves-1623/2010-07 Tully and Janke has location, On the way to 110.
:loser:/caves-1623/2012-ns-01  Matt Watson, Holly Bradley Becka Lawson.
Connect into 'Ants in Your Pants' (2013-03) (logbook 2014)
:loser:/caves-1623/2012-ns-02 Noel Snape location only?
:loser:/caves-1623/2010-04 Hole near Balconhoehle. Luke, Andrew,
<u>Becka</u>, George have been there. Exploration in 2016 logbook
:loser:/caves-1623/2012-ns-05
:loser:/caves-1623/2012-ns-06
:loser:/caves-1623/2012-ns-07
:loser:/caves-1623/2012-ns-08
:loser:/caves-1623/2012-ns-12
:loser:/caves-1623/2012-ns-14
:loser:/caves-1623/2012-ns-15
All Noel. All have location and fake-looking 'straight down from GPS point'
surveys from 2015-08-15. No write-up (although one cave apparently tagged on
20th with Julian).
I suspect these are just noted shafts which need a real visit.

:loser:/caves-1623/2014-BL888 Futrells and Neil Pacey. Explored 2014-08-03
(logbook 2014). Sketch in logbook.
:loser:/caves-1623/2018-pf-01 Paul Fox and Adam Aldridge Tagged, surveyed,
photoed, located. I've been there.
:loser:/caves-1623/2018-pf-02 Paul Fox and Natalie. Tagged There is a
2018-pf-03 too. And a 2018-NTU-02 Descriptions, tag status, drawings, pics
in 2018 logbook

:loser:/caves-1623/2007-neu ;Moved to fixepts/misc.svx
:loser:/caves-1623/gruenstein Both ARGE.

I also found 2013-03 'Ants in your Pants' which has its data hidden inside
2012-ns-01 in loser, I guess as they are deemed to be one cave with two
entrances, but as they've been given two references that's probably just
confusing at this point

This file is useful in cross-checking:
noinfo/cave-number-index

Wookey
--
Principal hats:  Linaro, Debian, Wookware, ARM http://wookware.org/