Are Regional Caving Databases Fit For Purpose ?

[pwhole]

A question - and this partly touches on the issue in the other thread on Radford Caves - should a site still be listed on a registry when there is no permission for access? There are two options here - either nobody has ever asked the landowner, or the landowner has specifically stated that there is no access. But should the site still be listed? For example, I have several 'hidden' sites that are listed and have full descriptions, but the lack of an access agreement (at the moment) means if it's listed it should state 'No Access Allowed'. Some of these sites are now regularly visited, so as a registrar, my instinct is that the information should be available. But the landowner may also be looking at the registry and getting apoplectic that we might be 'encouraging' access. A tricky one - any opinions?

 

[mikem]

The answer is yes & no... (very much depends)

 

[ChrisB]

But should the site still be listed?

The existence and extent of a cave is useful for cave science and understanding hydrology, etc, even if it's inaccessible. So I would expect all known caves to be listed but, where there is no access, that should be stated. Perhaps details that are only necessary if accessing it, such as rigging, should be omitted in that case.

 

[The Old Ruminator]

Why is MCRA not idiot proof ?

Oh dear this is embarrassing. I only clicked the white bit circled . I did not put the curser where the brown box is. Of course it works now but slowly as there is " flood protection "

Old people eh ?

Will get on with the captions now.

Sorry Sid et al .