Location and Access Information Policy

[Cookie]

Can we have a policy of making sure the access information is provided when the location of a cave is published?

If the location alone is publish we are going to have upset landowners as people traipse across their land, GPS in hand, without permission when generally that permission will be freely given if the established procedure is followed. 

If the access procedure is not given then it is not possible to follow it.

Thanks

 

[cap n chris]

Thanks, Cookie, for thinking of this! - I'm sure the CSCC Conservation and Access Officer heartily endorses this suggestion.

 

[paul]

It would be better to give a link to the access information, if it is held on on another web site which is kept up to date with changes in access information, rather than risking out of date information remaining on the wiki page...

 

[SamT]

rather than risking out of date information remaining on...

say the hitch and hike site.

That doesnt use a link.

Where would you link to for the peak district? The DCA access page is not comprehensive or complete.

 

[Cave_Troll]

I don't know of a definitive list of acess agreements.
at least if you use this information and it turns out to be incorrect (eg who to visit for Eldon Access) then you can update it for the next person.

 

[Peter Burgess]

Cave_Troll is right. If a wiki is used properly, it isn't just read for up to date info, it is updated when people learn of chages to the information. Adding a link is also useful, but a link can get out of date just as easily as information typed in. Broken links can, of course be mended, just as easily as incorrect info. If both are available, then enter both.

 

[Dep]

Cave_Troll is right. If a wiki is used properly, it isn't just read for up to date info, it is updated when people learn of chages to the information. Adding a link is also useful, but a link can get out of date just as easily as information typed in. Broken links can, of course be mended, just as easily as incorrect info. If both are available, then enter both.

A key principle of the w.w.WEB is to add links to information, but not to duplicate the information.
If access details are given in one location then the wiki (and the 'net in general) is better with a simple link to the existing info rather than trying to duplicate it.
With duplicate info there is the danger of the original info being changed but not the copy;they get out of synch.
This allows bad data to proliferate which is a "Bad Thingtm".

 

[paul]

Cave_Troll is right. If a wiki is used properly, it isn't just read for up to date info, it is updated when people learn of chages to the information. Adding a link is also useful, but a link can get out of date just as easily as information typed in. Broken links can, of course be mended, just as easily as incorrect info. If both are available, then enter both.

A key principle of the w.w.WEB is to add links to information, but not to duplicate the information.
If access details are given in one location then the wiki (and the 'net in general) is better with a simple link to the existing info rather than trying to duplicate it.
With duplicate info there is the danger of the original info being changed but not the copy;they get out of synch.
This allows bad data to proliferate which is a "Bad Thingtm".

Exactly what I was getting at.

There already are people in each caving region who are fully aware of current access arrangements and changes in these arrangements and ongoing discussions on improving access arrangements. The associated web sites may not be strictly kept up to date - because they are being maintained by volunteers - but other sources are available and are kept up to date.

The Wiki is undoubtedly an excellent idea, which I have said before, but there is a danger of misinformation on access being spread by individuals even with good intentions. Surely those who have negotiated the access arrangements in the first place are best placed to spread this information more accurately?

 

[SamT]

Surely those who have negotiated the access arrangements in the first place are best placed to spread this information more accurately?

How, Where.

In derbyshire, as far as I can ascertain. There are 2 places 'available' to the public.

The DCA handbook,
Access to this involves
a, owning one in the first place
b, making sure you keep track of every update via the DCA website. It also relys on someone at the DCA updateing their site with the informatiom

the HnH website.
Web access to all, but relys on someone informing shaun of any changes, then shaun applying the changes.

Surely, if the wiki has an Access section for each cave entry, it can be updated by anybody.
Diggers who sort out new arrangements.
DCA members who are made aware of changes
Erm anyone.

and would therefore, given time, become the most up to date and accurate place for reference.

How many cavers out there *actually* know where to find access arrangements for the peak anyway. They are probably using an old copy of COTPD to plan their trips anyhow.

 

[graham]

Sam

Are you saying that the "official" i.e. DCA version consists of a personally held paper copy supplemented by web downloads? Sounds like someone out there doesn't quite understand modern technology and how it works.

 

[paul]

Surely those who have negotiated the access arrangements in the first place are best placed to spread this information more accurately?

How, Where.

In derbyshire, as far as I can ascertain. There are 2 places 'available' to the public.

The DCA handbook,
Access to this involves
a, owning one in the first place
b, making sure you keep track of every update via the DCA website. It also relys on someone at the DCA updateing their site with the informatiom

the HnH website.
Web access to all, but relys on someone informing shaun of any changes, then shaun applying the changes.

Surely, if the wiki has an Access section for each cave entry, it can be updated by anybody.
Diggers who sort out new arrangements.
DCA members who are made aware of changes
Erm anyone.

and would therefore, given time, become the most up to date and accurate place for reference.

How many cavers out there *actually* know where to find access arrangements for the peak anyway. They are probably using an old copy of COTPD to plan their trips anyhow.

I personally see nothing wrong with the approach you are talking about - a Wiki-based site for maintaining access information. It has the benefits you mention that anybody who is aware of a change in arrangements can keep the information up to date.

HOWEVER the problem I am referring to is the "cut and past" approach where somebody gets the access information from some other location or web site and this ends up on the Wiki with all good intentions. This may have been incorrect in the first place (as in certain cave-related guides where incorrect access information has been printed) or not kept up to date with changes in the future. We have no way of knowinf that the infromation is up to date or correct just because it is easily updatable by many. Any idea how accurate and up to dat Wikipeia is? Not very in many cases.

Of course cavers then consult the Wiki and believe that it must be correct as it is "there on a web page so it must be correct". In th ecase of the Peak, consulting the DCA site or H'n'H site at least gives you some confidence that the information is more likely to be correct. I know updates depend on individuals but that is a separate issue.

I don't agree with your assesment "Surely, if the wiki has an Access section for each cave entry, it can be updated by anybody. Diggers who sort out new arrangements. DCA members who are made aware of changes Erm anyone.
and would therefore, given time, become the most up to date and accurate place for reference." for that reason.

There is also the problem that only the more popular caves will tend to gain caver's interests and therefore activity on the Wiki while the many more minor cave sites go by the wayside.

Perhaps the answer is a combination of the current setup (Regional Council web sites, etc) with the Wiki being also involved? 

It is not as simple as it first appears.

 

[Cookie]

Perhaps the answer is a combination of the current setup (Regional Council web sites, etc) with the Wiki being also involved? 

I agree, a combination of both is the answer.

The Regional Council website is good because you can trust it. The Wiki is good for recent changes or clarification.

As a user I'd read both and if they contradicted I'd use my judgment or phone a friend.

As the person who updates the CSCC Access Info, I'd find the wiki useful to flag up changes. After checking I'd update the CSCC version.

Anyone know how to embed a php script into a wiki page a bit like the photos are? The script would have the cave name as an argument and produce a nicely formated access description as output. Thereby making the description immediately visible with no need to click and follow a link. I'll check the manual ... 

 

[Cookie]

I'll check the manual ... 

Doesn't look like it'll do it as standard, but this mod. just might work.

http://en.csharp-online.net/index.php?title=CSO_iFrame_tag_and_extension


[Edit]
Actually, probably not cos to be secure the page will have to be protected thus making it uneditable and thus useless. 

 

[cap n chris]

As the person who updates the CSCC Access Info, I'd find the wiki useful to flag up changes.

Would you care for some assistance updating the present info? All it would take is at least two cups of coffee (plus biscuits, God, I love biscuits!) and we could trawl through the present hand-carved tablets while I highlight opportunities for you to flex your fingers. Go on, you know you want to.... go on...... go on. .......