Sorry to chip in - and I hope you all accept that this contribution is in the spirit of helpfulness rather than by any way of criticism - but I've just read the whole of this topic in one go and, being a normal caver - I don't understamd 80% of it. If I was asked to submit data and was faced with this kind of technical approach, I doubt I'd be enthusiastic. So here are a few remarks which may or may not help:
1. It's an absolutely superb idea and it should be supported by all cavers.
2. BUT - it's got to be user friendly and easily understood by the ordinary caver in the pub.
3. The word "data" is plural (so, for example, "there is data" is wrong and "there are data" is right). The singular of course is "datum".
4. I remember having quite long discussions with the likes of Wookey about this initiative back in the 1990s. I even went so far as to advertise the fact it was likely to be happening in my own club journal, to help launch the project and do what I could to encourage other cavers to support it. Unfortunately it never really seems to have got off the ground - but, happily, it clearly hasn't gone away, hence this discussion.
5. Juan's question about whether there are reasons not to support such an initiative is too simplistic. There are many good reasons, which I could go into but which wouldn't serve any real purpose here. The point is that anyone who feels they do have a reason not to submit their data will not support the scheme - so this point needs to be addressed from the outset. When Wookey was working towards setting something up I suggested that there could be various levels of access to different tranches of data. If reluctant submitters of survey information could be reassured that these data would be kept secure until they personally release them (or at least agree the circumstances whereby the data would be released for public use) then coverage by the proposed repository would be much more comprehensive. (A useful analogy here is the "CDG Secret File" - cave divers are encouraged to submit (unpublished) sensitive dive logs to it, so that these aren't lost on the understanding that they will not be released until the originator has given permission. To my knowledge this arrangement has always been honoured ever since Oliver Lloyd started it. It works well because if the holder of the secret file receives a query about a site which (s)he knows is in there, (s)he usually asks the originator if they object to the person who asked having the info, or being encouraged to contact the originator directly to discuss the site. This system works really well - thank you Oliver!)
6. As with all projects of this nature, uptake may not be fast at first but when people start to discover how useful it is they'll then become more enthusiastic about submitting their own numbers. Eventually a tipping point will be reached whereby it becomes the norm to make sure that all data are automatically submitted. The key thing is to set it up right in the first place so that dummies like me - or (perhaps more accurately) cavers who would really rather not spend their time discussing the minutiae of computing intricacies - find it easy to use.
I'm delighted that this is obviously being taken seriously and I'll certainly do my best to support it - if I can understand it!
Well done all.
