Putting it to a vote.

[Space Doubt Caver]

I am working on a project that will put a lot of information about caves mines and their locations and there condition in one place.

I need help to get a consensus of what people would prefer, but first of all let me explain the decision I want to make, but also why I want to put it to a vote.

When it comes to releasing or publishing any information about caves or mines our main objective is to make it accessible to those with genuine interest, but also want to prevent misguided wanderers from getting into precarious positions underground that they are ill experienced for.

In the caving community we have always had this unwritten rule about keeping locations private to prevent unnecessary call-outs, or misguided adventurers getting stuck underground.

Which takes me to this decision I have to make, which a good vote to get consensus will help clear up, on what is the best course of action to take.

So to explain... I am creating "The Big Underground Clean-Up UK, Cave & Mine Adoption List," and we will be releasing information publicly, but this is where i'm struggling to make a decision, so here are the options and their Pro's and Con's.
----------
Option A:
Release all the information on the main site & just have it accessible to all, and keep it public with cave & mine names all links and access information available?
= (The pro's) are people "Absolutely Anyone" could access it, as all the information is Open-Source and public online anyway, and all with genuine interest can benefit from it
= (The Con's) risks of this are the clear and obvious risks, "Absolutely Anyone" could access it, and this brings a certain level of risk, of misguided adventurers getting stuck in places they would not normally visit.
----------
Option B:
Create a members area, where you need an E-mail address and to create a password, to create your member account, to access (Completely Free).
Should I only put all the information like Cave & Mine names, with links and location and access status available to (only members)?
- In this instance only people who join the members area could access all the information. and the "Main-Site" (non members area - public viewing) would only display the cave or mines name & adoption status only without showing links to locations or access information Ect....

= (The Pro's) anyone who comes to the website (Non-Members) will see the list showing only the cave or mine name & It's adoption status,
Only members when signed in would be able to view all of the information such as all access information, all links to it's location ect... and this will minimise any risk of misguided adventurers getting stuck in places they would not usually visit, while maintaining access to those with genuine interest in caving and exploring underground.
= (The Con's) i can't think of any right now......

 

[wellyjen]

I don't think there was ever a general culture of secrecy around site locations in the UK as there was in the USA. Information was almost always available, but you had to make an effort to find it. Buy a guidebook, or magazine, go to one or more libraries.. Join a club. Any secrecy, then as now was almost always during the exploration phase and very occasionally at the landowners insistence afterwards..Now people expect any and all information to be instantly available, right where they are, so any extra effort required looks like secrecy.

There are a number of things more to consider.
Is the information already easily and publicly acceptable? For many Peak District sites, this is the Peak District caving.info site, run by The DCA. Other regions have their own versions. This usually has the location and most up to date access info for natural caves and many mines. The easiest way of keeping your own site up to date is to link directly to a source of info that has the resources behind it to keep it up to date. Much easier than for an individual, or small group to do than trying to duplicate their effort. I did this when transferring the Crewe rigging guide online. It used to have location and access info in the guide when that was only otherwise in the paper guidebook. Access permission can change at short notice and is hard to keep in sync, so the Crewe guide now outsources that to the DCA, who have a more comprehensive idea what is going on. Any duplication of information will lead to contradictions and going out of sync.

On access, you have talked about caver secrecy, but not mentioned landowner wishes. How are you going to ensure that landowners are happy with this information being published and the possible extra visitors that will result? Giant's Hole gets lots of nontraditional cavers visiting now, due to social media. Most are fine, but a few cause problems.

So, my view is that if the information is already publicly available on the internet, then link to that source direct. If not, then get permission from the copyright holder of the paper source, or direct from the explorers and landowners.

I don't think to have a login, or not is the question you should be asking.
Good luck with your project.

 

[mikem]

Other areas are covered by the CNCC (inc. Scotland), CSCC, DCUC and CCC, plus regional registries (some of which are run by above)

 

[snebbit]

Just my suggestions:

- Agree with mikem and wellyjen, the data sources about the sites, access etc. are already out there, don't get weighed down creating a new national database of sites and their info - you can't keep on top of that data yourselves and you'll just end up with out-of-date data and a new full time unpaid job trying to maintain it. Maybe just needs 2 columns - data_source, being an enum of 'dca', 'cncc', 'buddlepit' etc. and data_id, being a string that's used in whichever source's URL, '248', 'rowten-pot', 'lathkill-dale/knotlow' etc. These two columns would let you build the URL to send people to for further info, or if you really wanted to display more data about sites in future, would allow you to just build a scraper/cache that gets data from those URLs (with their permission ofc) without you having to maintain it yourself.

- Would suggest not going overboard with columns on your own database, both for your own future sanity and for keeping the barrier to contributing to it low. E.g. with the form you've made, it's very granular and takes a few minutes to complete which will reduce engagement, perhaps the database just needs site name, adopter, status (unknown, needs clean, recently cleaned etc.), notes. At a push, a 'last reported clean date'. With tens of thousands of sites nationwide, again you don't want to be spending your whole time maintaining 20 fields for each site, as tempting as it is when you're a data magpie

 

[mikem]

Also the voting isn't clear as you have option B first in the title, but doesn't specify that it is B

 

[Cantclimbtom]

I think you should collaborate with the folks over at buddlepit if mine related, they invested a lot of time and effort into developing a site including database backend considerations and have an open attitude to info sharing (although a very few sites may need to be sensitive for exceptional reasons). I'm sure they'd be very very pleased to ingest any info

Edit: option B, requiring sign in may prevent or reduce automated data harvesting, Google ingest and a few other issues that affect semi-sensitive site info (truly sensitive should be kept off radar full stop, but IMHO that's a very small list)

 

[ChrisB]

As above, don't give location, just link to where that info can be found. Otherwise you have a mammoth job updating any access changes etc.

A login won't stop people who ought not to know, because how will you know who to block from registering? But as Tom says it might stop bots scraping the site and reposting the info in the wrong places.

 

[Space Doubt Caver]

You all make very valid points to consider thank you, this gives me a great perspective from points I hadn't thought about.
I think using the external links to keep it simple is the best way, as you all rightfully mention, it would be easier to be kept to date, where it is open source like the DCA where they keep track of access information, and link people to that information from the official sources, as they have the resources to keep their information up-to-date.

I had thought about programming a scraper, to keep information upto date, but this would also collect information about sites that have access issues or disputes, which is something i work hard to avoid publishing, which my current method of getting that information myself, keeps this from happening so any sensitive locations have not been and will not be added on the final list on the website.

So instead of having it's location, and access information, I will minimise the information so it does not say the "Exact" location or access information on the description (but shares a link to it instead, which maintains people will still have to click on the links to find that information themselves)

This first list for 2025, will only have Open-Source information, so anything outside that scope (Only in Guidebook info) will not be added.

So now it will only display the following information like this, with links Example...
------------------------------------
Site Name: Black Rabbit Cave
Location: Castleton
Caving Region: Derbyshire
Site Type: Cave
Grade: 3
Length: 152m
Depth: N/A
Access: Check Link
Survey: Check Link
Topo: N/A
Adoption Status: Needs Adopting
Adopted by: N/A
Assessed by: N/A
Condition Status: Unknown

Link: https://www.peakdistrictcaving.info/home/the-caves/castleton/black-rabbit-cave
-----------------------------------------------

Thank you peeps, this has been very insightful and gives me a lot to think about and consider, i will take this advice onboard

I will be sharing my data with Buddle-Pit also

Thank you
SDC

 

[wellyjen]

Its not just access. Even location information can change over time and not just through continental drift. I've come across a couple of instances where the peakdistrictcaving.info and the Caves of the Peak District published grid references were out by between 300 and 900m. I fed this back to the DCA and the web site has been updated. The guide book will have to wait till the next edition. It's an easy thing to happen. A fumble fingered swap when typing in two significant digits can throw off a location by a long way. There will be others, in both the DCA and other regional databases. Again, another example of deciding on a number of datasets of record, where you trust what they produce and are confident they have the resources to keep them up to date and referencing everything back to them.

 

[Edwardov]

As someone who has done a lot of mapping in North Wales, be prepared for the monumental effort and the moral dilemmas.

We now know where every hole in the ground is in North Wales and that data is strictly controlled and only shared out when operationally necessary to search and rescue teams. I can happily talk you through what things might catch you out, but always be conscious that making things accessible can be asking for trouble.

You could do things like reducing some of the positions to an approximate precision. Like maybe reducing everything down to a rough (you decide) position instead of a precise position.

 

[mikem]

Some sites have had half a dozen different grid refs published for them over the years - the problem then can be knowing which is the most up to date / correct (sometimes using different names for the same minor sites as well), other times nearby entrances have been assumed to be the same when they weren't...

I wouldn't even bother with length and depth, as those can also change and most are recorded elsewhere.

 

[ChrisB]

If I understand correctly, SDC, you're not doing this to create a guide to cave or mine locations; you're using the location to identify which cave or mine you're referencing the clean-up status of. So only include what's necessary for your purpose - others have already published the rest of the information, or, if they haven't there's a good reason. Duplicating data doesn't usually help anyone, it's better to go to the primary source. Your database is the primary source for clean-up information, so I would keep it to that.

Where the location is public, on another site, you can link to it. Where either the location or name is not public, you could use a suitable approximation as Edwardov says, or a code name, with a contact link to either yourself or ideally the present 'custodian' of that site. The link doesn't need to reveal who is being contacted and it's up to the person making the contact to prove that they're genuine and for the person receiving the contact (the custodian) to decide whether they're convinced.