| Author |
How do I report an error? |
woode
Joined:
19-07-2005
Messages: 11
from Tifton, Georgia, USA
 OFF-Line
|  Posted 06-12-2011 at 14:45
I'm sure this is somewhere, but I couldn't find it in the FAQ or anywhere in the forum. How should I report an error on one of the site pages?
The error I found is on this new page: http://www.megalithic.co.uk/article.php?sid=30622
It looks like photos for Giant's Caves (chambered cairn) in Wiltshire got linked to Giant's Cave (caves) in Cumbria.
 Profile
 Email
 Reply
|
Runemage
Joined:
15-07-2005
Messages: 2412
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 06-12-2011 at 14:58
Many thanks for spotting that Woode, this is fine or just leave a comment on the site page itself (at the bottom after all the pics and maps) where the mistake is and one of the Admins should see it and correct it.
Rune
Profile
Reply
|
TheCaptain
Joined:
30-10-2003
Messages: 1483
from near Bristol
OFF-Line
| Posted 06-12-2011 at 17:07
This is not actually a mistake, but a "feature" of the database functionality where pictures are shown on a sitepage of the relevant name. If two such places have the same name - or a part of the same name, then the photographs will show on both.
This should really be taken into consideration when people send (and approve) new sitepages, to ensure that we do not have sites with the same names.
To completely solve this, both sitepages, and all photographs will have to be renamed, with completely independant names. For convenience now, I can rename Giant's Cave in Cumbria to Giant's Cave (Cumbria) unless you can give a more relevant name.
It wouldn't surprise me if there are many sites with Giant's Cave in their name.
[ This message was edited by: TheCaptain on 2011-12-06 17:11 ]
Profile
Reply
|
woode
Joined:
19-07-2005
Messages: 11
from Tifton, Georgia, USA
OFF-Line
| Posted 06-12-2011 at 17:32
Ah, that makes sense. Since I'm in the States I'll leave any suggested renaming of the page to others more familiar with the locale.
Also, Google says there's at least one more "Giant's Cave", this one in Bristol. 
Profile
Email
Reply
|
h_fenton
Joined:
22-10-2005
Messages: 105
from OXFORDSHIRE, UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 06-12-2011 at 20:29
Recently I added a sitepage and photos for 'Garrywhin Fort' (hillfort) http://www.megalithic.co.uk/article.php?sid=30578 those photos also appear on the sitepage for the singular 'Garrywhin' (multiple stone rows) http://www.megalithic.co.uk/article.php?sid=1947
Profile
Reply
|
Andy B
Joined:
13-02-2001
Messages: 7001
from Surrey, UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 06-12-2011 at 20:59
Fixed, and put on front page for good measure. Thanks
Profile
Email
Reply
|
TheCaptain
Joined:
30-10-2003
Messages: 1483
from near Bristol
OFF-Line
| Posted 07-12-2011 at 13:07
Woode, that particular Giant's Cave can be seen in this picture of Clifton Down camp, just below and to the right of The Observatory.
http://www.megalithic.co.uk/modules.php?op=modload&name=a312&file=index&do=showpic&pid=80990
Profile
Reply
|
ESgt
Joined:
19-10-2010
Messages: 42
from SK 483342
OFF-Line
| Posted 07-12-2011 at 15:42
Quote:
|
On 2011-12-06 17:07, TheCaptain wrote:
This is not actually a mistake, but a "feature" of the database functionality where pictures are shown on a sitepage of the relevant name. If two such places have the same name - or a part of the same name, then the photographs will show on both.
|
|
It is causing me some concern in looking for the "Jacob's Well" in Kent, where the photo's, by which to try to recognise the place, are from Dorset, Cornwall or Devon. Please see comments to:
http://www.megalithic.co.uk/article.php?sid=15248
Quote:
|
This should really be taken into consideration when people send (and approve) new sitepages, to ensure that we do not have sites with the same names.
|
|
Not quite true, Captain. Location ought to be the primary key. For example: there are many named 'Druid Stone', but they'll not be on top of one another.
Typically though, the Portal's locations are around 60m out of true, but photo's can help find the true location. For example please see:
http://www.megalithic.co.uk/article.php?sid=266
Profile
Email
Reply
|
Andy B
Joined:
13-02-2001
Messages: 7001
from Surrey, UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 07-12-2011 at 17:58
Location is the primary key for map plotting but the photos are found by name matching. Not ideal but it is simple to deal with on the photo gallery side and works well when it works. This is why you sometimes see the location in brackets added to our site names.
Profile
Email
Reply
|
4clydesdale7
Joined:
27-05-2011
Messages: 45
OFF-Line
|  Posted 08-12-2011 at 00:11
woode - the team that helps Andy B keep the website up to date and as accurate as possible are a remarkably devoted and dedicated group ever willing to improve the information displayed -
They do not stand on ceremony and are delightfully helpful - they respect integrity - there's nothing to be wary of - if you think something maybe wrong - do tell them - they will hear you out - if you respect them they will respect you -
When I first started suggesting (with some naivete) there might be potential errors etc I was treated with the utmost courtesy and if they thought I was wrong, they told me so ever so politely - I was not 'put down' or 'dismissed' but in fact I was very much encouraged - they're a great bunch - have no fears - just leave a note on the relevant page -
(and you guys at admin can stop blushing!!!) (credit where credit is due) - oh and by the way the photos on Colerne Cross and Colerne Cross Dyke have become muddled - woode watch what happens now!
Profile
Reply
|
Andy B
Joined:
13-02-2001
Messages: 7001
from Surrey, UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 08-12-2011 at 10:08
Thanks 4clydesdale7, and especially for crediting the whole team. They do indeed to a very much appreciated job and work well with the (sometimes ideosyncratic) Portal system
Profile
Email
Reply
|
Martin_L
Joined:
04-10-2007
Messages: 782
OFF-Line
| Posted 08-12-2011 at 13:00
Quote from ESgt: "Typically though, the Portal's locations are around 60m out of true [...] "
There is no "typical" deviation. Please note the rating given for the accuracy of the coordinates. If the coordinates have the highest rating "5" (GPS or official) they should be spot-on.
The coordinates of the site mentioned above only had a "4" (scaled from detailed map) rating.
In general: If you have more accurate coordinates of a site you may add them as a comment to the sitepage. This would be very helpful to improve quality. Thanks a lot.
[ This message was edited by: Martin_L on 2011-12-08 13:02 ]
Profile
Reply
|
davidmorgan
Joined:
23-11-2006
Messages: 1603
from The New Forest
OFF-Line
| Posted 08-12-2011 at 19:11
You'll often find that accuracy=4 is spot on because on the whole we classify Google maps/satellite as a "detailed map" and not "GPS or official".
P.S. This is a useful website for pinpointing UK grid references - UK Grid Reference Finder.
[ This message was edited by: davidmorgan on 2011-12-08 19:15 ]
Profile
Reply
|
frogcottage42
Joined:
14-02-2010
Messages: 235
from tuosist
OFF-Line
| Posted 08-12-2011 at 23:39
Saying that co ords are inaccurate will always be contentious because of the differing readings obtained from various peoples GPS handsets.
I have found a couple of sites using portal co ords that have been in agreement with my E-trex to 1m whereas the positions quoted in the Archaeological survey of SW Kerry for instance are generally between 25 and 125 metres out.
In any case for those of us who still use good old fashioned maps 60m would be pretty good anyway.
Profile
Reply
|
sem
Joined:
12-11-2003
Messages: 1707
from Bridgend,S.Wales
OFF-Line
| Posted 09-12-2011 at 18:44
Quote:
|
On 2011-12-08 13:00, Martin_L wrote:
Quote from ESgt: "Typically though, the Portal's locations are around 60m out of true [...] "
There is no "typical" deviation. Please note the rating given for the accuracy of the coordinates. If the coordinates have the highest rating "5" (GPS or official) they should be spot-on.
The coordinates of the site mentioned above only had a "4" (scaled from detailed map) rating.
In general: If you have more accurate coordinates of a site you may add them as a comment to the sitepage. This would be very helpful to improve quality. Thanks a lot.
[ This message was edited by: Martin_L on 2011-12-08 13:02 ]
|
|
Unfortunately the "official" coordinates are sometimes inaccurate. Here in South Wales we have many cairns that were last checked by RCAHMW over 25yrs ago, before accurate GPS was in common use. When you add to this that some sites may have been duplicated (or more) sorting out which is cairn 1, which is cairn 2 etc up to 10 becomes a nightmare when you can only find five cairns in the area.
Other problems can be caused by the datum system used by your GPS. My Garmin for example, came set to WGS84, which I later found out is about 50m out for the UK. I think it was Cerrig who actually checked his (using WGS84) on the Greenwich Meridian and found the same!
Profile
Reply
|
TheCaptain
Joined:
30-10-2003
Messages: 1483
from near Bristol
OFF-Line
| Posted 09-12-2011 at 19:24
Off the top of my head, from places where I checked, my Garmin gives reasonable position in WGS84 when I use latitude and longitude for display. but then change it to OS grid, and then we shift by magic to somewhere nearby. I guess it depends on where you are.
Nothing new here, its all down to peeling the orange off the shell of the non spherical globe. Something Magellan and Mercator struggled with hundreds of years ago. We get a bit more accurate, but still not perfect.
I take your point Sem, but its not something I'm going to lose any sleep over !
[ This message was edited by: TheCaptain on 2011-12-09 19:26 ]
Profile
Reply
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2646
OFF-Line
| Posted 09-12-2011 at 20:33
WGS 84 , (which is fine for a world wide accuracy )will differ by different amounts , depending on where you are in the UK (somewhere in the Atlantic they agree ) , with OS grid refs which are based on the OSGB 36 (which is fine for UK accuracy ) datum .
George
Profile
Reply
|
h_fenton
Joined:
22-10-2005
Messages: 105
from OXFORDSHIRE, UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 09-12-2011 at 20:42
On UK Ordnance Survey map a six figure grid reference eg SP 296 310 only makes reference to a square piece of ground 100metres x 100metres, an eight figure grid reference gives 10metres x 10metres.
see: http://mapzone.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/mapzone/PagesHomeworkHelp/docs/easypeasy.pdf
In my experience google earth cannot be relied upon for highly accurate positions, some areas it seems to be spot on, yet others consistently hundreds of metres off. If you look at historical imagery on google earth you may also find as you change the date of the imagery everything moves too.
Profile
Reply
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2646
OFF-Line
| Posted 09-12-2011 at 22:11
Quote:
|
On 2011-12-09 20:42, h_fenton wrote:
On UK Ordnance Survey map a six figure grid reference eg SP 296 310 only makes reference to a square piece of ground 100metres x 100metres, an eight figure grid reference gives 10metres x 10metres.
see: http://mapzone.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/mapzone/PagesHomeworkHelp/docs/easypeasy.pdf
In my experience google earth cannot be relied upon for highly accurate positions, some areas it seems to be spot on, yet others consistently hundreds of metres off. If you look at historical imagery on google earth you may also find as you change the date of the imagery everything moves too.
|
|
Google Earth uses WGS 84 . See above .
George
Profile
Reply
|
sem
Joined:
12-11-2003
Messages: 1707
from Bridgend,S.Wales
OFF-Line
| Posted 09-12-2011 at 23:46
Cap'n said
"Off the top of my head, from places where I checked, my Garmin gives reasonable position in WGS84 when I use latitude and longitude for display. but then change it to OS grid, and then we shift by magic to somewhere nearby. I guess it depends on where you are."
I'd guess it does Martyn.
Join us "Down Below" and experience some real magic!
Or real BS, depending on where you are.
Profile
Reply
|
Main News