This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
We are making some changes to UKC Logbooks slowly over the next few months. One of the things we have now developed is the ability to copy routes that only exist on the Rockfax database, across to the UKC database in a single click. Before doing this we compare the two listings to make sure we match routes of the same name. This includes a manual selection process to take account of bad spellings, accents, and slight variations in route names.
For certain crags, especially in France, the current UKC logbook entries have been built slowly over time and they never had a data dump from Rockfax. Some of these crags have diligent moderators who have kept the routes nicely in order but there are still many routes in the Rockfax that aren't in UKC Logbooks.
What will now happen is that the extra routes from the Rockfax guides that haven't been entered, will be copied across to the UKC crag entries and added to the end of the list under a new buttress heading 'Routes added from Rockfax guide'.
Although the copied routes will be in approximate RF guidebook order, the whole listing on UKC will not now be in guidebook order. This will create a bit of extra work for moderators who want to re-order the routes again.
A tip for those who don't like the drag and drop system of re-ordering. Switch of Javascript in your browser temporarily via the Preferences option, and this gives you the option to order the routes using ordering numbers.
If you have a particular crag that you would like me to copy the Rockfax routes over from then please mention it on this thread
Finally, a big thanks to everyone who helps with the UKC Logbook moderation.
Alan
For certain crags, especially in France, the current UKC logbook entries have been built slowly over time and they never had a data dump from Rockfax. Some of these crags have diligent moderators who have kept the routes nicely in order but there are still many routes in the Rockfax that aren't in UKC Logbooks.
What will now happen is that the extra routes from the Rockfax guides that haven't been entered, will be copied across to the UKC crag entries and added to the end of the list under a new buttress heading 'Routes added from Rockfax guide'.
Although the copied routes will be in approximate RF guidebook order, the whole listing on UKC will not now be in guidebook order. This will create a bit of extra work for moderators who want to re-order the routes again.
A tip for those who don't like the drag and drop system of re-ordering. Switch of Javascript in your browser temporarily via the Preferences option, and this gives you the option to order the routes using ordering numbers.
If you have a particular crag that you would like me to copy the Rockfax routes over from then please mention it on this thread
Finally, a big thanks to everyone who helps with the UKC Logbook moderation.
Alan
In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:
Hi Alan,
Please don't copy across routes for Thaurac & Seynes - the sector names (and some route names) are different enough between RF and UKC databases that it'll be quicker and easier for me to compare the two web pages and copy across the differences one by one. Some of the routes at Seynes might end up in the wrong order, but that shouldn't be too much of a problem for users logging their routes.
Please go ahead and copy missing routes across for Hortus, Claret & Russan. These crags are either complete enough for there to not be many missing, or empty enough to add a lot (Hortus).
Thanks,
Tim
Hi Alan,
Please don't copy across routes for Thaurac & Seynes - the sector names (and some route names) are different enough between RF and UKC databases that it'll be quicker and easier for me to compare the two web pages and copy across the differences one by one. Some of the routes at Seynes might end up in the wrong order, but that shouldn't be too much of a problem for users logging their routes.
Please go ahead and copy missing routes across for Hortus, Claret & Russan. These crags are either complete enough for there to not be many missing, or empty enough to add a lot (Hortus).
Thanks,
Tim
In reply to TimB:
Thanks Tim, that is really useful feedback.
Matching Buttresses don't matter too much although it is better if they do match since we will be attaching gps locations to those at some time in the future.
I will try and get those done this afternoon.
I have just finished the Haute Provence crags.
Alan
Thanks Tim, that is really useful feedback.
Matching Buttresses don't matter too much although it is better if they do match since we will be attaching gps locations to those at some time in the future.
I will try and get those done this afternoon.
I have just finished the Haute Provence crags.
Alan
In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:
Do these changes include the ability to do any useful searches?
Or perhaps mending the Facebook app, which has been broken for at least a couple of years?
Or giving the ability to add missing summits to UKH?
Or letting you add multiple partners on UKH logs?
Do these changes include the ability to do any useful searches?
Or perhaps mending the Facebook app, which has been broken for at least a couple of years?
Or giving the ability to add missing summits to UKH?
Or letting you add multiple partners on UKH logs?
In reply to TimB:
Those three are now done, as are a few of the other crags in the France LR guide.
Alan
> Please go ahead and copy missing routes across for Hortus, Claret & Russan. These crags are either complete enough for there to not be many missing, or empty enough to add a lot (Hortus).
Those three are now done, as are a few of the other crags in the France LR guide.
Alan
In reply to Toreador:
Those aren't in the current changes but they are noted (once again).
The Facebook thing is Facebook not us, honestly!
Alan
> Do these changes include the ability to do any useful searches?
> Or perhaps mending the Facebook app, which has been broken for at least a couple of years?
> Or giving the ability to add missing summits to UKH?
> Or letting you add multiple partners on UKH logs?
> Or perhaps mending the Facebook app, which has been broken for at least a couple of years?
> Or giving the ability to add missing summits to UKH?
> Or letting you add multiple partners on UKH logs?
Those aren't in the current changes but they are noted (once again).
The Facebook thing is Facebook not us, honestly!
Alan
In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:
I know it was caused by one in a long series of changes made by Facebook. But such changes are notified to app writers well in advance to give a chance of making the necessary changes.
I'm guessing that this has now become a major task due to the time that has elapsed since it first went wrong, and a large number of FB changes have to be combined to fix it?
> The Facebook thing is Facebook not us, honestly!
I know it was caused by one in a long series of changes made by Facebook. But such changes are notified to app writers well in advance to give a chance of making the necessary changes.
I'm guessing that this has now become a major task due to the time that has elapsed since it first went wrong, and a large number of FB changes have to be combined to fix it?
In reply to Toreador:
-> I'm guessing that this has now become a major task due to the time that has elapsed since it first went wrong, and a large number of FB changes have to be combined to fix it?
I'll ask Paul. I know nothing on this one.
Alan
-> I'm guessing that this has now become a major task due to the time that has elapsed since it first went wrong, and a large number of FB changes have to be combined to fix it?
I'll ask Paul. I know nothing on this one.
Alan
In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:
Have you implemented my long-standing request that crag moderators should be able to view all the details for all outstanding updates/additions on single screen, or better still dump them to a CSV.
This would be a great help in wading through the detritus that gets submitted for Stanage and Burbage, and makes it harder for me to deal with the valid additions.
Another feature I requested years ago was a highly visible flag to denote a new route claim. On the one hand I don't want to piss on someone's chips when they think they've done a new route, on the other I don't want to clog up the system with minor variants that consist of one independent move. I'd rather be able to mark them as new and leave it up to future guidebook writers to decide whether it merits inclusion.
Have you implemented my long-standing request that crag moderators should be able to view all the details for all outstanding updates/additions on single screen, or better still dump them to a CSV.
This would be a great help in wading through the detritus that gets submitted for Stanage and Burbage, and makes it harder for me to deal with the valid additions.
Another feature I requested years ago was a highly visible flag to denote a new route claim. On the one hand I don't want to piss on someone's chips when they think they've done a new route, on the other I don't want to clog up the system with minor variants that consist of one independent move. I'd rather be able to mark them as new and leave it up to future guidebook writers to decide whether it merits inclusion.
In reply to Toreador:
You guess right, the authentication for Facebook has completely changed. It needed a rewrite from scratch. It's not far off now.
> I'm guessing that this has now become a major task due to the time that has elapsed since it first went wrong, and a large number of FB changes have to be combined to fix it?
You guess right, the authentication for Facebook has completely changed. It needed a rewrite from scratch. It's not far off now.
In reply to Chris the Tall:
Jeez, how many new routes get claimed on Stanage?!
> This would be a great help in wading through the detritus that gets submitted for Stanage and Burbage, and makes it harder for me to deal with the valid additions.
Jeez, how many new routes get claimed on Stanage?!
In reply to jon:
Quite a few, and not just by Chris Craggs !
Quite a few, and not just by Chris Craggs !
In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:
Can we get a ground up option in ascent style? Would take about 30 seconds to add the field. doesn't make sense not having it.
Can we get a ground up option in ascent style? Would take about 30 seconds to add the field. doesn't make sense not having it.
In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:
At one time you used to be able to click on the "partners" heading in your log book and it would sort routes by partners alphabetically, it was never available in the drop down selection but I found it particularly useful, it seemed to get removed when the multiple partners entry addition happened can we have it back?
When you look at your "wishlist" or any "ticklist" you are subscribed to routes that you have completed show up in bold in both and appear with a blue "W" in ticklists if they also are in your wishlist. Could this be extended so if look at any users logbook (if its public and you are signed in) you can instantly see if you have climbed the same routes or if they are already in your wishlist?
At one time you used to be able to click on the "partners" heading in your log book and it would sort routes by partners alphabetically, it was never available in the drop down selection but I found it particularly useful, it seemed to get removed when the multiple partners entry addition happened can we have it back?
When you look at your "wishlist" or any "ticklist" you are subscribed to routes that you have completed show up in bold in both and appear with a blue "W" in ticklists if they also are in your wishlist. Could this be extended so if look at any users logbook (if its public and you are signed in) you can instantly see if you have climbed the same routes or if they are already in your wishlist?
In reply to jon:
"Jeez, how many new routes get claimed on Stanage?!" Too many!
Moff and I also try and keep a log of minor stuff on our Offwidth website for most Peak Grit crags that the BMC deemed too eliminate or pointless (quite right too in virtually all cases) but this is only at the easier grades (certainly all sub-extreme on Burbage and Stanage). This was to try and stop the worst silliness (note not everything is live on Offwidth as we usually take a year or so to update things on the website and sometimes longer). Graham Hoey did this more formally on the online new routes database before he gave up (sisyphus anyone?). People just don't get that pretty much everything easy on popular crags will have been climbed solo and new easy FA claims are plain silly. What might not be silly is good independant unrecorded stuff (and that is worth Chris looking at) not on Offwidth; this would be as a FRA though, not a FA. Even we dont try and list all bouldering variants, as we would go mad... we do try and list anything we think is good fun. We colour the unlisted stuff in the BMC guides magenta.
http://offwidth.uptosummit.com/popular_end_right.html
http://offwidth.uptosummit.com/burbage_north.html
etc (there are 10 'pages' for these areas in all)
In reply to Alan (and Paul) Many thanks for all the hard work.
In reply to Chris the Tall:
It's about time you gave up most of Stanage: its too big even for you. Its hardly like it would lack volunteers.
"Jeez, how many new routes get claimed on Stanage?!" Too many!
Moff and I also try and keep a log of minor stuff on our Offwidth website for most Peak Grit crags that the BMC deemed too eliminate or pointless (quite right too in virtually all cases) but this is only at the easier grades (certainly all sub-extreme on Burbage and Stanage). This was to try and stop the worst silliness (note not everything is live on Offwidth as we usually take a year or so to update things on the website and sometimes longer). Graham Hoey did this more formally on the online new routes database before he gave up (sisyphus anyone?). People just don't get that pretty much everything easy on popular crags will have been climbed solo and new easy FA claims are plain silly. What might not be silly is good independant unrecorded stuff (and that is worth Chris looking at) not on Offwidth; this would be as a FRA though, not a FA. Even we dont try and list all bouldering variants, as we would go mad... we do try and list anything we think is good fun. We colour the unlisted stuff in the BMC guides magenta.
http://offwidth.uptosummit.com/popular_end_right.html
http://offwidth.uptosummit.com/burbage_north.html
etc (there are 10 'pages' for these areas in all)
In reply to Alan (and Paul) Many thanks for all the hard work.
In reply to Chris the Tall:
It's about time you gave up most of Stanage: its too big even for you. Its hardly like it would lack volunteers.
In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:
These are the same crag:
Arginota: http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/crag.php?id=17423
Katharina: http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/crag.php?id=3938
I have never really known what to do them, the 2nd one has the most ticks but both have loads of entries. Any ideas?
Chris
These are the same crag:
Arginota: http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/crag.php?id=17423
Katharina: http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/crag.php?id=3938
I have never really known what to do them, the 2nd one has the most ticks but both have loads of entries. Any ideas?
Chris
In reply to Chris Craggs:
How much the same are they? They appear to be in different locations and don't have that many of the same routes. Are they either end of the same crag? Which one is most accurate for the crag?
I can then move al the routes to the most accurate one and delete the other. Duplicates can then be merged using the delete option which tranfers the ticks but that is a labourious process if there are a lot.
Alan
How much the same are they? They appear to be in different locations and don't have that many of the same routes. Are they either end of the same crag? Which one is most accurate for the crag?
I can then move al the routes to the most accurate one and delete the other. Duplicates can then be merged using the delete option which tranfers the ticks but that is a labourious process if there are a lot.
Alan
In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:
The set of routes are almost identical, the ordering is different. Katherina is the more accurate one, I have been moderating that version, but couldn't find a way to include the other ticks/comments,
Chris
The set of routes are almost identical, the ordering is different. Katherina is the more accurate one, I have been moderating that version, but couldn't find a way to include the other ticks/comments,
Chris
In reply to Chris Craggs:
Ok, they are now a single crag. Unfortunately the duplicate routes need individually deleting which gives you the option to transfer Logbook ticks.
Bit of a time-consuming procedure, sorry.
Alan
Ok, they are now a single crag. Unfortunately the duplicate routes need individually deleting which gives you the option to transfer Logbook ticks.
Bit of a time-consuming procedure, sorry.
Alan
In reply to Adam Lincoln:
+1. I've never understood why this isn't already an option.
> (In reply to Alan James - UKC and UKH)
>
> Can we get a ground up option in ascent style? Would take about 30 seconds to add the field. doesn't make sense not having it.
>
> Can we get a ground up option in ascent style? Would take about 30 seconds to add the field. doesn't make sense not having it.
+1. I've never understood why this isn't already an option.
In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:
Reminds me of another new feature I have requested numerous times - the ability to move routes from one crag to another. Would be very useful for Stanage.
Reminds me of another new feature I have requested numerous times - the ability to move routes from one crag to another. Would be very useful for Stanage.
In reply to Offwidth: I think you might be right
In reply to Chris the Tall:
And at Arginonta in Kalymnos where all the routes are duplicated at Katherina.
> (In reply to Alan James - UKC and UKH)
> Reminds me of another new feature I have requested numerous times - the ability to move routes from one crag to another. Would be very useful for Stanage.
> Reminds me of another new feature I have requested numerous times - the ability to move routes from one crag to another. Would be very useful for Stanage.
And at Arginonta in Kalymnos where all the routes are duplicated at Katherina.
In reply to Dave Musgrove:
>
I flagged that up about 10 posts ago, Alan and myself have sorted it now,
cheers
Chris
>
>
> And at Arginonta in Kalymnos where all the routes are duplicated at Katherina.
> And at Arginonta in Kalymnos where all the routes are duplicated at Katherina.
I flagged that up about 10 posts ago, Alan and myself have sorted it now,
cheers
Chris
In reply to Chris Craggs:
Cheers, Chris.
That'll teach me to read back a bit before I post. However, its good to get it sorted.
Dave
Cheers, Chris.
That'll teach me to read back a bit before I post. However, its good to get it sorted.
Dave
In reply to Adam Lincoln:
It's not quite that simple I'm afraid. Quite a few pages need to be updated to cater for changes to the ascent styles.
If we end doing this change I'll more than likely add a DWS option in at the same time but I'm not sure when this would go though. It's not exactly top of my jobs list.
> Can we get a ground up option in ascent style? Would take about 30 seconds to add the field. doesn't make sense not having it.
It's not quite that simple I'm afraid. Quite a few pages need to be updated to cater for changes to the ascent styles.
If we end doing this change I'll more than likely add a DWS option in at the same time but I'm not sure when this would go though. It's not exactly top of my jobs list.
In reply to Toreador:
Hi Toreador,
What's the problem with adding a missing summit on UKH?
The 'add a missing Hill' link goes here - http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/addcrag.html?id=0&hill=1
It's on UKC as it uses the Google mapping UI. UKH uses Bing for maps.
> Or giving the ability to add missing summits to UKH?
Hi Toreador,
What's the problem with adding a missing summit on UKH?
The 'add a missing Hill' link goes here - http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/addcrag.html?id=0&hill=1
It's on UKC as it uses the Google mapping UI. UKH uses Bing for maps.
In reply to Paul Phillips - UKC and UKH:
Last time I tried it, the link successfully added the hill to the UKC database, but it was not available for "ticking" on UKH. I did contact you at the time but haven't heard anything so I assumed it's still a problem. Is that not the case?
> What's the problem with adding a missing summit on UKH?
Last time I tried it, the link successfully added the hill to the UKC database, but it was not available for "ticking" on UKH. I did contact you at the time but haven't heard anything so I assumed it's still a problem. Is that not the case?
In reply to Toreador:
I'll have look it up and find out what happened I'm afraid. I can't remember off the top of my head,
I'll have look it up and find out what happened I'm afraid. I can't remember off the top of my head,
In reply to Paul Phillips - UKC and UKH:
Hmmm really? I could probably do it in about 30 minutes tops. 30 seconds was probably a bit of a tongue on cheek comment.
Oh well, it seems an obvious change, and one that i thought would be towards the top of a to do list. I guess its all in keeping with the dated look of the site i guess.
> (In reply to Adam Lincoln)
> [...]
>
> It's not quite that simple I'm afraid. Quite a few pages need to be updated to cater for changes to the ascent styles.
>
> If we end doing this change I'll more than likely add a DWS option in at the same time but I'm not sure when this would go though. It's not exactly top of my jobs list.
> [...]
>
> It's not quite that simple I'm afraid. Quite a few pages need to be updated to cater for changes to the ascent styles.
>
> If we end doing this change I'll more than likely add a DWS option in at the same time but I'm not sure when this would go though. It's not exactly top of my jobs list.
Hmmm really? I could probably do it in about 30 minutes tops. 30 seconds was probably a bit of a tongue on cheek comment.
Oh well, it seems an obvious change, and one that i thought would be towards the top of a to do list. I guess its all in keeping with the dated look of the site i guess.
In reply to Adam Lincoln:
+1 to getting Ground Up and DWS as ascent styles as soon as possible. Seems like an obvious improvement to me that should have been there long ago.
> (In reply to Paul Phillips - UKC and UKH)
> Oh well, it seems an obvious change, and one that i thought would be towards the top of a to do list.
+1 to getting Ground Up and DWS as ascent styles as soon as possible. Seems like an obvious improvement to me that should have been there long ago.
If you haven't seen the source code, you can't possibly estimate the time to make any sort of change.
In reply to Alan James - Rockfax: Might be worth sending an email to all crag moderators to let them know this is going ahead?
In reply to Toerag:
Well it is really only of any great significance in France and Spain. I am in touch with most of the France moderators, and I am moderator for loads of Spanish crags, but I will email moderators where there are major changes.
Alan
> (In reply to Alan James - UKC and UKH) Might be worth sending an email to all crag moderators to let them know this is going ahead?
Well it is really only of any great significance in France and Spain. I am in touch with most of the France moderators, and I am moderator for loads of Spanish crags, but I will email moderators where there are major changes.
Alan
In reply to Alan James - Rockfax: I moderate a French crag (Martinswand) but believe this area isn't currently covered by Rockfax, so assume the crag will be uneffected by these developments.
Are these assumptions correct?
Are these assumptions correct?
In reply to The Ivanator:
Hi Ivan, yes, Martinswand will be unaffected. We're only copying over data from the Rockfax guides.
Hi Ivan, yes, Martinswand will be unaffected. We're only copying over data from the Rockfax guides.
In reply to Alan James - Rockfax: One extra (that would help increase brand awareness and search ranking and would allow users to network more effectively) would be to have a clickable button that users could use to direct other people to their logbook. So they might put it on their website or in their email signature, and visitors/recipients could follow the link and see whether they were compatible, had the same climbs on their wish lists, etc. Similar to what LinkedIn provide here http://jobsearch.about.com/od/linkedin/qt/linkedin-button.htm
In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:
It's a relatively minor quibble, but I really hate the changes made a wee while back to how Font bouldering grades appear. It's just messy to have Font 5+ and F6A meaning the same grading system - can we not have something that's consistent across the whole grade range for Font grades (preferably Font xx, since to me, anything with an 'F' in front of it is a sport climbing grade, even with the capital letter afterwards).
It's a relatively minor quibble, but I really hate the changes made a wee while back to how Font bouldering grades appear. It's just messy to have Font 5+ and F6A meaning the same grading system - can we not have something that's consistent across the whole grade range for Font grades (preferably Font xx, since to me, anything with an 'F' in front of it is a sport climbing grade, even with the capital letter afterwards).
In reply to Stuart S:
I'm afraid you will have to get used to it. The 'F' in front of sport grades should have disappeared years ago. We have never used it in Rockfax guides and we avoid using it as much as possible (always I hope?) on UKC editorial. Amongst the top climbers the capital differentiation has become more standard and that is what we are using as well. It is simply a matter of getting used to it.
The technical reason is that the string 'font XX+' is just too long for guidebooks, databases, layout purposes. We have a solution to the lower grade problems (without letters to capitalise) in our guidebooks, but eventually these will need to disappear in the lower grades as well when we can think of an alternative.
Alan
> It's a relatively minor quibble, but I really hate the changes made a wee while back to how Font bouldering grades appear. It's just messy to have Font 5+ and F6A meaning the same grading system - can we not have something that's consistent across the whole grade range for Font grades (preferably Font xx, since to me, anything with an 'F' in front of it is a sport climbing grade, even with the capital letter afterwards).
I'm afraid you will have to get used to it. The 'F' in front of sport grades should have disappeared years ago. We have never used it in Rockfax guides and we avoid using it as much as possible (always I hope?) on UKC editorial. Amongst the top climbers the capital differentiation has become more standard and that is what we are using as well. It is simply a matter of getting used to it.
The technical reason is that the string 'font XX+' is just too long for guidebooks, databases, layout purposes. We have a solution to the lower grade problems (without letters to capitalise) in our guidebooks, but eventually these will need to disappear in the lower grades as well when we can think of an alternative.
Alan
In reply to Stuart S:
There was a little disparity in the Font grades in the that 2 - 5+ was 'font xx', whereas >6a was 'fxx'. I've tidied those up up so they're all 'fxx' now.
There was a little disparity in the Font grades in the that 2 - 5+ was 'font xx', whereas >6a was 'fxx'. I've tidied those up up so they're all 'fxx' now.
In reply to Paul Phillips - UKC and UKH:
Thanks - it was really just a consistent system that I was hoping for, so that'll work perfectly. Cheers!
Thanks - it was really just a consistent system that I was hoping for, so that'll work perfectly. Cheers!
In reply to Alan James - Rockfax: Don't know if this has been mentioned already or not (cba to read though all the posts) but if you're looking for other adjustments to the logbook, read on please.
When/if you add a climb to your logbook that was in your wish list, could the climb be automatically ticked off from your wish list - saves doing it manually as my wish list seems to be growing and growing and would be good to have route already climbed automatically ticked off.
Cheers
When/if you add a climb to your logbook that was in your wish list, could the climb be automatically ticked off from your wish list - saves doing it manually as my wish list seems to be growing and growing and would be good to have route already climbed automatically ticked off.
Cheers
In reply to MikeStuart26:
Please don't do this, i sometimes leave routes on my wishlist as i've not climbed the main pitch and want to repeat them or for other reasons. Expect others are the same or want to see what they have done on their wishlist so it is more like a ticklist.
Maybe an option to do this rather than automatic would be a good compromise? Something similar to the message you get when you've previously added a route to you logbook, it might look like "Dream of White Horses is in your wishlist, click here to remove it from your wishlist"
>
> When/if you add a climb to your logbook that was in your wish list, could the climb be automatically ticked off from your wish list - saves doing it manually as my wish list seems to be growing and growing and would be good to have route already climbed automatically ticked off.
>
> When/if you add a climb to your logbook that was in your wish list, could the climb be automatically ticked off from your wish list - saves doing it manually as my wish list seems to be growing and growing and would be good to have route already climbed automatically ticked off.
>
Please don't do this, i sometimes leave routes on my wishlist as i've not climbed the main pitch and want to repeat them or for other reasons. Expect others are the same or want to see what they have done on their wishlist so it is more like a ticklist.
Maybe an option to do this rather than automatic would be a good compromise? Something similar to the message you get when you've previously added a route to you logbook, it might look like "Dream of White Horses is in your wishlist, click here to remove it from your wishlist"
In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:
Alan,
What should be done with routes that have different names between rockfax and existing routes in the ukc database?
Like these:
http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=282461
http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=44964
If a user had added a new route with an incorrect name I'd merge it into the existing route - but the incorrect names that have been copied across are in the LR RF, so won't show up in the dropdown list of route names if a user is trying to put their RF book ticks into the ukc logbook.
I can either
1 Merge them into the "correct" name (where "correct" means "name painted on the crag and in the local topo")
2 Make all route names RF-conformant (I don't really want to do this, as it perpetuates errors)
3 Update ukc route names to have both, such as "L'Ecaille Est / L'escaille est"
4 Something else
Any preferences or other ideas?
Alan,
What should be done with routes that have different names between rockfax and existing routes in the ukc database?
Like these:
http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=282461
http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=44964
If a user had added a new route with an incorrect name I'd merge it into the existing route - but the incorrect names that have been copied across are in the LR RF, so won't show up in the dropdown list of route names if a user is trying to put their RF book ticks into the ukc logbook.
I can either
1 Merge them into the "correct" name (where "correct" means "name painted on the crag and in the local topo")
2 Make all route names RF-conformant (I don't really want to do this, as it perpetuates errors)
3 Update ukc route names to have both, such as "L'Ecaille Est / L'escaille est"
4 Something else
Any preferences or other ideas?
In reply to TimB:
Hi Tim
In this case, just delete the newer Rockfax entries. When I do the merges I get a chance to remove these partial-matches myself but it is easy to miss a few with the big merges like this. Also, we had a bug in the system for the France LR merges I did last week so a few more got through even after I spotted them.
Usually getting rid of the newer duplicate from the Rockfax import will preserve the linking and the fact that the names are slightly different won't matter since they will be joined by a unique id number. Occasionally the system will link to the wrong 'newer' route though so deleting this entry from the UKC DB will leave an orphaned route. This is tricky to spot but I can check it so if you find a lot at a certain crag then email me and I will re-run those data merges which will tie the data back together again. It is always much easier to spot a partial match second time as well since everything else is already matched.
It is true that people searching for logbook ticks may still struggle to find them using the UKC search box, although a tidy crag listing helps in this respect, however this should all become irrelevant when we develop the App version of the RF guidebooks and improve the Logbook and UKC interface to include data from both databases.
Alan
Hi Tim
In this case, just delete the newer Rockfax entries. When I do the merges I get a chance to remove these partial-matches myself but it is easy to miss a few with the big merges like this. Also, we had a bug in the system for the France LR merges I did last week so a few more got through even after I spotted them.
Usually getting rid of the newer duplicate from the Rockfax import will preserve the linking and the fact that the names are slightly different won't matter since they will be joined by a unique id number. Occasionally the system will link to the wrong 'newer' route though so deleting this entry from the UKC DB will leave an orphaned route. This is tricky to spot but I can check it so if you find a lot at a certain crag then email me and I will re-run those data merges which will tie the data back together again. It is always much easier to spot a partial match second time as well since everything else is already matched.
It is true that people searching for logbook ticks may still struggle to find them using the UKC search box, although a tidy crag listing helps in this respect, however this should all become irrelevant when we develop the App version of the RF guidebooks and improve the Logbook and UKC interface to include data from both databases.
Alan
In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:
Are you not making an smartphone app to allow the editing of our logbooks?
what is the expected delivery date?
Are you not making an smartphone app to allow the editing of our logbooks?
what is the expected delivery date?
In reply to madguernseyboy:
At present our efforts are concentrated on the Rockfax app. That will include adding to Logbooks as a feature. We haven't decided yet how we are going to deal with adding to Logbooks from a mobile device independent of a Rockfax app. This may be an app, or it may just be a better mobile interface for the web site.
Delivery for the Rockfax App is early-to-mid-2014.
Alan
> (In reply to Alan James - UKC and UKH)
> Are you not making an smartphone app to allow the editing of our logbooks?
> what is the expected delivery date?
> Are you not making an smartphone app to allow the editing of our logbooks?
> what is the expected delivery date?
At present our efforts are concentrated on the Rockfax app. That will include adding to Logbooks as a feature. We haven't decided yet how we are going to deal with adding to Logbooks from a mobile device independent of a Rockfax app. This may be an app, or it may just be a better mobile interface for the web site.
Delivery for the Rockfax App is early-to-mid-2014.
Alan
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...