UKDFD proposal for Data transfer

[BAJR Host]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/13178656/HER-P...1lirp8ln50



?When a sinister person means to be your enemy, they always start by trying to become your friend.?
William Blake

[Paul Belford]

At first glance this looks like it resolves many of the issues I commented on in this thread on the metal-detecting part of the forum.

My initial concern would be with this (my emphasis):

quote:The UKDFD would seek a binding undertaking that no findspot it provided would be published on the Internet, or in any other publicly available format, to an accuracy greater than a four-figure grid reference or parish, unless previously agreed to by both the finder and landowner.

The very nature of HERs is that they are publicly available, so if it is recorded in the HER then this data is automatically in the public domain. However I am not an HER person so I don't know the ins and outs of this; it may be that existing arrangements exist to cover this sort of issue in other contexts.

Clearly the next step is seeing how this meshes with HERs. I presume a copy of this proposal will be sent to ALGAO for comment?

[garybrun]

Why should it be sent to ALGAO for comment??
What do they have to do with it??

I think you may know that the ALGAO disliked the Data Transfer Agreement that was made with the PAS and the HER's and wouldn't sign up to it as they viewed it as putting unfair restriction on public access to data. Yet the agreement was made with participating HERs. I personally don't care about your unions or who is who. All I care about is getting the data in the historical record for the UK. You can argue amongst yourselves who agrees or not. But the offer is there and no-one can say it was never offered.
You must not forget one thing... we are not government... we are not archaeologists.
But we do recognise what recording of finds can add to the archaeological record and our countries heritage.

Remember that UKDFD has been paid for and financed by volunteers, yet no one within government/heritage circles acknowledges the heritage contribution it is making at no cost to the public.

Website for responsible Metal Detecting
http://www.ukdfd.co.uk
Recording Our Heritage For Future Generations.

[BAJR Host]

quote:The very nature of HERs is that they are publicly available, so if it is recorded in the HER then this data is automatically in the public domain

In a way that is true.. and it is why this is good news that a data transfer (which has been offered before) is being put forward ...

many HERs have 4 figure NGRs (a legacy of paper maps) but more importantly, for the protection of both a site and the landowners rights the obfuscation (I love that word) of data is essential... the HER will have the exact data... but the public (and those nasty nighthawks - won't) it will be useful for general study, but if you want more precise data, it exists... protecting sites of potential is imperative... and I am right in thinking the PAS do the same.

:face-approve:

?When a sinister person means to be your enemy, they always start by trying to become your friend.?
William Blake

[BAJR Host]

ps it has been sent to the HER Forum... rather than ALGAO.

?When a sinister person means to be your enemy, they always start by trying to become your friend.?
William Blake

[Paul Belford]

I do think the issue of public access is a real one, and one that will have to be resolved. I am sure that some sort of compromise can be reached along the lines that Hosty suggests.

I hope that this discussion will be positive and constructive. To answer some of Gary's points:

quote:Why should it be sent to ALGAO for comment??
What do they have to do with it??

ALGAO is not a 'union', it is the Association of Local Government Archaeological Officers - who are responsible for HERs. Since your document is a "proposal for discussion" it seems to me that it would be appropriate for it to be circulated to the people who will be responsible for implementing it.

quote:All I care about is getting the data in the historical record for the UK. You can argue amongst yourselves who agrees or not.

Well the "argument amongst yourselves" (ie. archaeologists) will be critical in implementing "getting the data in the historical record"! So if you really "care about...getting the data in the historical record" then you will have to accept that there will need to be discussion amongst those people who are responsible for precisely that.

quote:You must not forget one thing... we are not government... we are not archaeologists.

I don't forget this for one moment, but on the other hand neither should you forget that "we" [u]are</u> archaeologists and that this is an archaeological discussion forum. Therefore there is bound to be some debate from an archaeological perspective. It is also worth remembering that there is a vast spectrum of archaeological opinion with regards to metal detecting - some vehemently opposed and some more sympathetic.

quote:I personally don't care about... who is who

Unfortunately if you want to develop this proposal you will have to find out who is who, and deal with them, in order to better your chances of making it acceptable to the broader archaeological community.

quote:yet no one within government/heritage circles acknowledges the heritage contribution it is making at no cost to the public

I am not sure that this is really true. There are many within PAS and the HERs who would very much like to engage with the metal detecting community. But this is a two-way street...

[Paul Belford]

Sorry I made my post at the same time, so my ALGAO remarks are not strictly relevant. My point was that consultation should take place with the HERs and that is clearly being done.

[garybrun]

quote:ALGAO is not a 'union', it is the Association of Local Government Archaeological Officers - who are responsible for HERs.

Please explain the point why HER's, CBA and all other organisations signed up to the PAS agreement yet ALGAO did not. I'm sorry I do not understand.

quote:Unfortunately if you want to develop this proposal you will have to find out who is who, and deal with them, in order to better your chances of making it acceptable to the broader archaeological community

I don't think that is correct about being acceptable into the broader archaeological community.

The archaeological community has been harping on that our data is not passed on to HER's when all along the offer has been there. PAS wouldn't accept it... so other ways are being tried to get the important historical information onto the archaeological record.

Take a look at the false statements made about UKDFD in the Night Hawking Survey. We have published a statement regarding these (something we have never done before) and would like to have the facts corrected as that is what the public and UKDFD expect and deserve in a governmental official document.

We have received one email which to be honest wasn't satisfactory in addressing the issues we raised about the Night Hawking report.
Why UKDFD was even mentioned in such a report beats me and PAS was praised and exalted. Do you see my point.

The UKDFD's data transfer document is a well thought out proposal and is also based on agreements that are already in place with other archaeological organisations and the HER's who have signed up to those agreements.

So lets cut to the chase...
Does the archaeological community want the data that is offered or do they want to stall and use political arguments and save maybe their pride by not accepting it?

Are you not guardians of our history??

If only you knew Paul the loops, hoops and hurdles and other runarounds we have been given you would see how frustrating and hypocritical I am personally finding the certain circles of the archaeological community to be.




Website for responsible Metal Detecting
http://www.ukdfd.co.uk
Recording Our Heritage For Future Generations.

[Paul Belford]

It is late and I am tired, and I have cut down a much longer essay into the following points.

Yes we do want data!

Personally I welcome your efforts to engage with archaeologists, and sympathise with your frustrations, although I have no idea about the detail. The issue of communication between the UKDFD, the PAS and the Nighthawking Survey is not one I know anything about - since I have not been personally involved with any of these organisations or initiatives. Nor am I a member of ALGAO so I cannot speak for them.

However, I suspect that the issue of public accessibility to the records was the main sticking point.

And this for me is the great irony - since everyone on all sides of this debate believes in public access. However [u]individual</u> public access needs to be balanced against [u]collective</u> public access. Individual public access means that you or I have the right to go to a place and dig holes in it and find things. Collective public access means that the results of that activity need to be somehow published and made available to add to the greater sum of human knowledge.

I am sure that we both agree that this balance needs to be struck, I suspect the difference is in where the line is drawn.

[garybrun]

Must admit... I'm an hour ahead of you and have to be up at 6am so I'm also ready to go to bed.

The main sticking point with PAS was the size of the NGR's that people recorded too not public accessibility as the agreements regarding publicising data in the public arena are already in place with the PAS and HER's. Yet PAS has many records down at parish level. If you check out the stats on one of the annual reports ( http://www.finds.org.uk/documents/port_a...6-52-2.pdf See table :face-thinks: you will see that some figures where high as 59.9% records at only parish level. These figures are now increasing for PAS as they also are for UKDFD. But to deny data transfer because "when they want" higher NGR's is hypocritical as they started with low NGR's as did we to a certain extent.
UKDFD has 16,215 recorded items as of now when I am typing this post and I would say 95% have never been recorded with the PAS.
No many would ask the question why is that??
There are many variables and I don't want to slag of the PAS as I do believe in recording our heritage and I do support them publicly... but I don't believe one organisation has the only right and that they try and brand other who record differently as "irresponsible". UKDFD was set up to encourage people to record who where not recording with the PAS for various reason. In fact it has been very successful in promoting and encouraging recording of finds. As you rightly pointed out in a previous post... there are many records that are unique to the archaeological record and only recorded with the UKDFD.

So to be honest people shouldn't be asking UKDFD why don't they transfer data... you should be asking why does a governmental highly funded scheme refuse such data and fail to recognise a system that works and is very successful.

I personally now have concerns over the DTA. (Data Transfer Agreement)
Under the DTA data that is passed on by PAS to the HER cannot be published to a accuracy greater than four figures or parish unless the finder/landowners agree to it. I have heard of one HER who has already published treasure find spots and metal detecting finds with over 6 figure grid references... so how is this DTA policed???

The way I see it is that the DTA is only an agreement and can be changed anytime ( exactly what is planning to be done with the Code Of Responsible Detecting that I have read in the detecting press with an interview with Mike Heyworth) .

PAS funding is secure to 2011 then it once again comes up for renewal..
What happens if its not renewed and PAS is merged with the MLA... then does the agreement become absolute and detectorists no longer have any say what is done with their data???

There is a balance to be struck I agree... but many seem to add extra weight to the archaeological scales which are hidden from view.

I would say UKDFD is a well built model and is running well and does what it was designed to do.
I would also say take a look at the governmental multi million pound solution that is not online at the moment and is learning from the success of a few volunteers who believe in what they are doing and pay with their own time and money. PAS is incorporating quite a few of our solutions into their governmental run database.
As Mike Heworth from the CBA states publicly to the inheritor of the PAS database code who is trying frantically to sort out the original mess.

quote:how about just sticking with that lot and getting the new site online as soon as possible to fight back against UK DFD?!

http://twitter.com/mikeheyworth/statuses/1149224129

quote:mikeheyworth: Just back from planning how to spend ?150m in 18 months on British archaeology ... they know have to enjoy themselves in Oxford!!

http://twitter.com/mikeheyworth/statuses/1231583332

I personally think British archaeology is in a bigger mess and disorganisation than it really lets on:
I'm on most of the forums trying to get the points across about people who record the heritage and see many divisions with your ranks. But please don't take those divisions out on the general public who truly do care for the heritage.


Website for responsible Metal Detecting
http://www.ukdfd.co.uk
Recording Our Heritage For Future Generations.