Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2005
12th March 2009, 07:25 PM
Hi Gary
I am not sure that a public spat with Mike Heyworth is the best way forward (and may be in contravention of Hosty's AUP?). Nor am I, personally, concerned with what has happened in the past between UKDFD and archaeological groups. As I say I am not myself close enough to your process of negotiations to comment on these specific points.
I think the best thing is to draw a line under what has happened in the past and move forward positively.
I personally welcome this latest UKDFD initiative and I am sure that it will get a fair hearing from everyone concerned. Whether the outcome of that debate will be entirely in keeping with the wishes of the metal-detecting community (which I am sure is as varied as the archaeological one) is another matter, and compromise will be inevitable.
Good luck!
Paul
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
12th March 2009, 09:34 PM
I am glad this has all come up
I actually find the Twitter comment quite odd... and as it is public am happy for it to stand. ( i think it is not from Mike, but from PAS)
I agree that movign forward is best.
however.. I can reveal that a strange debate is going on in HER land .. seems like there is general resistance to accepting UKDFD record either because they feel they are not up to FISH compliance... OR that they have duplicated (and even taken PAS descriptions) so far no agrement.
This is disapointing, but at least they offered - and can't be accused of being irresponsible.
I don't want to say too much... but... it ain't over yet. I think this is a potential great move..
?When a sinister person means to be your enemy, they always start by trying to become your friend.?
William Blake
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2005
12th March 2009, 10:10 PM
Thank you for your comments Paul.
I quoted Mike Heyworth and also gave a link to Twitter as it is a "public Twitter" for all.
I do respect the AUP and would not knowingly break it.
In fact I will take the time to read it again.
I am concerned what has happened in the past... because that effects everything we are doing today.
As I have stated... UKDFD is willing to PAS its records on to the HER. The PAS and CBA brand UKDFD as "irresponsible" and have done for a number of years.... yet do not really tell the whole story and are only using assumptions to back up their arguments. That's is why I try and show what has happened so you do have some background. Its very important to me and my team that the truth is known.
We care for the heritage as much as everyone else... what right have a few governmental archaeologists to determine who care for the heritage or not??
Website for responsible Metal Detecting
http://www.ukdfd.co.uk
Recording Our Heritage For Future Generations.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
13th March 2009, 11:29 AM
What about existing records, those added to your database between launch and whenever the rules change?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
13th March 2009, 12:19 PM
I can answer that, as that is a question I had as well.
Basically, it is best to get a working system.. iron out glitches.. see what is wanted... then think about retrospective.. otherwise
a) you would cause info overload.. with data that you may have to go over a few times...
b) people would then be asked if thats ok.
It seems though that HERs are overloaded as it is.. the act of offering has been a great step, but perhaps, as HERs are mostly used for Develoment control, the best place for the records is where they are now... however, the offer is on the table.
A couple of Counties have stepped forward, and are suggesting ways it could work where everyone benefits... though (of course) it takes time.. I take my hat off to them.. This is about more information, and responsible detecting.. so everyone has to act accordingly, and perhaps stop fighting and start listening.. (not directed at anyone here i must add)
?When a sinister person means to be your enemy, they always start by trying to become your friend.?
William Blake
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2005
13th March 2009, 01:43 PM
Having given this some thought we're not convinced that the information gained will be in proportion to the effort involved given the apparent levels of duplication between the UKDFD and PAS. Plus this is not really data transfer is it?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2005
13th March 2009, 02:22 PM
Hi Vulpes.
At the time of writing, 14219 of the 16233 records on the UKDFD database have not been recorded elsewhere. How can that be classed as duplication??
Website for responsible Metal Detecting
http://www.ukdfd.co.uk
Recording Our Heritage For Future Generations.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
13th March 2009, 02:22 PM
Very little duplication... and what is data transfer...?
Find spot info, type of find, period etc... description... image blah blah
What is coming out is that HERs are underfunded (I know only too well) and unable to undertake the large amount of data on offer - let alone this extra data.
The concept is that UKDFD is being responsible.. and perhaps the PAS and UKDFD can continue to operate and provide data on their websites... which the HERs could look at (just like I used to with NLS map lirary, Google maps, etc... the function as a DC tool is not greatly enhanced by findspots, until they morphe into sites. Options are that it is sites we need.
?When a sinister person means to be your enemy, they always start by trying to become your friend.?
William Blake
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2005
13th March 2009, 04:13 PM
Quote:quote:finds are not that useful
in HERs as they don't point to sites.. sites however are better.
BAJR host
is the sort of meaningless and inaccurate blether I am becoming accustomed to on this forum.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
13th March 2009, 04:17 PM
explain why it is meaningless
:0 nice insult though
?When a sinister person means to be your enemy, they always start by trying to become your friend.?
William Blake
