10th July 2013, 03:56 PM
Jack Wrote:maybe i should explain what I think.
Yes it's great someone has won funding to do some archaeology.
Yes its great to involve the public/ amateur archaeologists
Yes its great to encourage/ inspire people to get involved in, become interested in archaeology.
But what use will the data be?
Too many opinions and variability in 'measurement' of the monuments/ non-monuments, roundabouts, 19th century gardens, spoil tips........
use lidar data and google earth together supervised by someone who knows something about what your looking for and you get measurable results.
But am guessing that's not the point of the project.
Well, you've changed your tune. I would say:
Quote:But then I realised that its just a survey of what the public think and see about what they think is a hill fort.
The only point I can see is to waste some money.
is a completely opposite point of view to
Quote:Yes it's great someone has won funding to do some archaeology.
As for
Quote:But what use will the data be?
What use is your data? Other than its use in getting someone planning permission. See Doug's post above.
As for doing it with lidar, I should think it would cost more than a million quid to fly some lidar of all the known hillforts at a decent resolution, process it and get someone to interpret it. Most of the existing lidar datasets are from the Environment Agency, which has flown them to look at flooding patterns. Lots of it is not flown in winter, and is only available as jpegs anyway. And even then, lidar is not some kind of magical technology: site visits are quite important for interpretation.
If there is lidar or a site, I reckon this project will be looking at it. They have a big GIS to bring it into.
Volunteers are going to need management and quality control, just like anyone else.
Quote:But am guessing that's not the point of the project.
Yes, its all a conspiracy against you.