12th March 2009, 01:26 AM
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.
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.
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: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: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.