Jump to content

bencmarking gallery suggestion


WhistlingWind

Recommended Posts

Jeremy -

 

Is it possible to add the county and state to

the (existing) PID above the photos in the

benchmark gallery? The data (county and state)

is available in the database -- so you should

be able to grab it.

 

Many of us benchmarkers like to peruse the

benchmarking photo gallery to see what finds

look interesting. If something has been logged in our locale, neighboring counties or state,

it is that much more interesting.

 

Currently, The photo is automatically captioned

with the PID above the photo, and user supplied

comments below... but typically the user comments

do not include *ANY* reference to the physical

location (despite many urgings on the benchmarking

discussion board that people include the county

and state in the comments -- instead what people do is title

the photo 'closeup' or overview or 'the benchmark' :-(

 

Having the county and state automatically

added after the PID would sure be nice!

 

Many Thanks for the terrific site,

Whistling Wind

Link to comment

The one downfall to this is that benchmarkers are finding an increasing number of datasheets labeled with the WRONG county name.

 

I think many times it's listed as an adjacent county, so at least you'd be in the right neighborhood! icon_biggrin.gif

 

Greg

N 39 54.705'

W 77 33.137'

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by gnbrotz:

The one downfall to this is that benchmarkers are finding an increasing number of datasheets labeled with the WRONG county name.

 

I think many times it's listed as an adjacent county, so at least you'd be in the right neighborhood!


Out of about 12,500 benchmarks in Missouri, I have found 18 listed in the wrong county after a fairly exhaustive analysis. And those are getting fixed. So, if it is possible for Jeremy to put the state/county next to the PID he should go ahead and do it and not worry about county problems.

Link to comment

Rog, thanks for chiming in. I wasn't sure of the exact numbers. I do know it seems to regularly come up in the benchmark forums, but compared to the total number of marks out there, it seems to be an infinitesimal problem.

 

Greg

N 39 54.705'

W 77 33.137'

Link to comment

Amen to this suggestion.

 

I do enjoy perusing the gallery but am frustrated by the vast number of 'locationless' benchmarks. The number with incorrect locations seems well under one percent. Also, since most of the errors seem to incorrectly place a benchmark in the adjacent county, the casual browser will still have a pretty good idea of where the mark is.

 

Incidentally, in logging some 200 benchmarks, mostly in the DC area and along I-95 north to New Jersey, I haven't found a single misplaced mark. Possibly this is due to my lack of vigilance, or possibly we're more accurate in the mid-Atlantic region ;-)

 

Meanwhile, here's another suggestion: photo information should be editable. Right now, to change the title or caption one has to delete the image and re-load it. It should be easier than that!

 

Regards

ArtMan

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...