Jump to content

Trigpoints as virtuals / parts of multicaches


Teasel

Recommended Posts

This discussion has been going round on G:UK for the last couple of days but I'd like to give it a broader airing...

 

A number of people who go trigpointing would like to build up a public database of "flush bracket numbers" (the unique numbers on the metal plates on trigpoints). However there are a number of geocaches which use FB numbers either as a clue in a multicache series, or a proof of visit for a virtual. A number of cachers have expressed the worry that making FB numbers easily accessible on the web would make it easier for cachers to cheat, by missing out the first part of a multicache, or by claiming a find on a virtual that they've not visited.

 

Currently, T:UK makes all FB numbers publically visible; JeremyP's site hides all FB numbers you've not personally logged. Neither approach seems to please everybody, so I'm looking for some sort of "middle way".

 

To throw a couple of ideas into the pot... we could make FB numbers accessible only to registered users, or only to people who explicitly email me to ask for access. We could provide a button for people to say "this trigpoint is part of cache GCxxxx", which would cause that FB number and any close-up photos to be hidden from casual visitors to the T:UK site.

 

What's the best way forward?

Link to comment

Is there a middle ground?

 

Would it be possible to hide only those FP numbers which are part of a cache? This could cause as many difficulties as not, but if those FP numbers could be given upon request (and username), for example.

 

Then is a visitor requests an FP, then immediately logs a cache... well, I guess you get the picture.

 

This message is a bit blathery but I hope it makes sense.

 

EDIT: You can really tell I don't do trigpointing, can't you? FP in my message should read FB. eft in for humour's sake.

 

------

An it harm none, do what ye will

soapbox.gif

 

[This message was edited by Kouros on April 24, 2003 at 05:29 AM.]

Link to comment

Leave the system as is. Remember Geocaching and trigpointing is a hobby and lets not get too emotive about it. Yes there may be a few chancers logging virtuals from plate numbers but they are only really cheating themselves and if they log many such caches then they will be exposed as cheats by themselves. Maybe cachers should not use trigs as virtuals any more, so keeping the 2 hobbys seperate.There is a cheating element in a lot of things and dont see the need for elobarate cover ups of the fb number to be made, for instance you could cheat a cache by logging it as found but dont sign the log book (book maybe unwritable if wet as in a cache we found) and claiming not to have taken or left anything.

If the info on your site gets used as a database by OS or someone then OK no probs, nice to have helped someone!!

The T:uk site is developing well and has many good features,Well done

Link to comment

I'm not sure I see the argument in favour of making the numbers public before finding them. Can someone explain why this is necessary?

 

It seems to me that hiding them from people who have not yet found the trigpoints gives an extra bit of incentive to people to go out and find them. It all adds to the voyage of discovery.

 

Given the association between geocaching and trigpoints I'm sure there are quite a few caches out there that use this information as an integral part (I can immediately think of two off the top of my head). I think the owners of these caches would be a wee bit put out if the numbers were suddenly published for all to see, particularly on a website that has such a strong geocaching link.

 

Rich

mobilis in mobili

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by el10t:

It seems to me that hiding them from people who have not yet found the trigpoints gives an extra bit of incentive to people to go out and find them. It all adds to the voyage of discovery.


I could certainly add an option for people to choose not to see FB numbers unless they'd logged them. Whether such voluntary self-denial would provide sufficient incentive to trudge up that hill, I can't say icon_smile.gif

quote:
Originally posted by el10t: Given the association between geocaching and trigpoints I'm sure there are quite a few caches out there that use this information as an integral part (I can immediately think of two off the top of my head). I think the owners of these caches would be a wee bit put out if the numbers were suddenly published for all to see, particularly on a website that has such a strong geocaching link.

Well quite, hence why I started this thread!

 

Some already are published, of course, and there are other sites, including the OS themselves, who hope to make all FB numbers publically available at some point. The issue is that T:UK is here now, and it's got a strong link to geocaching.

 

Currently you can go to T:UK and search for trigpoints near to a cache, or caches near to a trigpoint. Shortly I intend to provide a link from the cache list on the stats page to T:UK so you can more easily jump between the two sites. People have said that they would be more likely to visit trigpoints if it was easier to combine it with a caching trip.

 

I also hope to add a trigpointing link to the "transmogrified" G:UK versions of the GC.com trigpoint pages (the ones with the added links to streetmap), though I'll need to check that out with the guys at Groundspeak first. Jeremy had no objection to the streetmap links, when I asked, but it's a bit of a leap to insert links to my own website!

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by el10t:

I'm not sure I see the argument in favour of making the numbers public before finding them. Can someone explain why this is necessary?


 

I still have not seen an answer to this. Even when asking in an email to Teasel.

 

What is so important about displaying these numbers to anybody ?

 

There is only one reason I can see which makes this of any value, that is where someone would like to know where any particular trigpoint is. To do this they would already have the number, so a search could be done on Teasels database to reveal the location.

 

So, again, why is it so important to display the numbers ?

 

I can see that this will just remove a resource which was at one time available to cachers.

 

Also, please note that we are not able to approve virtual caches where the answer is available on the internet.

 

Tim & June (Winchester)

 

See June, I told you that sign which said 'Unsuitable for Motor Vehicles' was wrong ! icon_smile.gif

Link to comment

So far the arguments against revealing the trigpoint numbers are:

 

- it is detimental to the UK geocaching scene because it could spoil current and future caches.

- it would add to the joy of the hunt if discoverers of trigpoints have to find them for themselves.

 

The arguments for seem to be:

- they are there at present so leave it like that.

 

I think the GeocacheUK site needs to be a bit careful that it isn't inadvertantly spoiling some aspects of geocaching by mistake.

 

Rich

mobilis in mobili

Link to comment

I am against the publishing of the FB numbers as they have no use to just about anyone other than geocachers icon_biggrin.gif.

 

They are used in quite a few caches which could spoil the fun - but hey, it is just a game...

 

Andy.

 

----------------------------------------

All our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike-and yet it is the most precious thing we have - Albert Einstein

 

[This message was edited by Subarite on April 24, 2003 at 03:05 PM.]

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Teasel:

A number of people who go trigpointing would like to build up a public database of "flush bracket numbers"


I'm not going to die in a ditch over this, but having scanned through the GC:UK forum on the subject the "number of people" appears to be one person. Have we got our priorities right here?

 

Rich

mobilis in mobili

Link to comment

The only reason that you haven't seen any reasons *for* making the data public is becuase some of us only get to do these forums once a day. frog.gif

 

So here goes. My reason for doing trigpoints is to help to re-catalogue all the pillars in the country. I'm a public-spirited sort of guy who believes that, since the OS make a database of all their current "trigpoints" (the GPS stations) with numbers and pictures and reports of damage and accessibility etc etc, then there should be one for the old trigpoint pillars too. In fact I was surprised at the start to find out that the OS did NOT have such a catalogue. At least not one that they could guarantee to be accurate. And so I set about starting to check the existing database, (the one from Chris and Maria's site), to look for entries that were erroneous/missing etc etc. Since the OS current database is available on the net, and I'm a believer in all information being freely available, it follows logically that I strongly desire the trigpoints database to be publicly accessible via the web too.

 

I'm a cacher. I know that some caches have clues that have answers you can find on the web. I have done it myself...I have phoned up someone with a web connection while standing outside some closed building unable to gain access to the thingummyjig in the entrance hall where some fourdigit year is engraved on the glass eyeball of a 17th century fox-stuffer. I get them to do me a quick Google for the answer and on I go. Its either that or make another 200 mile round trip the next day when the property might be open...

 

Well anyway, the upshot is that there are caches that *can* be done entirely using information from the web if you, as a cacher, want to do it that way. Its up to you.

 

To imply that trigpointing is somehow joined at the hip to caching is not how I see it. I see the two activities as completely separate. One to me is a hobby, the other is me doing a job I think the OS should have done themselves.

 

When I started this project, I happened to be with one of my old school teachers at the time (yes, she taught me when I was 8 years old, some 30 years ago!) and we were searching for the data on the net. When I expressed frustration that it wasn't there, she said, quite bluntly, "well stop moaning and go and get it yourself and put it on the net!" (How many times did she say THAT sort of thing to me at school!)

 

So I am. That requires two stages to the process. (i) The going and getting, and (ii) the putting on the web.

 

I want to do both. If people want to use that information to "cheat" with at geocaching, then shouldn't that be *their* choice? Give people the choice, and let them be grown up all by themselves.

 

I respect T&J's point of view as expressed on this thread, and I can see a bit of where they are coming from, but this time, for once, I disgree with the opinion they hold. I don't think there should be any real link between caching and trigpoint cataloguing. This is why I have so far declined to talk about trigpoints in any great depth on here. These are Jeremy's Geocaching forums, and not anything to do with OS triangulation databases.

Link to comment

Okay, I thought I would break up the post above to deal with specific points..

 

Teasel said:

quote:
To throw a couple of ideas into the pot... we could make FB numbers accessible only to registered users, or only to people who explicitly email me to ask for access. We could provide a button for people to say "this trigpoint is part of cache GCxxxx", which would cause that FB number and any close-up photos to be hidden from casual visitors to the T:UK site.

 

What's the best way forward?


 

Option 1 - Yeah I could go along with that. The data is still publicly available in the same way as the GPS stations on the OS website. You have to be a registered user for that. As long as registered users are not charged for being registered, I'm happy with that in respect of the data I have collected.

 

Option 2 - Yeah I could go along with that one too, as long as you never refuse anyone who emails you with a request. One refusal at any time would turn you into a form of censor, and I need hardly remind people on here how I feel about censorship!

 

Option 3 - This is a pain in the butt for you, Ian, because you would have to keep scanning all new caches (anywhere in the world, don't forget, not just UK ones!!) to see that they don't reference one of the trigpoints in the database. Just how many hours a day do you have? They only give us 24 here in Milton Keynes....

 

Overall my preference would be for option 1. That way it mirrors the system the OS already have.

 

No trees were harmed during the production of this posting, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced....

Link to comment

Subarite said:

quote:

I am against the publishing of the FB numbers as they have no use to just about anyone other than geocachers icon_biggrin.gif


 

I know you put a icon_biggrin.gif at the end of it, so I will take it as an only half-serious statement, but even given that assumption, I say to you.."How do *you* know?" Are you qualified to make that supposition? I certainly am not and I don't know anyone else who is.

 

The thing is we have no idea who on this planet might have a good use for the numbers now or at any time in the future. Its a big world, and a long timeline...

 

icon_smile.gif

Link to comment

Tim and June said:

quote:
Also, please note that we are not able to approve virtual caches where the answer is available on the internet.

 

Do you do a full web search using all available search engines on every piece of clue in every virtual cache? Wow!

 

And how do you know that someone in Swaziland doesn't put up their holiday snaps with the solution to a virtual cache the day after you approve it? You would seem here to have an impossible task.

 

I would have thought it was up to the cache setter to deal with things like that. Anyone who places/sets a cache (especially a virtual) has got to appreciate that what withj the web being the size it is and the nature it is, there is always the risk that the answer to their puzzle is out there somewhere, or may be put there after they set the cache. Isn't that just an unavoidable part of the sport? The converse of what you are saying is that noone should put something on the internet without first checking with Geocaching.Com to make sure it doesn't affect a cache clue.

 

No trees were harmed during the production of this posting, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced....

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by MCL:

Do you do a full web search using all available search engines on every piece of clue in every virtual cache? Wow!


Allmost, yes!

 

For every virtual we check, we spend 30 to 40 minutes searching for an answer. I'm sure many cachers would admit that we have pointed out the answer to them and they have altered their virtual to correct the oversight. Funny enough, they all thank us. Guess we must be doing it right then !

 

ALL available search engines? no, but Dogpile does a pretty good job of that for us.

 

quote:
Originally posted by MCL:

And how do you know that someone in Swaziland doesn't put up their holiday snaps with the solution to a virtual cache the day after you approve it? You would seem here to have an impossible task.


You are absolutely, right we don't know. This is a case of best endeavours. Impossible task ? It's nice that other appreciate the difficulties.

 

quote:
Originally posted by MCL:

I would have thought it was up to the cache setter to deal with things like that. Anyone who places/sets a cache (especially a virtual) has got to appreciate that what withj the web being the size it is and the nature it is, there is always the risk that the answer to their puzzle is out there somewhere, or may be put there after they set the cache. Isn't that just an unavoidable part of the sport?


It's also up to the cacher to make sure he only places caches which conform to the guidelines. But they often don't. Just how popular would I be if I launched a site listing the answers to all virtual caches in the UK ?

 

quote:
Originally posted by MCL:

The converse of what you are saying is that noone should put something on the internet without first checking with Geocaching.Com to make sure it doesn't affect a cache clue.


Yeah, Ok, Whatever !

 

I have yet to see any reason, let alone a valid one, as to WHY these numbers need to be publicly displayed.

 

Up till now, we have heard from only a few cachers who are opposed to this move. I suspect many are leaving it up to us and do not want to start any ripples. How about some others, either for or against displaying these numbers.

 

Tim & June (Winchester)

 

See June, I told you that sign which said 'Unsuitable for Motor Vehicles' was wrong ! icon_smile.gif

Link to comment

Slight variation on my original suggestion...

 

Keep all FB numbers hidden from users unless they have found that particular Trigpoint.

 

This way, caches are not affected, and the casual browser won't readily come across the easy option for any cache.

 

Yet also keep a central database of all FB numbers, which are available (free, as a download file) upon request, for those that want to know where a particular Trigpoint is located or whatever.

 

This way, Trigpoint historians are not affected.

 

Just my ha'penny worth.

 

------

An it harm none, do what ye will

soapbox.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Tim & June:

Up till now, we have heard from only a few cachers who are opposed to this move. I suspect many are leaving it up to us and do not want to start any ripples. How about some others, either for or against displaying these numbers.


As the person who made the initial polite request over on the G:UK forums asking for a very small number of FB numbers to be witheld, you can count me in the "against" lobby. I'd suggest a poll but as the data is contained and displayed on another site, then perhaps that is the more appropraite place for that kind of exercise.

 

As for logging trigpoints to compile a database of pillars. Well, it's all been done before. And is still on-going elsewhere. A little digging around last night turned up a list of pillars as up to date as 3rd Feb 2003. I sent a complete list to Moss Trooper (with FB numbers) of all the trig points in Tyne & Wear and he confirmed that the FB data was correct for the ones that he had visited.

 

If TrigpointingUK is all about having fun going around finding pillars then that's fine. If it's all about compiling a database of pillars then it's a waste of time. It will take a long time to cactch up with the guys who are already at it. And of course, pillars can disappear at any time, so the data can never be totally accurate.

 

alex.

 

---------------------------------------------------

Knights of the Green Shield stamp and shout.....

Link to comment

As far as I can tell, the plate numbers on Trig Points are not ‘classified information’. It seem to me that we’re all getting just a little ‘up tight’ about this because the two websites concerned, Jeremy’s and Teasel’s, are so closely related to geocaching. There is absolutely nothing we could do if another party, totally unconnected with our hobby was to start a website along the same lines and put all the information on display. Jeremy and Teasel can put what they like on their websites and we can like it or lump it. It’s their choice.

I suppose it boils down to whether their sites are just a game for people to play and claim a point for going to a trig point or whether they are a serious attempt at creating a database of all the trig points in the country. If it’s the former, then hide the information. If it’s the latter then ALL relevant information should be published or you’re defeating the whole object of the exercise.

Personally, I don’t much care either way. If a geocaching clue called for me to locate a number on a lump of concrete then I go find the lump of concrete.

 

John

 

Age and treachery will always triumph over youth and ability.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Pharisee:

As far as I can tell, the plate numbers on Trig Points are not ‘classified information’. It seem to me that we’re all getting just a little ‘up tight’ about this because the two websites concerned, Jeremy’s and Teasel’s, are so closely related to geocaching. There is absolutely nothing we could do if another party, totally unconnected with our hobby was to start a website along the same lines and put all the information on display. Jeremy and Teasel can put what they like on their websites and we can like it or lump it. It’s their choice.


It had nothing to do with the "two sites" argument. I'm quite happy to log on both. All I was looking for was an agreement not to publish the FB numbers where they were the answer to a geocache.

 

Now I've done a little digging and seen how easy it is to find a complete list of FB numbers, then the point is moot.

 

Alex.

 

---------------------------------------------------

Knights of the Green Shield stamp and shout.....

Link to comment

Well in the GUK forum I wrote:

 

quote:
I don't do trigpointing, so this is really nothing to do with me, but the whole idea of keeping something secret because it's part of a cache seems backwards. If I'm setting a cache and I want to make people visit a location along the way, I'll require them to accrue some piece of information unavailable on the web. If it's published on the web at a later date, I'll change the rules so they have to find something else in the vicinity.

 

I certainly wouldn't expect anyone who would otherwise publish the information to hold it back just because it's part of my cache. Any difficulty this causes is my problem, not theirs.


 

...but some good points have been made here which have made me rethink my view. Chiefly:

 

1. T:UK is closely related to GC.com, so it should consider the needs of geocachers - which, to be fair, it is doing, in addressing this issue at all

 

2. There doesn't seem to be any real reason to make the information so easily accessible. I like the idea that it isn't published on the site, but Teasel will email it to people on request.

 

Having said all that, I'm still uncomfortable with the idea of asking any other website, closely associated with this one or not, to withhold information because it's used as part of a geocache. But I can see the problems it would cause for people with caches to which trigpoint numbers are fundamental.

 

Which is a longwinded way of saying I don't know.

 

SimonG.org - now with added blog!

Link to comment

MCL said

quote:
So here goes. My reason for doing trigpoints is to help to re-catalogue all the pillars in the country. I'm a public-spirited sort of guy who believes that, since the OS make a database of all their current "trigpoints" (the GPS stations) with numbers and pictures and reports of damage and accessibility etc etc, then there should be one for the old trigpoint pillars too.

 

You now have to be a member, but trig points and all their numbers are available here

http://nmc-ramblers.org.uk/trig/index.php and have been since long before either jeremyp or teasel started their sites, they were accessible freely until a while ago. I have a list of my local pillars from that site, complete with numbers, OS references map numbers and comments, a map of the location is also available. I have an excel file of all the trig points with map references but without the numbers. I think the trigpoints are perhaps well enough recorded without any more effort. Go out and find them if you want but don’t imagine you will be doing something that has not been done already.

Link to comment

Since I have two caches which involve two different types of trig point (one a traditional pillar and the other a bolt) then I guess I have a vested interest?

 

Well, my opinion is that it makes no difference to me whether people look for the trig point pillar number on the web for the following reasons.

 

1. The one using an actual trig point only gives you half the clue (in fact, the cache got trashed by someone who didn't even do the clues to find it - they just found it by accident!) and

2. the second cache point doesn't have a Flush Plate on it, so the number you need to find to solve the clue to the actual cache is nothing to do with the trig point, it's close by.

 

So, personally I have no objection to the numbers being available to anyone else.

 

Anyone would think this was an Olympic Event the way that these discussions go sometimes!

 

--... ...--

Morseman

Link to comment

Right, I have read all of the above desperately looking for a solution to the problem. and as one of the people who may have caused problems (I have logged the FB number and taken a photo of the plate for a virtual cache), I feel obliged to help come up with a solution to the issues. Here it is as I see it.

 

The problem:

FB numbers being easily may allow people to cheat on virtual/multi/offset caches which use trigpoint data. The possibility of cheating stops the approvers, approving caches. There are existing caches which people can cheat on.

 

Gut Reaction:

So people cheat – their loss.

 

Considered Reaction:

This is an issue that could spoil the game and stop good caches being approved – lets do something about it.

 

The detailed problem:

Logging a trig should involve the recording of the FB number if there is one. These should be stored in the db. Logging the trigpoint can involve a photo of the FB plate as well. IMHO this should continue as it is.

So the problem becomes how to log FB plates and prevent it affecting caches – yet allow the likes of MCL access to the information.

 

A Proposed solution:

I am sure that very few people want/need to know FB numbers for trigpoints they haven’t logged. So I propose:

By default all FB numbers & pictures labelled “The Plate” are hidden from all users who have not logged the FB number into the system.

The few who would like access to this information could mail the admins at GC:UK and request access. The admins would flag that user account as able to access them and the system would allow access accordingly.

Most people would not be bothered to do this to get the information.

 

Another Proposed Solution:

As this data seems to be available all over the web anyway why not disallow virtuals that consist of getting just the FB Number for a trigpoint as these clearly cannot now be approved. Multis that use trigpoint numbers should not really be effected.

 

Does that sound reasonable?

Chris

 

Bear rescues a speciality!

London & UK Geocaching Resources: http://www.sheps.clara.net

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by naffita:

You now have to be a member, but trig points and all their numbers are available here

http://nmc-ramblers.org.uk/trig/index.php and have been since long before either jeremyp or teasel started their sites, they were accessible freely until a while ago. I have a list of my local pillars from that site, complete with numbers, OS references map numbers and comments, a map of the location is also available. I have an excel file of all the trig points with map references but without the numbers. I think the trigpoints are perhaps well enough recorded without any more effort. Go out and find them if you want but don’t imagine you will be doing something that has not been done already.


I've probably seen more lists of trig points in the last two days than I would want to. The nmc list is far from comprehensive. There are much more detailed ones around than that one.

 

Alex.

 

---------------------------------------------------

Knights of the Green Shield stamp and shout.....

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Slytherin:

quote:
Originally posted by Chris n Maria:

As this data seems to be available all over the web anyway...


It is available, but not on the web AFAIK.

 

Alex.

 

---------------------------------------------------

Knights of the Green Shield stamp and shout.....


quote:
As for logging trigpoints to compile a database of pillars. Well, it's all been done before. And is still on-going elsewhere. A little digging around last night turned up a list of pillars as up to date as 3rd Feb 2003. I sent a complete list to Moss Trooper (with FB numbers) of all the trig points in Tyne & Wear and he confirmed that the FB data was correct for the ones that he had visited.

Sorry perhaps I missunderstood - thought this was on the web ???

 

By the way I have just spotted the sign off....early genesis perhaps?

 

Bear rescues a speciality!

London & UK Geocaching Resources: http://www.sheps.clara.net

Link to comment

slytherin said

quote:
I've probably seen more lists of trig points in the last two days than I would want to. The nmc list is far from comprehensive. There are much more detailed ones around than that one.


Just my point, there are plenty of sites and lists. No need to find them except purely for the satisfaction of doing so.

Link to comment

OK OK. Let me try and get this straight...

 

Either the database of trigpoints is currently freely available on the web or it isn't.

 

- If it isn't, then those people that say "its all been done before" may be accurate, but overlook the point that if these other people are going to not release their data then they might as well be discounted from this argument. We might as well assume their data does not exist, because for our purposes, it doesn't.

 

- If it *is* (available freely on the net), then I'm afraid the argument that T&J have put forward about having to archive caches when the information becomes available is valid, and they should archive those relevant caches right now. Me putting the data on the web *again* will not make any difference.

 

Naffita, if you have a bunch of sites that have these trigpoint pillar details freely and publicly available then please share it with us because I'm darned if I can find any. Are they complete? Are they accurate?

 

When I "do" a trigpoint, I am not necessarily interested in collecting the number off the bracket, it just forms a part of the dataset for that pillar, without which any database would be incomplete.

 

But my main argument lies with how we view the whole paradigm of the internet. A while back, we had people from another website come to us and say, in so many words, "Look, what your site (GC.COM) is doing is impinging on the work we do on our site. On our site we have rules about things, and with your site doing what it does means that we can't keep to our rules unless we get rid of you lot"

 

To which we replied (Quite rightly) in unison "Push off!"

 

- Those people were the Mod Ants.

- Their rule that we were breaking was "no litter of any kind anywhere near our monuments. Even half a mile is too close. And that includes plastic lunchboxes full of trinkets"

- We said that whatever their rule was, it was a free country and we had every right to break their rule if we wanted to.

- We then told them that they had no right to impose their rules on our site. If our activity broke their rules, then that ws their problem.

- We carry on hiding caches in the countryside. They carry on doing whatever they do. We ignore each other and live in peace and happiness for evermore. (Well OK maybe that's stretching it a *little* bit...)

 

Now, can anyone see a parallel here?

 

 

 

In the end, I'm happy to go along with the idea of the information being available only to registered useres, and then if they tick the right box to ask for it. This is the same way that the Ordnance Survey do it for the GPS stations on their website.

 

So can we do this then, Ian?

 

No trees were harmed during the production of this posting, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced....

Link to comment

I must say I agree with almost everything tha MCL has said on this.

 

On other thought: I read in one of the other threads about people who log pylon numbers. Now I don't know if they have a database of numbers on the web or if any virtuals use these numbers but how are we to treat these?

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by MCL:

OK OK. Let me try and get this straight...

 

Either the database of trigpoints is currently freely available on the web or it isn't.

 


Well to be real picky about it, there is no database apart from TripointingUK freely available on the "WEB".

 

There are however a number of data sources available on the "INTERNET". Different thing.

 

For those of you who haven't managed to find the source, here is where it is. There is a Yahoo group dedicated to "discussion relating to Ordnance Survey triangulation pillars, flush brackets and the like." It is called Trigonomy and you can join it by sending a blank email to trigonomy-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

 

Once you are a member you can log onto the group via www.groups.yahoo.com (you may need to set up a Yahoo groups profile if you dn't already have one) and read all the posts on the group.

 

They also have a files section that contains more trig point data than you can shake a stick at. Including a file called Trigonomy 3 Feb 03.xls which contains oodles of data on trigpoints. Much of this data came from the OS and has been updated and verifed by members of Trigonomy over the last few years. Much in the same way as TrigpointingUK aims to do.

 

So there are people already cataloging trig points who have been doing so for some considerable time. It will take a long time for TrigpointingUK to catch up (if ever). Perhaps a joint effort between TP:UK and Trigonomy would be the best course of action. Presuming of course that they have no objection to sharing their extensive knowledge base.

 

As far as geocaches go, as the person who initiated this discussion on TP:UK, it looks as though caches that rely totally on reporting the FB number of a trig point are now redundant. A shame really.

 

Alex.

 

---------------------------------------------------

Knights of the Green Shield stamp and shout.....

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Slytherin:

It will take a long time for TrigpointingUK to catch up (if ever). Perhaps a joint effort between TP:UK and Trigonomy would be the best course of action.


Indeed! The trigonomy administrator has already contacted me and requested that I send him a file of data from T:UK, which I have done. I've also posted a message to the Trigonomy forum asking them for permission to include their data in the T:UK database.

 

I've also been in contact with the New Triggers (the nmc-ramblers site which Naffita linked to above), and hope to be made member number 18! They're not prepared to do any wholesale merging of databases (in either direction), but think that collaboration would be useful to resolve number misreadings.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Slytherin:

...it looks as though caches that rely totally on reporting the FB number of a trig point are now redundant. A shame really.


I agree with what Alex says here. Why does GCUK contribute positively to geocaching on one hand whilst helping to undermine a number of existing caches on the other? Seems completely twisted to me but there you go.

 

Rich

mobilis in mobili

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Teasel:

I've also been in contact with the New Triggers (the nmc-ramblers site which Naffita linked to above), and hope to be made member number 18! They're not prepared to do any wholesale merging of databases (in either direction), but think that collaboration would be useful to resolve number misreadings.


Can I politely suggest that you treat this relationship with a bit of patience. Please respect their wishes re databases, treading on toes etc.

 

Rich

mobilis in mobili

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by el10t:

quote:
Originally posted by Slytherin:

...it looks as though caches that rely totally on reporting the FB number of a trig point are now redundant. A shame really.


I agree with what Alex says here. Why does GCUK contribute positively to geocaching on one hand whilst helping to undermine a number of existing caches on the other? Seems completely twisted to me but there you go.


I think I must have misinterpreted what Alex was saying. Since the data required to cheat is already freely available here, please could someone explain how FB numbers appearing on T:UK changes anything?

 

My "crime" is to try to make trigpoint data, which is already available on the web, more integrated with geocaching (and thereby improve the trigpoint data too). If that's twisted, them I'm sorry.

 

As someone else who was in a similar position to the one I find myself in once said... "I didn't invent the ... problem. I just optimised it."

 

[This message was edited by Teasel on April 26, 2003 at 05:58 AM.]

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Teasel:

I think I must have misinterpreted what Alex was saying. Since the data required to cheat is already freely available please could someone explain how FB numbers appearing on T:UK changes anything?

 

My "crime" is to try to make trigpoint data, which is already available on the web, more integrated with geocaching (and thereby improve the trigpoint data too). If that's twisted, them I'm sorry.

 

As someone else who was in a similar position to the one I find myself in once said... "I didn't invent the ... problem. I just optimised it."


I'm not sure if you misinterpreted my comments or not icon_smile.gif

 

The whole issue has expanded quite a lot in a very short space of time.

 

When I made my original request on TP:UK, the Trigonomy data was certainly available, but VERY hard to find. It took me quite a lot of spadework to uncover it.

 

I merely requested that a very small number of entries in TP:UK had their FB numbers witheld off the site to protect existing geocaches. A fair request I thought. But it wasn't to be as some TP:UK contributors thought that witholding a few numbers would compromise their data collection project.

 

It was at that point that I started digging, more to try to show that TP:UK was more useful as an activity which is an extension to geocaching (some local points to go and find when you have exhausted all the local caches) than as a serious new database project.

 

Having found the Trigonomy database and a few others besides, I think that proves my point.

 

Unfortunately in the process I have achieved the opposite to what I had initially tried to do. In other words the few caches which rely on FB numbers are now compromised rather than being protected. I have to say that I'm rather pissed off about that. I suppose if I'd kept my mouth shut then none of this would have happened.

 

Having said that, at least the serious dtabasers now have a much more comprehensive dataset that they could ever have managed to compile themselves and co-operation between TP:UK and Trigonomy can only be a good thing.

 

I will though agree with el10t regarding the Trigonomy group. It's an excellent group with some very dedicated and experienced trighunters. Bearing in mind the ModAnt problems, there is a need to tread very carefully in there.

 

I'll still be bagging trigs here and there but at least the question of whether or not to log the FB numbers isn't an important issure any more.

 

Alex.

 

---------------------------------------------------

Knights of the Green Shield stamp and shout.....

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Slytherin:

I will though agree with el10t regarding the Trigonomy group. It's an excellent group with some very dedicated and experienced trighunters. Bearing in mind the ModAnt problems, there is a need to tread very carefully in there.


I thought I was! I first contacted Jonathan (their admin) about a week ago to let him know about our site. He replied quite positively and requested I send him a copy of all our data (which, of course, I did). Only then did I make contact with the group as a whole, as a single post describing the site and asking if they'd mind me incorporating their data. This post is available on the Yahoo! group, if anyone wants to read it.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Teasel:

I thought I was!


You are Teasel.

 

I was thinking more of what might happen if twenty or so from TP:UK join the group. There are only 45 members in there now, so a large influx of new members might ring alarm bells with the current members. Not that it should, and I would think most of from TP:UK would find the group very interesting.

 

Not quite the same situation as the ModAnt debacle, but still worth being careful. Then again, it might be me being over cautious again.

 

a.

 

PS Anyone joining will be very interested to see the new post from Graeme Paterson (one of the Trigonomy stalwarts) regarding sharing of data with TP:UK. Very positive.

 

---------------------------------------------------

Knights of the Green Shield stamp and shout.....

Link to comment
Originally posted by Slytherin:

 

I was thinking more of what might happen if twenty or so from TP:UK join the group. There are only 45 members in there now, so a large influx of new members might ring alarm bells with the current members. Not that it should, and I would think most of from TP:UK would find the group very interesting.

 

Not quite the same situation as the ModAnt debacle, but still worth being careful. Then again, it might be me being over cautious again.

 

a.

 

PS Anyone joining will be very interested to see the new post from Graeme Paterson (one of the Trigonomy stalwarts) regarding sharing of data with TP:UK. Very positive.

 

QUOTE]

 

As another of the stalwarts of the Trigonomy group, I'm very positive about the sharing of data and with geocachers joining if their intention is to increase the knowledge base.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...