Hello all!
When we started on the rocky road to producing an Internet enabled SMR for
Warwickshire I was set on producing six figure NGRs. Along the way we
have met with a variety of responses:
We had a letter in response to an article in RESCUE from a "distraught"
(his word not mine!) reader.
Our PA Finds Liaison Officer has reported that metal detectorists and
landowners are concerned over the issuing of site locations on the
Internet.
The results from the PA?SMR survey by Andrew Sargent of EH suggested
that 4 figure references were most appropriate.
And the results from our round of focus group consultation suggest the
general public are not that bothered. Our DC Officer is mildly worried
that his Planning Authorities will think they no longer need him!
It looked as though I was managing to ruffle the feathers of every bird in
every cage across the nation!
At this point I thought I was the only person who wanted to see six figure
references on the Internet and if everyone want four figure references then
so be it: we would continue to develop our website taking six figures from
the live database but only display four figures references initially.
However, current feeling amongst SMRs seems to be for more, rather than
less detail. This persuades me that what we need to do is work on the way
we present ourselves. I agree with comments made that one damaged SAM is
one too many, but what if publicising locations of archaeological sites
means we stop one site from damage? And should we be trying to persuade
metal detectorists to to give us detailed locations for their finds at the
same time as putting four figure NGRs over the web? Wouldn't that be
hypocritical?
I don't think a national standard is possible at this point. When a few
SMRs have been on the web for a reasonable length of time a workable
standard may arise. Until that time I am tempted to publish and be damned!
I hope to see as many of you as possible on Thursday
Emma
|