Julian Griffiths : 1983

332.4 m surveyed this year.

Other years:  | 1977 | 1978 | 1979 | 1980 | 1983

Wallet status | 1977 | 1978 | 1979 | 1980 | 1983

Table of all trips and surveys aligned by date

DateTripsSurveys
Jan. 1, 1983 145to82 0.0 m
July 25, 1983 travel - The journeys out. travel
-- BUNDA BASHING DAY 1 BUNDA BASHING DAY 1
July 26, 1983 Walk Walk
-- hole that hasn't got a name yet. 140 hole that hasn't got a name yet. 140
July 28, 1983 Thursday 140 Thursday 140
July 30, 1983 Wolfhöhle 145 Wolfhöhle 145
July 31, 1983 Wolfhöhle 145 Wolfhöhle 145
Aug. 1, 1983 Wolfhöhle 145 Wolfhöhle 145
Aug. 4, 1983 WOLFHÖHLE 145 WOLFHÖHLE 145
Aug. 5, 1983 Salzburg - Friday 5th Mass Jacking Day Salzburg
Aug. 6, 1983 142 - connection 142/41 142
Aug. 7, 1983 Streambeds Streambeds
Aug. 8, 1983 142 - Surface surveying (but not the last part) 42-41-?-?-Eishöhle 142 83 0.0 m
Aug. 9, 1983 wolf wolf
Aug. 10, 1983 Derigging team Derigging team part3 332.4 m

Horrible bug here but only when there is more than one survex block per day, or is there ?!

WHat we thought was the bug: e.g. see Wookey 1999 where there are 3 eiscream survex blocks on 5th August. it duplicates the entry but gets it wrong. The length from the first block is displayed twice but there should be 3 rows: eiscream, eiscream2, eiscream3.

The interaction of django database query idioms with django HTML templating language is a bit impenetrable here. I blame Aaron Curtis who was too fond of being clever with the Django templating system instead or writing it in python anyone could understand.
- The template is in troggle/templates/personexpedition.html
- The code is in function personexpedition() which calls get_person_chronology() in troggle/core/views/logbooks.py
- the connection between the two is made in the URL resolver in troggle/urls.py

To be fixed!

What we now know

The eiscream.svx file does indeed record 3 blocks: eiscream, eiscream2 & eiscream3. But (more) careful inspection shows that eiscream2 and eiscream3 are in the year 2000, not in 1999. So they absolutely should not be shown here. So maybe everything is correct after all. (Well, apart from the duplication.)