Nat Dalton : 2014

416.4 m surveyed this year.

Other years:  | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2019 | 2022

Wallet status | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2019 | 2022

Table of all trips and surveys aligned by date

DateTripsSurveys
July 28, 2014 258 - Tunnocks -> Pidgeon Droppings -> Flying Rat 258
July 29, 2014 Prospecting ~NE of Tunnocks UNKNOWN
July 30, 2014 258 - Tunnocks -> Pidgeon Droppings -> Flying Rat + de-rigging, "Trafalgar Square" Survey 258
Aug. 1, 2014 2005-05 UNKNOWN
Aug. 2, 2014 2005-05 UNKNOWN
Aug. 3, 2014 2005-05 UNKNOWN roomwithaview 56.3 m
Aug. 4, 2014 2005-05 Balcony Höhle UNKNOWN roomwithaview2 81.5 m
-- roomwithaview2 81.5 m
-- smashcrashpassage 104.4 m
-- smashcrashpassage 104.4 m
Aug. 10, 2014 Balcony Höhle UNKNOWN pitpot3 39.2 m
Aug. 12, 2014 lemoncrapout 76.0 m
Aug. 14, 2014 Tunnocks - Number of the Beast Tunnocks
Aug. 19, 2014 Leads at the bottom of Champagne on Ice / Arctic Angle, Grike Expectation UNKNOWN grikeexpectations 59.0 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.)