Nathan Walker : 2016

815.2 m surveyed this year.

Other years:  | 2015 | 2016 | 2017

Wallet status | 2015 | 2016 | 2017

Table of all trips and surveys aligned by date

DateTripsSurveys
June 27, 2016 Balkonhöhle - Bipedal Balkonhöhle
June 28, 2016 Balkonhöhle - Bipedal Balkonhöhle fatmanscoop 42.6 m
June 29, 2016 Tunnocks - Set up Camp and Living the Dream Tunnocks fatmanscoop2 15.7 m
June 30, 2016 livingthedream 319.5 m
July 4, 2016 Balcony Tourists on Independence Day UNKNOWN
July 5, 2016 Balcony - Batteries! finishing off and bag retrieval Balcony caving101 18.6 m
-- doublescoop 43.9 m
-- doublescoop2 40.6 m
July 6, 2016 The pitch formally known as "Haydon's pitch" -> "Long Drop" UNKNOWN longdrop 169.3 m
July 11, 2016 Balcony - Hilti-a-Plenty "Roundabout.svx" Balcony roundabout 165.1 m
July 12, 2016 Balkon - Gosser Wager Balkon
July 16, 2016 Kraken Camp - pushing Song of the Earth (258) Kraken Camp

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.)