Neil Pacey : 2014

504.3 m surveyed this year.

Other years:  | 1999 | 2010 | 2011 | 2014

Wallet status | 1999 | 2010 | 2011 | 2014

Table of all trips and surveys aligned by date

DateTripsSurveys
July 25, 2014 Team 2 into Tunnocks UNKNOWN
July 27, 2014 258 - Tunnocks - Pidgeons in Flight -> Pidgeon Droppings 258
July 28, 2014 withintheabove 97.3 m
July 29, 2014 Within The Above UNKNOWN
Aug. 1, 2014 Tunnocks - Rigging Coldfinger by Champagne on Ice Tunnocks
Aug. 2, 2014 Tunnocks - Champagne on Ice Tunnocks
Aug. 3, 2014 2014-888 and MF - unmarked pit 2014-888 and MF
Aug. 4, 2014 Tunnocks - Ducks on Ice rigging + connecting Tunnocks
Aug. 5, 2014 Prospecting N of Tunnocks UNKNOWN
Aug. 6, 2014 258 Tunnocks - Champagne on Ice - connection trip to Arctic Angle 258 Tunnocks coldladyslegs1 297.1 m
-- coldfinger3 109.8 m
Aug. 19, 2014 Leads at the bottom of Champagne on Ice / Arctic Angle, Grike Expectation UNKNOWN

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.)