Sorry I seem to have put a cat amongst the pigeons with my query about the UK not being included in Wiki Loves Monuments.
Following these discussions I took at look at the EH Spatial Data page ( http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/professional/archives-and-collections/nmr/spatial-data/ ). I presume the database format which is causing problems is ESRI? After a bit more digging I found the technical instructions for this format at http://www.esri.com/library/whitepapers/pdfs/shapefile.pdf but it is way beyond my database abilities. Would someone at Village pump (technical) be able to convert it into anything useful or easy to use? Rod > On 12/07/2011 12:06, Lodewijk wrote: >> Hi Charles, >> >> thanks for your insightful comments. I read about it in the signpost, >> and couldn't resist to comment. >> >> 2011/7/9 Charles Matthews <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> >> >> On 07/07/2011 11:02, WereSpielChequers wrote: >> > Hi Rod, >> > >> > We've discussed this a couple of times at London meetups and >> > elsewhere, I also suspect that the UK board have discussed it. The >> > honest answer is I think threefold, firstly no-one in the UK has >> > volunteered to run it, >> Well, there was no clear brief as to what that involved, anyway. It >> is >> unrealistic to ask for a volunteer for something that is (i) >> open-ended, >> (ii) ill-defined, (iii) to be based on data that can be putatively >> obtained but no one says where, and (iv) comes without any clear >> definition of "monument" (quite a serious point). I did look into >> this >> matter to some extent, and would be happy to share thoughts. A Board >> member having said "next year", I moved it down the agenda. There >> might >> need to be a budget. >> >> >> (i) the timeline is available here: >> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wiki_Loves_Monuments_2011/Timeline >> (but >> would need tweeking in individual countries) >> (ii) the concept description is available here: >> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wiki_Loves_Monuments_2011/Concept >> and >> there is even a clear outline of how it worked last year in the >> Netherlands with many tips&tricks: >> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wiki_Loves_Monuments_2010/post_mortem >> (iii) this would be with your local heritage institute. Wikimedia >> Netherlands volunteers have good contacts with the European umbrella >> organizations (Council of Europe and Europeana are official partners) >> and have offered on multiple occasions to bring local organizers in >> touch with national heritage boards who govern the lists. This >> happened successfully in multiple countries, I can't see why that >> wouldn't be possible in the UK. > > That would be English Heritage here. There is a file to download on > their website. Unfortunately it is very unhelpfully labelled. Also > Magnus Manske eventually downloaded it for me: it is in the format of > some proprietary GIS (he couldn't tell me what), and for that reason > (according to Magnus) the location information is unreadable. When I > said there might need to be a budget, I was thinking that WMUK might > need to buy proprietary GIS software. (Yes, I know that there would be a > major row about that with the ideologues.) > > There are other routes: local government officers are responsible for > lists in their areas. That is some hundreds of people to contact, > however. I found out something about this through an archaeologist > friend. There is also an online archaeological database I found, but you > have to pay for that also. > >> (iv) this definition is different in every country, because every >> government has its own definition. We did not want to introduce an >> artificial definition, but rather go with the existing ones. It would >> make no sense for us to define a British monument. The UK (or English >> etc) government already did that for us. > > There is a concept of Scheduled Monument, and what it is goes back to > dealing with English Heritage >> >> I am very sorry that you did not ask these questions in an earlier >> stage, I could have given you these answers then already. However, you >> ought to realize that the national contest would have to be organized >> by local volunteers - we will not do that for you. The work would >> still be with UK people, but collegues throughout Europe could have >> helped you with advises, ideas and brainstorming. You would have been >> welcome also to participate in the Wiki Loves Monuments summit in >> Berlin. > > Actually I asked some questions of WMUK; the only answer seemed to be > that a volunteer should come forward who would do everything. I think > Magnus got tired when it became plain that it was an issue here of > dealing with various kinds of bureaucracy. The information we need to do > a good job is undoubtedly there, and is something that should be made > available through "freedom of information", but that would take some big > effort. Especially to get it in a free file format. >> >> I definitely do hope that questions like this next time will be asked >> early and directly at the relevant people. >> > > My conclusion has been that the "localisation" of the concept to the UK > is problematic, because of the approach taken in our bureaucracy. If > WMUK had a proper "research function" then I would not have to be > figuring this all out myself freelance. But you had better not get me > started on that topic. > > Charles > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia UK mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l > WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list [email protected] http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
