We need to store Question Marks (QMs) and cave description data in an easy-to-use format for setting objectives and planning trips. As of the end of the 2022 expo, we have 1,374 QMs tracked in our records.
If you don't understand what is in front of you here, then you need to read the <ahref="newsurvex.html">survey handbook guide on svx files</a> which will lead you to the survex documentation, or ask
;QM1 A bipedalpassage.1 - Very good. 50m+ (?) deep pit below start of 13 bolt bipedal traverse - rather slanted, large ongoing rift glimpsed below. very good.
;QM2 A bipedalpassage.3 - Very good. 50m+ (?) deep pit below end of 13 bolt bipedal traverse. best approched via station 4 (?) and looks ok to rig. May connect to first deep pit.
;QM3 C bipedalpassage.1 - Poor c lead, across thin rock bridge over abyss (!) leads to blind aven, but small tube for thin person on left.
;QM4 A bipedalpassage.10 - Good. Ongoing big phreatic passage forms pitch dropped in Bipedal Passage4 by Ben, then continued by Mike and Elain on Aug 6th.
;QM5 C bipedalpassage.9 - Speculative - climb up needs short 5-10m rope - could be tube in roof.
;QM6 C bipedalpassage.31 - Very good location where main phreatic passages and enlarges - but far side of chamber choked. One part of choke was not accessed as needs 2m climb up to poke nose in it. A good free climber could do this or needs one bolt to be sure no way on. Very strong draft in choke! Interesting southerly trend at margin of known system
<p>Also if the person reading it hasn't been to the bit of cave (which is, like, <em>the whole point</em>, then the
data has a higher chance of being incorrect. It is not always easy to interpret Tunnel or Therion drawings correctly
with this sort of thing.
<h4id="tick">Ticking off a QM</h4>
<p>Since 2015 we have had no generally-agreed, well-documented or widely-practiced way of recording whether a QM has been ticked-off or not.
<p>In the past, this was done by
<ol>
<li>surveying into the passage beyond the QM,
<li>creating a new survex file for that survey,
and then
<li>editing the original survex file using the name of one of those new survey stations as the "resolution-station", replacing the "-" previously there.
</ol>This meant that a QM
could only be ticked-off if there was, in fact, surveyable passage beyond it, and if it was worth surveying, and if
someone did so.
<p>In 2022 we had a proposal to add an extra line to the original survex file, now that survex files can be edited
easily on-line (and the version control happens invisibly and automatically):
<code>
QM<em>nn</em> TICK <em>date comment</em>
</code>
e.g.<code>
QM15 TICK 2022-07-20 This is a dummy ticked QM</code>
in <ahref="/survexfile/caves-1623/258/flashhard2.svx">258/flashhard2.svx</a>. <br>
The TICKed QM appears at the end of the report <ahref="/cave/qms/1623-258">/cave/qms/1623-258</a> at the bottom of the page.</p>
<p>The <var>date</var> field is sufficient to tie the tick-off event to one of a small number of logbook entries and survex files, which is where the actual exploration would be documented. If it was a rapid dead-end, or if later parties can't find it at all, then there should be just a logbook entry.
