expo/expoweb
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://expo.survex.com/repositories/expoweb/.git/ synced 2025-12-13 01:21:41 +00:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

[svn r7521] ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Browse Source 
r10812:  expo | 2006-08-02 10:00:39 +0100

Update the 76 vs 106 entry.
Add 141/142 vs 131/132.
Expand the 185 entry.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This commit is contained in:
olly
2006-09-07 04:27:38 +02:00
parent 0db6971975
commit ce8c596072
1 changed files with 19 additions and 9 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

28
handbook/cockup.htm
View File

@@ -46,12 +46,17 @@ Allegedly this number was changed to 87A or 87B, but in fact this is not the
case and this number needs to be removed.</td></tr>
<tr><td>106</td><td>This was a number which we were entitled to use, and
which we applied to a significant find. However, the cave was written up in a
which we applied to <a href="../plateau/76/76.htm">Eislufth&ouml;hle</a>,
an early significant find. However, the cave was written up in a
non-CUCC publication which went to the Austrians, who allocated this cave
their own number as a result. This makes a lot of CUCC documentation
confusing, but the net result is that it is not our number anymore. We
believe that the Austrians have not reused it, but there is no guarantee that
they won't.</td></tr>
their own number (76) since our number wasn't mentioned. This makes a lot of
CUCC documentation
confusing, but the net result is that 106 is probably not our number anymore. We
believe that the Austrians have not reused it, and in fact it appears they
still refer to Eislufth&ouml;hle as 106 in places.</td></tr>
<tr><td><a href="../smkridge/141.htm">141</a>,<a href="../smkridge/142.htm">142</a></td>
<td>These were incorrectly labelled 131 and 132 (respectively) in paint. 142 has since been corrected, but it seems 141 may still be marked 131.</td></tr>
<tr><td><a href="../wilden/114.htm">114</a>
</td><td>This cave is completely missing! (found in 1980, but no
@@ -59,10 +64,15 @@ record was published - the logbook is missing)</td></tr>
<tr><td>185</td><td>Apart from <a name="x185" href="../smkridge/185/185.html">2
Year Gestation H&ouml;hle</a> (on the col en route to 161a) which is
correctly numbered 185, there were <b>two</b> other caves erroneously
numbered "185", one of which is undocumented 90/15, which needs surveying and
a real number. The other is really 186, whose marking was later
fixed.</td></tr>
correctly numbered 185, there may have been <b>two</b> other caves erroneously
numbered "185". One of these is really 186, whose marking was corrected
on <a href="../years/1997/log.htm">1997-08-13</a>.
The other is the undocumented 90/15 - the only reference
to this is in a 1990 log book write-up listing a number of caves which had
been painted during the expedition, so it seems most likely that 90/15 was a
typo and never actually existed, let alone got 185 painted on it.
To add to this mess, the real 185 was <a href="../years/1990/newent.htm">originally marked 183!</a></td></tr>
<tr><td>232 - 238</td><td><p>After the switch over to the new system whereby
caves are given official numbers only on receipt of a form and survey, the
numbers 232-5 were used for caves in the vicinity of Eish&ouml;hle, after