# New Campsite Entries



## gaspode (May 9, 2005)

Can everyone entering new sites into the campsite database read and take note please?

I have had to reject around half of the 20 odd new entries on the campsite database so far today for one of two reasons. They are either duplicated or contain no map locations or addresses.
Can I ask you, before you enter a new site to:
1) Search the existing database to ensure the site you are about to enter isn't already there. (You should enter a "review" of the existing site if it's already in the database).
2) Ensure that you enter the full address of the site. The name of the town must be in the "Town" field (not elsewhere in the address) and it should be just the town name, not something like "5 miles from Barnsley".
3) Complete the map location section to position your site. This section appears after you save the site details and must be completed for the entry to be accepted.

Failure to comply with the above means that the site has to be rejected which is a great loss to the database. Unfortunately I'm unable to refer entries back to members to complete the missing sections so the whole entry is lost.

Can I also ask you to complete as many sections of the entry form as possible, too many entries are being submitted with very sparse content. It's particularly important to give a complete address and to complete the fields for disabled facilities and access for large M/Hs. It would also help if you would give a score rating for each site you have visited.

Please do not re-enter the site because it doesn't appear in the database immediately after you have entered it. Each site is checked by myself or one of the other moderators before it is included in the database which can result in a delay of up to 24 hrs. before it appears.


----------



## MicknPat (Jul 18, 2005)

gaspode said:


> Unfortunately I'm unable to refer entries back to members to complete the missing sections so the whole entry is lost.


Ken & Jen,

Couldn't you try to PM the member for the missing details just in case they are having a little trouble entering the details before you delete what they have tried to enter?

Who knows, once the problem is sorted out they may have a load more entries to add rather than giving up at their first attempt?


----------



## Grizzly (May 9, 2005)

gaspode said:


> It's particularly important to give a complete address and to complete the fields for disabled facilities and access for large M/Hs. .


I've got diaries full of campsites we've visited and I intend to put more on the database. What we did not do when we were at most of them was to take note of the disabled facilities and whether an RV could use the site or not. We will in future.

If, however, I had need of disabled facilites or I drove a large RV I would feel happier if I phoned the campsite ahead to check that it was OK for me rather than take the word of a non-expert. I am not an expert on either subject and it is important to get it right or someone is going to turn up at a site on my say so and find it totally unsuitable - a wasted journey at the least.

G


----------



## tokkalosh (May 25, 2006)

Being one of the recent offenders I now fully appreciate Ken's request.

For the review I have just submitted I picked up a brochure from the site so that I was able to give lots of information. Unfortunately though it did not give a GPS position which would have been helpful :lol:


----------



## Motorhomersimpson (May 9, 2005)

Hi Tricia,

if you have the postcode of a UK campsite (which anyone entering would have) just put it into Multi-Map I have linked, once the page has loaded with the postcoded map the longitude/latitude and also grid reference is stated at the bottom.
>>>Multi-Map...Click here<<<

MHS...Rob


----------



## ralph-dot (May 10, 2005)

I have entered one or two sites lately and my method when entering new sites is: 

Check the map to see if it is already there (I used to check the database but they are now all on the map).

Always try to enter the name the the campsite uses themselves (saves having two entries with similar name that are the same site).

If the campsite has a good website, I do not enter too much in General Information as it is all there but write "see website for more info"

Always remember to enter the type of place it is, Aire, CC site, Independent site, packing place, etc.

If I can not remember if the campsite has certain facilities I check there website to see what they have, also address, phone No, etc.

I fill in the nearest town or village but put the actual location in my write-up and on the map.

If I have a photo I add it, if I haven't I do not use a photo from another source but that's just me. 

When placing the site on the map I use the Hybrid view, in a lot of cases I can see the site I am looking for.

ps

I do think that the place for entering the coordinates is confusing when you can just use the map.

Ralph


----------



## gaspode (May 9, 2005)

Hi MicknPat

I do try to PM the members but there are about 20 PMs in my outbox ATM, they simply don't pick them up most of the time and we can't just leave the entries in the ether hoping they might get back to us in a few days or weeks. Where an address is given I will add the map references (or one on the D/B admins) but all too often they don't supply an address either, just the name of the town. This is a fast moving operation, there have been another 7 entries arrived in my inbox within the last 1.5 hours.

Thanks for the advice Ralph, if everyone follows those instructions they won't go far wrong.


----------



## Duadua (Feb 16, 2006)

Grizzly said:


> gaspode said:
> 
> 
> > If, however, I had need of disabled facilites or I drove a large RV I would feel happier if I phoned the campsite ahead to check that it was OK for me rather than take the word of a non-expert. I am not an expert on either subject and it is important to get it right or someone is going to turn up at a site on my say so and find it totally unsuitable - a wasted journey at the least.
> ...


----------



## sallytrafic (Jan 17, 2006)

Here are some pictures of the stages of entering Rivendale in Derbyshire you can click on them for greater detail.

They are

Having entered all the written details the map appears centered on UK

I click somewhere in the area of Derbyshire

I zoom in and see where I clicked 

I click again much closer

I zoom again and find that I have it exactly confirmed - in this case by using the satellite image which here shows the actual layout of the site. I click on Save Location at top of map. Finished

For a site that I have been to I seldom take more stages than this but when you start out you may need more clicking and zooming.

Regards and happy zooming

Frank


----------



## ralph-dot (May 10, 2005)

That's the way to do it Frank, well done


----------



## gaspode (May 9, 2005)

I'm beginning to wonder if anyone actually reads the posts on this forum. :roll: 

Since I started this thread earlier this evening I've been forced to reject another three campsite submissions because they contained no map position and no addresses. 8O 

The lesson is clear - if you want your site to go into the database, please complete the submission process correctly or it will simply have to be rejected - and that's wasted effort for you and lost information for the rest of us.


----------



## Boff (May 10, 2005)

Hi,

would it perhaps be possible that in case an entry is rejected, an *automatic e-mail* (no PM) is sent to the originator? Like it is now done when a site is accepted?

Best Regards,
Gerhard


----------



## gaspode (May 9, 2005)

Thanks for that suggestion Gerhard, certainly worth considering if the standard of entries doesn't improve.

For the moment We're sending PMs because we like to point out on an individual basis what the member has done incorrectly in the hope that they will submit it again properly.

Again today, somewhere in the region of 50% of the new entries have been either incomplete or duplications. Please check you entries carefully folk, we don't want to reject them.


----------



## tokkalosh (May 25, 2006)

Fingers crossed for my entry Ken.

Hope it is alright, I have tried my very best, just for you :wink: :wink:


----------



## gaspode (May 9, 2005)

Hi Tricia

All approved and entered, excellent entry. 8)


----------



## peedee (May 10, 2005)

gaspode said:


> Again today, somewhere in the region of 50% of the new entries have been either incomplete or duplications. Please check you entries carefully folk, we don't want to reject them.


I see I was guilty of duplicating one,  (Mar-jal) I did check before I entered it honest :? For whatever reason I did not see it and it did not come up on entering an identical site name. It was only when I went to check the entry after approval that I noticed there was another, albeit in a slightly different, and I think wrong, location on the map. I cannot think how I missed it especially as I had a nagging thought I had seen it there before. I did a database search on Mar jal and I looked on the map. Are you sure all is working perfectly well when the map is displayed????

On the question of incomplete entries why not make more essential fields mandatory but please remember that if the site has web pages even if in a language other than English that will in all likelyhood be more up to date and stay up to date than our entries.

peedee

p.s
Looking at the two entries, the probable reason why I did not see it on a database search was I seached on a different town and entered Mar-jal rather than Marjal but I still don't understand why I never saw it on a map search :?

Can I make a suggestion regarding the map pop ups. Can the web site address be shown rather than the phone number and town. The town seems a bit pointless when your already looking at a map? Very few campsites don't have web sites these days and most are a mine of information.

peedee


----------



## sallytrafic (Jan 17, 2006)

gaspode said:


> Thanks for that suggestion Gerhard, certainly worth considering if the standard of entries doesn't improve.
> 
> For the moment We're sending PMs because we like to point out on an individual basis what the member has done incorrectly in the hope that they will submit it again properly.
> 
> Again today, somewhere in the region of 50% of the new entries have been either incomplete or duplications. Please check you entries carefully folk, we don't want to reject them.


I have just had the unenviable job of deciding which of three duplicates (or is that which one of a triplicate) remains in the database. All three were of a high standard.

In the end the second entered was slightly more comprehensive and had a photo, the first was slightly out of place but had some extra info and the third was pretty good as well.

So what I did was edit the one with the photo giving the extra info supplied by the other entries and giving them credit for it, then deleted the other two. Where tick boxes disagreed I used the campsite's website to make a judgement I then have sent pm's to all three.

The whole process took an hour so please don't duplicate and Ken and Dave (and others?) please don't let any through.

Regards Frank


----------



## sallytrafic (Jan 17, 2006)

peedee said:


> ...clipped....
> 
> Can I make a suggestion regarding the map pop ups. Can the web site address be shown rather than the phone number and town. The town seems a bit pointless when your already looking at a map? Very few campsites don't have web sites these days and most are a mine of information.
> 
> peedee


Thats a very good suggestion peedee .... what do others think?

Regards Frank


----------



## Forrester (Aug 18, 2006)

*New camp site entries*

Gaspode,
In order to be able to enter the site one must have submitted an entry. How does a new boy check whether the proposed entry is already listed if he can't get access :? 
Once every is finalised it would be useful for new people to be able to download on the procedure to be followed.
Forrester.


----------



## gaspode (May 9, 2005)

Hi Forrester

Although a member without an entry can't see the map, they can still search the database and view all the entries. The way to do it is to go to the "Find a Campsite" link on the left of the main page and search the name of the site you intend to enter, then, as a double check, do a search on the name of the town. That's the method I use to check for duplicates. It's not infallible but usually works.

Peedee
Your suggestion does have some merit but wouldn't work on parking places, wildcamping spots, aires, stellplatz, CLs, CSs etc. as most of those don't have websites. Perhaps Nuke could include it as an additional field?


----------



## peedee (May 10, 2005)

gaspode said:


> Peedee
> Your suggestion does have some merit but wouldn't work on parking places, wildcamping spots, aires, stellplatz, CLs, CSs etc. as most of those don't have websites. Perhaps Nuke could include it as an additional field?


Some CLs and CSs do have web sites but agree not all. All the other afore mentioned places don't have phone numbers and you cannot book them anyway!

peedee


----------



## ralph-dot (May 10, 2005)

Just entered a campsite that wasn't there but by the time I finished and got it on the map someone had beat me to it, now I do not remember what I wrote to add as a review.

Ralph


----------



## gaspode (May 9, 2005)

which site was it ralph?


----------



## ralph-dot (May 10, 2005)

Rudding Holiday park.

Unless I just missed it when I checked the map.

Ralph


----------



## gaspode (May 9, 2005)

Hi Ralph

Yes, it's in the approval queue, will delete it now as it is a duplicate.

Here's the text you put in the entry if you need it for your review:

_Rudding Holiday park, very nice site but a bit expensive. Outdoor swimming pool, bar with food, or the Clocktower restaurant in the hotel. See website for more info._


----------



## ralph-dot (May 10, 2005)

Thanks Ken, when was the other one done?

Ralph


----------



## spykal (May 9, 2005)

Hi Ralph

It was put in earlier this month, I was doing some approvals earlier and noticed your duplicate entry.... part of the reason was the campsite name of the previous entry was just Rudding park ( just like that) so I altered the Name to be correct... Rudding Holiday Park... hence todays date on the entry

If when looking for a site when entering one it is best to put as little as possible into the search window ... I just used "rudding" in the campsite name to find the original entry. As far as the map goes it may well be misplaced ...would you check it out please.

I was just about to PM you when I noticed this thread :wink: 

mike


----------



## ralph-dot (May 10, 2005)

Hi Mike, it is in the right place (so I don't know how I missed it), when checking I usually just use the map with no filters, but you are right if a site is in the wrong place I wouldn't see it, so if future I will check both.


----------



## autostratus (May 9, 2005)

I.m sorry to be pointing out more work for you hard working guys but there is a duplicate entry for Mery sur Cher.
Going to Europe map/France/Centre brings up 3 pages of entries for me.
There is an entry for Mery with photo on page 1 and an entry without photo on page 3.

The funny thing is that the google map only shows 1 entry.


----------



## sallytrafic (Jan 17, 2006)

OK Gillian thanks for that I've added it to work in progress.

Regards Frank


----------



## Duadua (Feb 16, 2006)

to whom it may concern

could you kindly please delete the rver endorsement from the following camp site

camping les rosiers chamonix (dept 74)

as the endorser has not visited this site and may have pressed the button in error when investigating how the system might work

thank you


----------



## spykal (May 9, 2005)

It has been removed

_Edit
It has not been removed ... the removal routine did not work on this entry ... another bug to fix :roll: 
Mike _


----------



## spykal (May 9, 2005)

*How to do it *

Hi

A tip to ensure that you do enter the location correctly.

It is not necessary to know the GPS location of a site or to enter anything into the Latitude and Longitude boxes on the campsite submission form. This is done automatically for you during the last stage of the process.

The last stage of entry is the location of the campsite on the map. This has been described above and is quite easy.... and fun too as sometimes you will be able to see vans on site if you change the view to Satellite. (not in all areas)

NOW THE IMPORTANT PART:

Please do click on the " Save Campsite Location" link which will appear after you have placed the marker.

FAILURE to finish with this will mean no location is saved and all your time will have been wasted. 

The picture below is now showing the new larger text for the link...if you miss this ....... :roll: ...... :lol:


----------



## sallytrafic (Jan 17, 2006)

Hi everybody

I have just finished a process of checking for duplicates using Lat Long data exported from the database and number crunched in a spreadsheet. This is over and above work done by Olley and others to identify duplicates.

By this process I have identified about 30 possible duplicates due to having or nearly having the same lat long and I have been working through them. 

Some were cleared as OK ie an aire tacked on to a municipal. 

Some were duplicates and deleted. Mostly on the principle of last in first out, but some exceptions due to high grade of duplicate entry.

Some are awaiting response to pm's from me for clarification.

A few general points to help you.

When searching for duplicates don't type in full name of site, you are far more likely to find a hit if you type just a few letters into the name field. Repeat the check using some other criteria, say town. If you have access to the map zoom into your intended location first to check.

When entering names dont use punctuation, things like - , _ muck up searches and don't help our various checking tools. Dont put words like "Aire", "CC" and C&CC, site at the front of the name.

If you know your site is near or next to another one please cross refer in your entry, this makes it much less likely that it will be rejected or deleted as a duplicate.

Thank you.

Frank


----------



## sallytrafic (Jan 17, 2006)

I've just bumped this as entries are still getting through with punctuation in them

Regards Frank


----------

