# Campsite database- please check your spelling !



## Grizzly (May 9, 2005)

Sorry to sound so ungrateful - which I am definitely NOT but, when you write a review of a campsite, aire or stopping place PLEASE would you take a few moments to google the correct spelling, punctuation and department or region 

The software is supposed to alert you if your new entry is a duplicate but, it can't work miracles and distinguish between phonetic spelling and the real thing or work out where the apostrophes are supposed to be in French entries or that a campsite actually in the Auverge is not in Alsace.

I've been entering a few sites recently and have got all the way through the form, had it accepted and then discovered it appears elsewhere under another guise !

Just a tiny moan but anything that keeps my blood pressure down is a good thing !

G


----------



## wobby (May 1, 2005)

I second that and it would also help if one could include the coordinates. its especially useful to us young folks to know if the site is open all year too.

I haven't been as good as I should have last year in entering site, but I promise to be much better this year as we will be travelling for 8 months France, Spain, Ireland, then Germany and back to Spain for Christmas.

Wobby


----------



## spykal (May 9, 2005)

Hi Grizzly

First ..thanks for entering the campsites.

As you rightly say the campsite entry form software does try to alert you if you enter a duplicate ...but as we all know software is software and it can let you down... different spellings ect can cause this ....

So what I always suggest before starting do do an entry is to do a check using either 
>> The Interactive Campsite Map <<
or 
 >> Search Campsite Reviews <<

I prefer to use the > Interactive Map < ... the one I have linked .. not the one that you see when you do a search.

If you do use a  > Search < then just enter one search query say the town or campsite name and use only a partial name as suggested ( you will ensure more hits that way)

All of the campsite entries are now individually checked by myself, Gaspode or Motorhomersimpson and we do try our very best not to let any errors through... as you have submitted quite a few campsites you know how long it takes to submit them .... it takes the same amount of time to check each one too :wink:

To Wobby.... all the entries in the campsite database have the location co-ordinates listed ... if you find any without the latitude and longitude shown do let us know . :wink: 
The opening dates are part of the entry ... sometimes folk enter sites with just the minimum of information... in these cases we again do our best to find out what we can before approving the inclusion of the site. Some sites do get rejected because of a lack of info given...but not many, we often spend a lot of time adding info if the site looks a good one.

So all I can ask is that you all continue to add sites ....and please do it carefully adding as much as you know about the site ... for the admins sake :lol: and of course for all the members who will use the information.

Mike

P.S. When the database was upgraded to include a locations map and have each entry located on it many hours were spent by several members who searched out where the sites were and entered the location detail and deleted many duplicates and duff entries :roll: , they still keep an eye out for mistakes in there ... peejay, sallytraffic and olley


----------



## gaspode (May 9, 2005)

Hi G

I'll just confirm everything that Mike has said and repeat your plea for anyone entering campsites to take great care about spelling and map location. Also please provide a full detailed address wherever possible.

I've had several instances lately where spelling of place names has been a dilemma. I had one recently where there was a Spanish site already listed which I knew was the same as the one being submitted but the town name was spelled differently. I checked Google and found yet another spelling variation for the same town so which one do you use? Mikes suggestion of using the map to eliminate duplicates is a good one. The other major problems are wild spots with no address so we can't check the map location is accurate, always give an address and detailed description of how to find wild spots, even something like "on the left side of the B449 3 miles from town X" will allow us to approve it and visitors to find it.

As Mike says, approving campsites can take as long as (or longer than) the time it takes to enter them, we've had several occasions where we've spent over an hour on a single site. The danger is that if the information in the entry is poor the chances of rejection become greater because we can't verify the info properly. I have to say that your entries Grizzly are usually very detailed and accurate, shame all entries are not to your standard.

Just one more thing, I've had a couple of members PM me to ask why we change the address details sometimes. Often this is because we feel that the location in the "town" field should be changed, ie; we use "London" instead of "Westminster". Also we have to remove any punctuation (especially commas) from the address fields as it confuses the database when comma seperated files are extracted so text such as "Hightown, nr. Maintown" have to be edited.

Apologies for the rant, I'll get back to work now. :wink:


----------



## mandyandandy (Oct 1, 2006)

I just want to thank all of you personally for all the work that goes in behind the scenes. 

I have planned many of my holidays from just the map and printed the brochure off and taken it with us. 

Was really useful when we had 2 vans going and not that much of an idea which direction we where heading, we just jumped from one to another till we found one we liked. We both carried the print out making it easier for all.

Knowing it is up to date is the best thing compared to some of the books we have used. 

Thanks again
Mandy


----------



## Boff (May 10, 2005)

Hi,

I always check on the site map before entering a new site. And if there is an existing entry suspiciously close to the position of my to-be-entered new site, then I check the details first. 

Nevertheless, quite a few sites in our database are not located in English-speaking countries - and I admit that I am responsible for quite a few of them :wink: . And many European languages contain special characters that have no direct representation in English. Be it French accents, German umlauts, or Scandinavian special characters, I think we have to do something about that. For instance, there is a beautiful "Stellplatz" site in a famous German city on the banks of the river Rhine. The official German name of this city is "Köln" (for all whose browser's character set is not correctly set, the "o" has two dots on top). Most forum members tend to just ignore the dots and write it "Koln". There is however an official English translation, and that is "Cologne". 

So which of the three do we use? And in which field? After all, there are site name, city and some free text address fields available. Personally, I don't care which one for which, as long as we all do the same and everybody searching for a specific site knows what to enter. 

So I think it would be a task for the Site DB Admins to formulate a "policy" here. Preferrably before my next tour to Scandinavia, after which I might want to enter places like Hækkebølle, Näsåker or Pörölänmäki. :wink: 

Best Regards,
Gerhard


----------



## gaspode (May 9, 2005)

Boff said:


> So I think it would be a task for the Site DB Admins to formulate a "policy" here.


You may have a point there Gerhard, it's just finding the time to do it as usual. :roll:

Certainly the Koln one is a case in point, as indeed is Bruges/Brugge (or it's many and varied mis-spellings). Don't let's get into the Scandinavian entries, I have enough problems with the French/German/Spanish/Belgian ones. 

Oh - and if you really want a challenge try some of the Greek ones. 8O

PS: Never had to edit a single one of yours I don't think Gerhard. :lol:


----------



## peejay (May 10, 2005)

> Knowing it is up to date is the best thing compared to some of the books we have used.


I know what you mean but I think its virtualy impossible to have a fully up to date database, there are certainly quite a few that could do with some extra info added. This is where everyone can do their bit and help (hint hint :wink: ) by adding a review to existing entries. Its very easy to do and only takes a few minutes.



> So which of the three do we use? And in which field? After all, there are site name, city and some free text address fields available. Personally, I don't care which one for which, as long as we all do the same and everybody searching for a specific site knows what to enter.
> 
> So I think it would be a task for the Site DB Admins to formulate a "policy" here.


I think you have to make it as easy as possible otherwise it will put people off adding info so I would suggest any words be entered without their diacritic marks (I googled that!) for ease. For example 'Koln', 'Cleres' etc to keep it as straightforward as possible. 
Maybe Nuke could alter the software so it won't allow you to enter umlauts etc in these fields?
Entering places that have different variations in different languages isn't going to be so easy though, maybe put the English version with the local variation in brackets, that way a search is going to pull up both variants. Koln (Cologne)

Pete


----------



## ThursdaysChild (Aug 2, 2008)

> or that a campsite actually in the Auverge is not in Alsace


naughty Grizzly !

it's Auvergne !

Sorry


----------



## Grizzly (May 9, 2005)

ThursdaysChild said:


> > or that a campsite actually in the Auverge is not in Alsace
> 
> 
> naughty Grizzly !
> ...


  

There you go ! Q E D

Actually it's exactly that type of spelling mistake I had in mind when I did the original post.

I knew there was a photo in the aires album of the aire at Kayser*S*berg but could not find details in the database. I wanted to add the fact that wifi is now available -free- in town. I have a vague memory that I have added this at some point in the past but can't find it.

The snag is that the aire is under the name of Kayserberg and the campsite software does not recognise the extra S in the middle. I agree that in future I will look at the map and narrow the search that way but this is not as easy as it looks - it has just taken me several goes to get the options menus at the top of the map to accept both " France" and " aire" at the same time.

There are other duplicate entries in the database because of either spelling mistakes or because the site is in the wrong region.

However, that said, it's a wonderful resource and I am extremely grateful to all who put their sites in. We always go away with a thick folder of stopping places and I can spend many happy hours selecting them before we go.

G


----------



## peejay (May 10, 2005)

Well there you go Grizz, entry ammended, please feel free to add a review to the *Kaysersberg* entry now its spelt correctly.

Some people just don't pay attention when they are submitting entries do they (that'll be me then :roll: )

I've also corrected the entry by a certain moderator for the Municipal entry too :wink:

If we're all going down in flames for spelling might as well take a mod with us :lol:

Pete


----------



## peejay (May 10, 2005)

Just a further point;



Grizzly said:


> There are other duplicate entries in the database because of either spelling mistakes or because the site is in the wrong region.


If anyone does spot any spelling mistakes, duplicate entries, wrong regions etc etc, please pm either olley, myself or a mod and we will update it.

Pete


----------



## Grizzly (May 9, 2005)

peejay said:


> Some people just don't pay attention when they are submitting entries do they (that'll be me then :roll: )
> I've also corrected the entry by a certain moderator for the Municipal entry


We're none of us immune peejay - see Auvergne / Auverge above ! 

Strictly it should be Kaiser's Berg as it was named for the fortress on the mountain. The fortress was built by no less than the Emperor Barbarossa.

G


----------



## sallytrafic (Jan 17, 2006)

When I entered my Norway ones I was spoilt for choice often the road signs, tom tom and my atlas had different spellings


----------



## gaspode (May 9, 2005)

peejay said:


> I've also corrected the entry by a certain moderator for the Municipal entry too :wink:


Don't be silly Pete, moderators don't make mistakes do they? :lol: :lol: :lol:

(Good job he's on holiday) :lol: :lol: :lol: :wink:


----------

