Destroyed Sites-Eds input please

close
more_vert
Chris C
Chris Oct 10, 2006 10:39:15
Replying to whatisthat

whatisthat wrote:
Chris wrote:
1. Should they be added?
A difficult one which brings to the fore the two (maybe) slightly conflicting aims of the TMA database.

1. To provide a complete database of sites like an official SMR.
2. To provide an easy to use gazetteer that visitors planning a trip can use to get them to the best sites in an unfamilar area.

In Anglesey there are 18 megalithic tombs with something to see, 7 destroyed and 19 possibles (according to this book here). If the destroyed and possibles were included it would satisfy 1 above but not help 2 as it would clutter up the Anglesey page with sites which are probably of no interest to most monument visitors.

Agreed. However, if they had their own sub-category, they could be filtered out. Or even be not usually visible, with an option to 'filter in'.

FourWinds wrote:
Several places seem to have been added already with (Site of) appended. This does seem to the accepted norm in archaeo speak.
I have done that myself - the problem is I am now finding dozens of sites, which would somewhat clutter the gazetteer as whatisthat suggests.

M moss
moss Oct 10, 2006 11:16:11
Replying to Chris

Try my method - being a seriously disorganised person, I found Flickr a couple of months ago, uploaded all my photos and organised into relevant albums (had to pay £13 for more space), and then realised I could use my blog site in conjunction with it. So, take your area, write relevant site-missing stuff, and link back to flickr photos when you're bored with writing, then put on here as a weblog, with grid references should others be interested...