German military serials denotation on the database

[Marpleman]

Ok everyone - here's round two of the great "how do you want......." database updating poll


This time, the good old German military serial!

Simple choice......

Option 1 - as denoted with the "cross"  as in 10+22

or

Option 2 - as it seems to currently populate as simply 1022

only asking , as a fair few other systems show it with the "+"


This will run for 7 days - have fun!

[RodBearden]

I voted for the no-cross version because that will pick up pictures from Airliners.net. If it wasn't for that, I would prefer the cross.

Rod

[Marpleman]

I voted for the no-cross version because that will pick up pictures from Airliners.net. If it wasn't for that, I would prefer the cross.

Rod

Cheers Rod

Do we not also run the risk of it picking up say an Israeli Glostor Meteor with the same code though?

Rich

[RodBearden]

And what's wrong with Israeli Meteors, then?  I had an Aussie airliner with photos of a DH Heron yesterday. I like the odd random photo!

I think it's a risk worth running - better than no picture at all.

Rod

[Marpleman]

And what's wrong with Israeli Meteors, then?  I had an Aussie airliner with photos of a DH Heron yesterday. I like the odd random photo!

I think it's a risk worth running - better than no picture at all.

Rod

Personally, I'm with you on the nostalga mix n match!

There's another that brings up a rather splendid South African AF Buccaneer  :-)

Rich

[DaveReid]

I voted for the no-cross version because that will pick up pictures from Airliners.net. If it wasn't for that, I would prefer the cross.

Do we not also run the risk of it picking up say an Israeli Glostor Meteor with the same code though?

I think you're both missing the point.  

Surely one of the USPs of the "new" database was going to be that it no longer uses the scattergun approach of simply firing a registration, tail number or serial at airliners.net and accepting whatever photo is returned ?

Instead, so we were told, the database was going to have validated airliners.net photo URLs which had been checked to ensure that they were of the aircraft concerned and not a different or previous use of the registration.  That was certainly part of the spec that AirNav issued when they were looking at external proposals.

So however a Luftwaffe serial is rendered shouldn't make any difference to picking up the correct photo.

[RodBearden]

Agreed, Dave, but if the AirNav lookup on Airliners doesn't find the reg in the first place, it can't validate it. Airliners doesn't use hex codes, after all.

Rod

[DaveReid]

Agreed, Dave, but if the AirNav lookup on Airliners doesn't find the reg in the first place, it can't validate it. Airliners doesn't use hex codes, after all.

Yes, you've put your finger on it - the proposition is (was?) that the database research would include identifying correctly two photos on airliners.net for the aircraft concerned (assuming they exist) and storing the appropriate URLs in the database.

Are you saying that this aim has now gone out the window and we're going to be stuck with the current hit-and-miss method ?

[Marpleman]

Agreed, Dave, but if the AirNav lookup on Airliners doesn't find the reg in the first place, it can't validate it. Airliners doesn't use hex codes, after all.

Yes, you've put your finger on it - the proposition is (was?) that the database research would include identifying correctly two photos on airliners.net for the aircraft concerned (assuming they exist) and storing the appropriate URLs in the database.

Are you saying that this aim has now gone out the window and we're going to be stuck with the current hit-and-miss method ?

Hi Dave

To be honest, at the moment we are really pre-occupied with the integrity of the narrative data portrayed, which as I'm sure you'll agree is a pretty mamoth task in itself.

Add to that the development of a speedy,accurate approach is also a pretty big challenge.

The photo inaccuracies have bugged me ever since owning the box, but as I've mentioned elsewhere tonight, I'm only dealing with the non-photographic fields in the database for the time being.

Hopefully AirNav will continue to look at a more robust method of dealing with the photo's, however if at least we can work on getting the correct "core" info in there to start with, we are better positioned to move forward.

The good thing at least, is that we have re-initiated the debate on some of these issues!

Cheers

Rich

[tarbat]

I would opt for using the "+" symbol (eg 10+22) in the Registration field.  But when the server subsequently does the lookup on airliners.net, it should remove the "+" symbol, and any other non-alphanumeric symbols, when doing the lookup.  Best of both worlds.

[DaveReid]

To be honest, at the moment we are really pre-occupied with the integrity of the narrative data portrayed, which as I'm sure you'll agree is a pretty mamoth task in itself.

Yes, I'm probably the last person who needs reminding what a huge task it is that you guys are undertaking  :-)

The photo inaccuracies have bugged me ever since owning the box, but as I've mentioned elsewhere tonight, I'm only dealing with the non-photographic fields in the database for the time being.

Point taken.  But - no disrespect to the team, who I'm sure are doing a grand job - it's a real shame that AirNav have lowered their sights and abandoned the idea of fixing the photo links at the same time.  That was always part of the original plan and the subject of many promises over the last year or more.

[malc41]

Cheer up Dave

We'll get there in the end. We have waited long enough so far!!

[Marpleman]

To be honest, at the moment we are really pre-occupied with the integrity of the narrative data portrayed, which as I'm sure you'll agree is a pretty mamoth task in itself.

Yes, I'm probably the last person who needs reminding what a huge task it is that you guys are undertaking  :-)

The photo inaccuracies have bugged me ever since owning the box, but as I've mentioned elsewhere tonight, I'm only dealing with the non-photographic fields in the database for the time being.

Point taken.  But - no disrespect to the team, who I'm sure are doing a grand job - it's a real shame that AirNav have lowered their sights and abandoned the idea of fixing the photo links at the same time.  That was always part of the original plan and the subject of many promises over the last year or more.

Thanks for your support Dave

I may be doing my fellow updaters a slight dis-service here ,as from discussions we had late last night, a couple of the guys are "sense checking" the integrity of the data in respect of the photos - however it's a mighty task to go and find one for new additions, particularly for biz jets and light aircraft - so stick with us on this, all may not be doom and gloom!

I think we need to explain in more detail to the users exactly what our approach is on what we're doing, but we are slowly chipping away at eveything!

I'll maybe come on in the next day or two with some explanations and ideas etc to keep everyone in the picture?

Rgds

Rich

[Canonjohns40D]

Hi Guys voted and Like Rod said, I voted for the no-cross version because that will pick up pictures from Airliners.net. If it wasn't for that, I would prefer the cross.

John

[jannuh]

The db group should become politicians..   ;-)