quote:Originally posted by Eryne
Gee, I don't know how you could specifically refer to something that is shown on a map. UTM coordinates, lats and longs, even simple map grid references uniquely identify points on map. Made up names can do that, too.
And if my reading of a grid reference is off by a bit, how can I find it in the database? And if two features have the same grid reference within some margin of uncertainty, how does the end user identify them uniquely? The end user is back to using a serial number. Not a good design practice.
I agree that his quest to throw arbitrary names a every insignificant little bump has gone overkill. The database is fairly complete, and my opinion is that Robin does it out of boredom.
quote:Originally posted by shrubhugger
...For example, 'Crazy Peak' in the Cadwallader Range had been referred to as such in published trip reports, but Robin decided to change its name to Cadwallader Peak, alienating the authors of the trip reports (going so far as to change the name within the trip reports that were on Bivouac). This is an indication of the core of the Bivouac peak naming problem: Robin's attitude...
Yes, but what if somebody else gives it another name in their trip report? Then you have two names for the same feature ("record" in database terms), which is a no-no in database design. Maybe another field like "alternate name" would be appropriate.
Robin's goal appears to be a concise data structure describing mountain peaks. If the name of the peak changes, then all references to the peak have to be changed as well. Just like when you move you change all references to your present address. This might be offensive to the authors involved, but it's proper database design practice. Otherwise you would have a reference to a peak name that doesn't exist. You don't want an end user to have to research the history of a peak name if they just want to climb the peak or read trip reports about it.
Maybe he should cite some rationale and references, but I think (with some exceptions) that the problem has been blown out of proportion.