Age & History - Minor Corrections

[mdsimpson42]

Core

Architectural Style/historical period

• [x] Data source options:
  • [x] Central government record/online database
  • [x] + Local government record/online database
  • [x] Open database (non-profit)
  • [x] + Open database (commercial)
  • [x] - Other independently managed database
  • [x] - Commercial Database
  • [x] + Website (Commercial)
  • [x] + Website (Non-profit)

~~Cladding, extensions and retrofits
Date of significant extensions - add multiple?~~ (Created separate issue #367)

Building age/construction date

• [x] Construction start date
• [x] Estimated construction period - calculated
• [ ] Remove alternative source link(s) @mdsimpson42 can you hold on removing this and just checking how much data we have forthis one.

Britain

• [x] The following should be removed from Core, as they are Britain specific.

...

• [x] Remove one set of source links
• [x] Remove "specific" + "type" from historical source
• [x] Specific source type:
  • [x] Official conservation area appraisals (top)
  • [x] National heritage...
  • [x] Pevsner...
  • [x] Victoria County...
  • [x] Survey of London
  • [x] Local history publication (book/record)
  • [x] + Local history website
  • [x] Other website
  • [x] Other database or gazetter
  • [x] Historical Map
  • [x] Film/video
  • [x] Expert knowledge at bottom of list (above other)

[polly64]

can you also change text on the light dark button to say

switch to light background switch to dark background

[mdsimpson42]

Cladding, extensions and retrofits

The issue with updating the "Date of significant extensions" is that we currently don't have an interface element for entering multiple numerical values. We only do it with text strings.

I could create a new multi entry class for numbers, but I've had a quick look it's not a trivial task to convert the text one to handle numbers. If I change the field to text, then we have the problem of how to validate the values being typed in (and we're back to the issue of users entering free text).

Alternatively, we could change it to "Date of most significant extension", so it matches the "Date of last significant retrofit" field and then look into adding multiple dates in a future task.

(Depends on how high-priority this is)

---

Go ahead with this, can you connect a source to each plus?

[mdsimpson42]

Architectural Style/historical period

Also, changing the data source options brings us back to the old problem of what do we do if there is existing data in the database?

i.e. if someone has already put "Current government record/database" in as a value on some buildings and we rename it to "Central government record/online database", then the old data is effectively lost unless we update the records in the database. But we still haven't resolved how to do this while avoiding concerns about data provenance/history.

@mdsimpson42 Its fine let's just change

[mdsimpson42]

Building age/construction date

We may need some clarity on what the existing fields mean? We already have:

• Year of construction of main building - should this be the year that construction was completed?
• Earliest possible start year - How is this different from "Construction start date" - this could be used to calculate the construction length, unless it means something else?
• Latest possible start year - ditto

@mdsimpson42 lets remove both of these (but save the data) as I think they are rarely filled in and replace with Date of construction (best estimate) date of completion (best estimate)

[mdsimpson42]

Historical source type

The full list is now:

        "Official conservation area appraisals",
        "Pevsner Guides",
        "Victoria County History",
        "Survey of London",
        "Local history publication (book/record)",
        "Other publication",
        "Local history website",
        "Other website",
        "National Heritage List for England",
        "Other database or gazetteer",
        "Historical map",
        "Film/Video",
        "Other archive document",
        "Expert knowledge of building",
        "Expert estimate from image",
        "Other"

I just wanted to confirm that that is correct before committing it.

[polly64]

great yes all ok

[polly64]

@mdsimpson42 can we correct this to minimum 1