There seems to be some interest in collecting a list of known features within death valley and making that information available in one place.  I'm happy to spearhead the effort, though definitely willing to let others take over or contribute if they desire.  I'm a fulltime car-dweller so I'm usually limited to a couple hours of computer time per week and the whims of library/phone internet speeds.  Also, the last time I touched website creation, database design, or programming was more than a decade ago.  

Considering all this, I'm wanting to keep things pretty simple but I have a habit of biting off more than I can chew.  I would definitely appreciate input and suggestions.  At the moment I was thinking of making a wiki which would be nice in keeping things organized, easily updatable, and would allow more than one person to make edits.  That way we shouldn't have another Panamintcity situation.  I've never made a wiki, so I'm going to look into what is required and what they can do.  It might not be the right tool.

Also I'd like to know what people would like to see on the website in terms of content and utility.  Here's a list of things I think it would be useful to have information on: bridges, arches, false bridges, dryfalls (climbable or easily bypassed), dryfalls (not climbable without equipment or huge detours), caves, petroglyphs, tunnels, hoodoos.  Additionally, we could include manmade things like adits, shafts, and ruins.  Also, I really like Kauri's map that shows where she's explored already or not.  A list of which canyons have been explored or not (in modern times) could be great to include.

It would be fun to have stuff mapped, or searchable by location.  For example to list all known features within a particular canyon and see them on a map.  And of course I wouldn't advocate exposing the exact locations of certain fragile and/or easily accessed features.  Keane wonder bridge is a good example of something that should not be pinpointed on a map.  But GPS coordinates could be shown for other things like dryfalls which would be very helpful.

Those are my thoughts!

Thanks, Brice. I would suggest omitting all petroglyphs and rock art. There are too many morons out there.

(2022-03-07, 01:34 PM)Brice Wrote: There seems to be some interest in collecting a list of known features within death valley and making that information available in one place.  I'm happy to spearhead the effort, though definitely willing to let others take over or contribute if they desire.  I'm a fulltime car-dweller so I'm usually limited to a couple hours of computer time per week and the whims of library/phone internet speeds.  Also, the last time I touched website creation, database design, or programming was more than a decade ago.  

Considering all this, I'm wanting to keep things pretty simple but I have a habit of biting off more than I can chew.  I would definitely appreciate input and suggestions.  At the moment I was thinking of making a wiki which would be nice in keeping things organized, easily updatable, and would allow more than one person to make edits.  That way we shouldn't have another Panamintcity situation.  I've never made a wiki, so I'm going to look into what is required and what they can do.  It might not be the right tool.

Also I'd like to know what people would like to see on the website in terms of content and utility.  Here's a list of things I think it would be useful to have information on: bridges, arches, false bridges, dryfalls (climbable or easily bypassed), dryfalls (not climbable without equipment or huge detours), caves, petroglyphs, tunnels, hoodoos.  Additionally, we could include manmade things like adits, shafts, and ruins.  Also, I really like Kauri's map that shows where she's explored already or not.  A list of which canyons have been explored or not (in modern times) could be great to include.

It would be fun to have stuff mapped, or searchable by location.  For example to list all known features within a particular canyon and see them on a map.  And of course I wouldn't advocate exposing the exact locations of certain fragile and/or easily accessed features.  Keane wonder bridge is a good example of something that should not be pinpointed on a map.  But GPS coordinates could be shown for other things like dryfalls which would be very helpful.

Those are my thoughts!

I'm not sure that this is what you want to hear but alas, if you're limited to free (library) internet access, and just a couple hours/week, then I don't think you're in a good position to be operating a website. Also, most wiki software tends to have a rather poor track record from a security perspective (meaning that it will require significant effort to keep it secured against malicious actors).

Beyond that, you need to think about moderators, or some other system for managing the data. Wiki's are especially notorious for accumulating erroneous or malicious entries, as its designed to make editing data very easy, but verifying the data time consuming. Having all of this data won't be much fun if some jerk comes through and dumps a bunch of garbage, or worse, submits erroneous updates.

Its unclear from your post whether you have web hosting available (or even a domain name), but that's also a consideration that you need to figure out.

(2022-03-07, 06:46 PM)netllama Wrote: I'm not sure that this is what you want to hear but alas, if you're limited to free (library) internet access, and just a couple hours/week, then I don't think you're in a good position to be operating a website.  Also,  most wiki software tends to have a rather poor track record from a security perspective (meaning that it will require significant effort to keep it secured against malicious actors). 

Beyond that, you need to think about moderators, or some other system for managing the data.  Wiki's are especially notorious for accumulating erroneous or malicious entries, as its designed to make editing data very easy, but verifying the data time consuming.  Having all of this data won't be much fun if some jerk comes through and dumps a bunch of garbage, or worse, submits erroneous updates.

Its unclear from your post whether you have web hosting available (or even a domain name), but that's also a consideration that you need to figure out.

I'm ignorant of any security vulnerabilities around wikis since it's brand new to me but thanks for the heads up.  I'll look into it and welcome any suggestions if we go this route.

Today I installed mediawiki which is what wikipedia runs off of. It seems to have the feature of only allowing select people to make edits and create content. I wasn't ever thinking of opening it up to the general public, because you are right that it would be difficult to manage.

I haven't got far enough to think about hosting yet since that may depend on how the site is implemented.  Mediawiki requires apache, php, and mariaDB or mySQL. Would that be a problem for you if the offer to host still stands?

(2022-03-07, 07:54 PM)Brice Wrote:

(2022-03-07, 06:46 PM)netllama Wrote: I'm not sure that this is what you want to hear but alas, if you're limited to free (library) internet access, and just a couple hours/week, then I don't think you're in a good position to be operating a website.  Also,  most wiki software tends to have a rather poor track record from a security perspective (meaning that it will require significant effort to keep it secured against malicious actors). 

Beyond that, you need to think about moderators, or some other system for managing the data.  Wiki's are especially notorious for accumulating erroneous or malicious entries, as its designed to make editing data very easy, but verifying the data time consuming.  Having all of this data won't be much fun if some jerk comes through and dumps a bunch of garbage, or worse, submits erroneous updates.

Its unclear from your post whether you have web hosting available (or even a domain name), but that's also a consideration that you need to figure out.

I'm ignorant of any security vulnerabilities around wikis since it's brand new to me but thanks for the heads up.  I'll look into it and welcome any suggestions if we go this route.

Today I installed mediawiki which is what wikipedia runs off of. It seems to have the feature of only allowing select people to make edits and create content. I wasn't ever thinking of opening it up to the general public, because you are right that it would be difficult to manage.

I haven't got far enough to think about hosting yet since that may depend on how the site is implemented.  Mediawiki requires apache, php, and mariaDB or mySQL. Would that be a problem for you if the offer to host still stands?

Apache & php are no problem. mariaDB and mySQL are not viable options from my perspective. Too many security & performance problems.