Transparent withdrawal

Legacy catalogue review

The inherited site contained useful leads, but it also mixed evidence, folklore, unsupported coordinates and explicit detecting prompts. It was not safe to republish as-is.

Coordinates withheld during review

Of 459 recovered /site/ URLs, 7 exact reviewed identities now redirect to their curated /place/ records. The remaining 452 return noindex review stubs that preserve the name and status only; they do not reproduce legacy coordinates, access claims, target lists, seasonal advice or promotional detecting text.

Baseline audit counts

These counts describe the recovered deployment audited on 29 July 2026. They are not estimates.

Recovered deployment baseline audit counts
CountFindingMeaning
473legacy data rowsRecords parsed from the inherited JavaScript catalogue.
459legacy detail pagesOld public /site/ URLs recovered from the deployed sitemap.
237explicit targeting recordsDescriptions containing a repeated, explicit instruction to treat nearby archaeology as a detecting target.
181unsupported boilerplate recordsRows using generic “[IOMHER/OSM Source] … Coordinates verified from OpenStreetMap” wording without a structured source URL or Historic Environment Record identifier.
93missing display numbersCatalogue rows with no legacy display number.
8duplicate coordinate groupsDifferent records sharing the same coordinate pair in the inherited data.

What happens to an old record

  1. Resolve the name and event against a traceable source.
  2. Separate archaeology, discovery, wreck, survey and folklore claims.
  3. Choose point, area or withheld geometry from the evidence — never from inherited decimal precision.
  4. Review legal and heritage sensitivity.
  5. Publish a new /place/ record only after the structured checks pass.

Raw recovery artifacts are retained offline for audit. They are not public content and do not enter the new sitemap.