I noticed the import process from Topodroid and VisualTopo into CRP now split the station name (i.e. branch.station) into the fields (Ref)Passage (branch) and (Ref)Station (station). I don't see the advantage(s) of such a change since CRP handles the branch.station format in the fields (Ref)Station quite well, and we lost the extra flexibility offered by the (Ref)Passage fields.

Coming from VisualTopo, we were used to have one field to log the station names and dealing with wrongly numbered branches was a commun problem (oops, branch 13 already existed...). So we took avantage of the co-existence of Passage and Station fields to simplify the data acquisition and station numbering on the field, when things are messy, muddy, tiring... as well as the corrections required when back to basecamp. Our solution is to use the Station field for the full station names (branch.station) and the Passage field to record the survey session number (e.g. : 1901, is the first survey session of 2019...). Proceeding this way has a direct impact on the field and primarily in huge cave system: you don't have to worry about the numbering of the entire cave system, you can start from scratche and you don't have to worry about the numbering used by other team surveying the same cave at the very same time in a different part of the cave. The only thing you have to worry about is to make sure the name of the station you start your survey session from and the other existing stations you might come across (e.g. in case of a loop). This is so much easier and requires a lot less messing around with the data after each session.

I suppose the change has been requested for honest reasons, but in my opinion this is not a great move and is going to cause us some headaches...

If the import process is not reverted back to what it was, can we at least have the option to tell CRP if we want to split the station names... or NOT... at the data import stage?

Directly related to this matter, there is an issue I foresee: TopoDroid and VisualTopo allow the usage of alphanumerical station numbering (e.g. AA.12). If such a station name is split into Passage and Station, my guess is that there will be an issue since the (Ref)Passage field only allowed numbers.

I think this could be a solution that provides flexibility and satisfies both sides.