I've started updating this list by including my own research. There's still a few more sites to add though. My thanks to BigA for tidying up my mess slightly!

That's what he's there for

If you're going to anything with a lot of info, it's worth mentioning beforehand - there may be better methods or formats that can make it easier, or more useful.

I'm often getting into trouble for not worshipping the British Grid, but it is indigestible to code without complex parsing of 6, 8, 10, 12 digit variants, not to mention the use of x,y versions with no letters. At least using lat/lon means that resolution can be increased simply by adding decimal places, and not fouling up code by having different version of the same thing.

The site's internal mapping code depends on lat/lon (not surprising since it works world wide) but I've been writing new code recently which has allowed dozens of external maps to be linked, using various coordinate systems (these can be found under the Aerial heading), and there's probably enough new code been added to allow me to write some new stuff to allow the internal mapping to use a Britsh Grid Ref directly, and avoid the conversion stage. The only restriction is that there is no pre-processing, so like the present sections that use Grid Refs, this will be restricted to input from 6 digit refs only, like NS456123.

It's something I've intended to play with for a while, but never had a page full of Refs to make it worth effort, as it only takes me a moment to convert the usual two or the Refs found on a page, so writing code was pointless.

For Information:

I had a play with the conversion and mapping routines, and managed to make them talk to one another, and it's now possible to plot 6 digit grid references directly onto our pages' Google map.

If you're familiar with this already, then you'll recognise the similarity with the current lat/lon method offered already (see the Map101 page and Map lat/lon finder pages if you haven't already) which is...

(:gma-point lat=55.123456 lon=-5.654321 :) for a basic point

The new grid ref point available now is...

(:gma-point (:ll6gm NS456123 :) :) for a basic point

To make the point identifiable though, it's necessary to add text or a link, so we know which point is which when there's more than one, so just add...

(:gma-point lat=55.123456 lon=-5.654321 text='This is an identified point' :) for text to be included

or...

(:gma-point (:ll6gm NS456123 :) link="This point is identified and has a link too' :)

Even though we now have this function, it is as well to bear in mind its restrictions, compared to a nice lat/lon pair. The 6 digit NGR of the form NS456123 means that the location of the item it locates is only defined within a 100 m square.

I believe the conversion routine only caters for 6 digit NGRs, but will analyse it to see if it contains code for 8 or even 10 digit NGRs, as these can now be easily obtained from GPSrs, so would be handy to have too, if possible.

I'll be modifying the Map101 page as soon as I can, just to make sure what I have quickly noted here is documented.

APOLOGIES if you looked at this earlier, and it made no sense at all because it was scattered with apparently random smilies - I forgot to disable them, so all the things like :) got changed automatically to the graphic by the code.

I've been using the new NGR map point and the page is well underway, however, there is a problem with the Duddingston House NGR in line 70, which has only 7 digits.

Hopefully this is just a typo, and historian can drop in the 8 digit reference to correct it.

I've done most of the wikification, and standardised the wording and updated some of the notes too.

I might change the layout later, but will stick with the present appearance until all the changes are stable - don't want to have too many pots on the boil at once

I sorted Duddingston House. However, I've just established that Cairnbaan/Letterdail and #24 Knapdale are actually the same camp. The  buildings are now used by the Forestry Commission as workshops.

Glad you are delving into POW Camps in Scotland as it seems to be a largely unexplored area.

I shuffled the 24 Knapedale, Lochgilphead, Argyll. Cairnbaan/Letterdail, Argyll & Bute. NR82979063 data all into the one line for 24 Knapedale.

Can you confirm Camp 559, Stirling NGR, as the value has too many digits - I've assumed a value which looks ok, but we should be correct

I'm assuming 77 Balbirnie is correct, and the NGR is only know to the 4 digits given.

I'm afraid I couldn't resist the need to tabulate the data and tidy it up. There's still some fiddling I won't be able to resist, but it's not too bad as it is.

Things may look like gibberish, but it's a lot simpler than html, and each line follows the same pattern - table cells are defined between pairs of || characters, with the content stuck in between them.

Cheers Apollo. I sorted the Abbeycraig NGR.
As far as I'm aware, Balbirnie is one of the sites proposed for #77, and the NGR is only a general reference. I'll see if I can narrow it down any further for you.
Fox,
I did a similar list of ALL UK camps at an archaeology forum I help to moderate, based on an English Heritage report from 2004. Although this listed all known camps (including the Channel Islands), only NGRs were provided for English camps. My own particular interest is Scottish camps, and I'm almost finished getting NGRs for those.
I haven't even started on Wales and NI, and I'm dreading it!

I don't know if you folks disassemble links and check their root site, but The Fox added an interesting forum response into the summary tonight, which I modified slightly to lead to some additional info, and tracked back to its source on the following site:

ISLAND FARM PRISONER OF WAR CAMP: 198 / Special Camp: XI Bridgend, South Wales

This has attracted a fair amount of info unrelated to itself, but still relevant to PoW Camps around the country, and I spotted some more Scottish info in passing.

I'm determined not to get diverted from my own subjects any more (3 months and nothing done) but if anyone else interested would like to have a trawl through this site, then I think there are a few gems to be plucked, and if you get the urls or info, I'll do any styling or formatting needed.

I've had a look at one of the links- http://www.kg6gb.org and it's thrown up what appear to be work camps based on farms in Perthshire. I've added them to the summary until such times as I can either confirm their locations or totally discount them.

Er...

That's actually the original link that the PoW Summary Camp page was grown from. It's already given at the foot of the table.

Unfortunately, with a potential 1045 entries spread over 4 web pages, there's no way I'm claiming that the list was 100% (the MKI eyeball gives up after peering at online lists after a while ).

I don't know how Inveraray/Shandon came to be omitted though, as it's such an obvious one - oh heck, maybe that's why

Anything from that list should therefore be above the table line that says the stuff below isn't on the list, to keep it right.

I did process the stuff in bulk first time round, just to produce the numbered listing, maybe I should have a revisit some time, since the majority of the work is done, and only the errors/exceptions need to be found.

Apologies...too much midnight oil!

You and me both

It's actually a good thing, as it highlights the fact that my first sweep, despite being checked, does include errors and omissions, so review is worthy.

I've added links to all the external link pages now, so they can all be checked at some point - it's not an easy listing to work with, not its fault, just that (as we've seen) some camp numbers and names are duplicated/re-used, so the old memory has to do its bit as well whenever you trawl through it.

I am not convinced that the numbers were duplicated, I think they were reused.  Several of the camps come with information that they ceased to operate as POW camps at some point or began to operate at some date.  They certainly did not all operate as POW camps right throughout the war, let alone until 47/48 when the last POW was liberated.

You're trying too hard

For example, 77 appears in the table three times, so is indeed duplicated, repeatedly.

Not everyone has been looking at this as long as we have, the new or first-time visitor to the info could be forgiven for assuming sloppy work or errors on the page, hence some sort of explanation is needed, hence the page indicates the reuse option you mentioned...

Same location with more than one Camp Number means two separate camps at the location, or that the number was later re-issued to another camp.

Fox has a point. It's obvious that at least some of the camps couldn't have been used until postwar- Findo Gask, Errol to name but two.
That source also mentions some POW camps also being listed as US Army transit camps!

Must remember to update the Findo Gask tower demolition to 2006!

Why couldn't Findo Gask, for example, have been used until Postwar? The actual airfield itself need not have been the camp location.

A number of facilities were used as PoW camp sites while they were active during the war. Since military personnel would already have been to hand, adding a PoW camp, or using part of an existing facility would have meant efficient utilisation of resources. Not all camps were high security, some were quite lax, being little more than accommodation for trusted inmates who weren't going anywhere in a hurry, and were land workers, let out in the morning, and left to come back themselves at night.

I think the idea of duplicated camp numbers would have been an affront to the military mind.  I cannot perceive of them liking more than one camp with the same number unless they were near each other and came under one administration.

The other possibilty that occurs to me is that 2 lists have become muddled. One for POW camps and one for Internment Camps.

Not an affront if the military mind liked to number a site/location, then assign a use to it, rather than name it explicitly.

Your street address never changes, despite change of ownership of your home. Sites on military maps wouldn't change, but their use could, and numbering sites on maps, rather than naming them, means not having to update and revise maps, just the index lists that go along with them. Easier to print and distribute a printed list quickly, rather than revise a map and have artwork revised an printed prior to distribution.

It's also more secure, in war time, as the map itself has reduced/nil value without the index, should it fall into enemy hands (like for arranging a breakout raid ).

I really don't see any issue or surprises here at all.

There also seems to be a local 'pattern' in some cases - I wonder if the number was assigned to a location, then they found that they actually had to build another camp due to numbers, or lack of space to expand at the first site chosen.

Record keeping at the time seemed (and I'm now just going on personal interpretation here, from reading docs released by the National Archives) to something taken very, very seriously, with lots of pen-pushers and writers recording things. It seems unlikely that they'd get so many wrong, so I'm wondering if what we see at the moment is bred of ignorance, not knowing what we (or rather those that have found the info) are looking at, and are cobbling bits together, rather than using proper, full info, hence the appearance of things that don't quite tie up, or appear to, if not conflict, seem not 100% correct.

Findo Gask was actually used briefly postwar by the RAF, then I think it was a private flying club for a while. One of the accommodation camps was between the airfield and the Gask Ridge, so the POWs might have been billeted there.
I visited it around 1990 when it still looked like an airfield; the T2 hangars were there, the station office (with original drawings on one of the office walls!), the technical site, control tower, target butts etc etc. I took some 35mm pics, but now realise not nearly enough of them.
I visited again in 2005 when the luxury development was still in progress; everything but the control tower was gone, and I managed to get a pic of that. On the plus side though, the original battle HQ was still there, as the original entrance road had been bypassed by the developers. It might still be there now- I'll try and take a run up.