Hi Wookey, Tarquin, I agree that extended elevations are too unpredictable, hard to use, and that there needs to be a simpler way. Not sure if it is that there are bugs, that instructions and understanding is inadequate, or if there is required functionality that is missing.
Because extend ignore is usually associated with a survey network junction (nearby or not so nearby), I have a gut feeling that specifying a leg (perhaps with sensitivity to direction) will generally give more refined control. To use extend ignore to break at a particular station, using just a single station (if I have it right), you need to specify the station one leg beyond the desired break (a bit like 'flip' in PocketTopo). Generally, I find this approach to result in cognitive overload! If you want the break at a junction, you would often need to specify which leg anyway, depending on whether Therion's auto extended generation was incoming to or outgoing from the junction. Extend ignore directly controls branching, and only indirectly controls the break-point in the centreline. So perhaps the issue is missing functionality. Do we need direct user control over the break stations? It would be nice. Extend ignore also feels like a very indirect way of specifying network generation. As someone mentioned a long time back, it would be easier to specify 'extend force <leg>' rather than 'extend ignore <leg>'. ie 'Specify take this leg, rather than specifying take a different leg'. Especially where there are more than three branches emanating from a single station. While I would welcome Therion improvement in this space, I am a little concerned about all of my existing extended elevations that might be broken by changes in behaviour. I'm sure this eventuality can be accommodated by clever coders however. :) Bruce -----Original Message----- From: Therion <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Wookey Sent: Tuesday, 12 November 2019 11:18 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Therion] Breaking a loop at a specific station on extended elevation On 2019-11-12 07:20 +1300, Bruce Mutton wrote: > I don't have a problem with the characteristic you mention in point 2. I think it is just semantics associated with the word 'ignore', and sequential process. If you think 'break' then is it all OK? We think it should be possible to specify 'break/ignore' at a point, rather than a point+direction (i.e. a leg/pair of points) We want the computer to worry about the 'direction' aspect, and feel we shouldn't have to. It seems like this should be possible. Wookey -- Principal hats: Linaro, Debian, Wookware, ARM http://wookware.org/ _______________________________________________ Therion mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.speleo.sk/listinfo/therion
