Thank you very much for sharing!
> Am 29.11.2020 um 06:15 schrieb Bruce Mutton <br...@tomo.co.nz>: > > > This is just an ‘I should have known better’ story, in case you are > interested… > > Learnings about map output statistics (that are or probably should have been > self-evident): > This is for a cave where some plan scraps were drawn on the original > centreline and were retained in the final map, when the entire original > survey was made duplicate due to a subsequent more comprehensive survey that > was flagged ‘not-duplicate’. For the extended elevation scraps, these were > all drawn on the subsequent ‘not-duplicate’ survey. > If a whole centreline is made ‘flags duplicate’ then the explorers names > appear in the list, but not the length that they explored (it is shown as > zero). You must (also) add the explorers to the corresponding > ‘not-duplicated’ centreline to have their explored length credited! > Only the statistics for the centrelines that are (partly) included in scraps > that are output are presented. > > For this plan map, where the duplicated centrelines are actually the ones for > which the scraps are exported, the ‘not-duplicate’ centrelines did not have > the explorer’s names entered (repeated) and so their names are recorded, but > their survey length is not. Lesson: Always record the original explorers in > subsequent survey centrelines. This behaviour is nice because it alerts the > author to a problem with their data entry. > <image002.png> > > For this extended map, where the ‘not-duplicate’ surveys have scraps > exported, but the duplicate surveys do not, the ‘duplicate’ explorers names > are not presented. This is appropriate behaviour. > But why is there a surveyor whose name appears with a zero length? I think > it is because, for the entire ‘not-duplicate’ survey, I only contributed to > one survey leg (and it is in its very own centreline) and this leg is a > surface leg connecting the subsequent ‘not-duplicate’ survey to the original > ‘duplicate’ survey. So my name is recorded as a surveyor, but I have no > ‘cave length’ and Therion records zero. Possibly this is not ideal > behaviour, but it would seem inconsistent to change it. > <image005.png> > Here is part of the html survey-list for the cave, with the statistics > discussed above highlighted. > <image006.png> > > I then thought that if I associated the cave survey with the plan and the > elevation maps, > <image009.png> > the statistics might have been better (a feature that I was involved in > requesting if I recall correctly). They are. > For the plan, there is no change (I still need to add the original explorers > to the ‘not-duplicate’ centrelines). > <image013.png> > > And for the extended elevation, the duplicate zero length explorers names are > brought in, as have the surveyors for the centrelines for which there are no > scraps. It matches the plan statistics. Perfect (once I fix my centreline > metadata as mentioned above). > <image014.png> > > Bruce > > _______________________________________________ > Therion mailing list > Therion@speleo.sk > https://mailman.speleo.sk/listinfo/therion
_______________________________________________ Therion mailing list Therion@speleo.sk https://mailman.speleo.sk/listinfo/therion
