These look much better now Stacho. When there are no drawings, just maps that contain survey centrelines, the log is rather simplistic.
############### export maps & scraps selection ################# S -.-- @ () ########## end of export maps & scraps selection ############### I guess that is OK, but it would be nice to record centreline maps if possible. For a typical plan map however it looks like… ############### export maps & scraps selection ################# M 771.64 DwarfsDoorPlanMap@ (Dwarf's Door Cave) M 764.47 DwarfsD-K3-AbovePlan@DwarfsDoor (Dwarfs Door D-K3 plan) S 767.89 DwarfsD-K3-AbovePlan-s3@DwarfsDoor () S 764.14 DwarfsD-K3-AbovePlan-s2@DwarfsDoor () S 761.38 DwarfsD-K3-AbovePlan-s1@DwarfsDoor () M 756.36 DE-DwarfEntPlan@DwarfsDoor (Dwarfs Door DE-Entrance plan) S 758.95 DE-DwarfEntPlan-s3@DwarfsDoor () S 756.09 DE-DwarfEntPlan-s2@DwarfsDoor () S 754.03 DE-DwarfEntPlan-s1@DwarfsDoor () … S 655.11 DwarfsD-K4-DryPlan-s3@DwarfsDoor () S 649.25 DwarfsD-K4-DryPlan-s1@DwarfsDoor () S 1429.78 @ () ########## end of export maps & scraps selection ############### The map numbers look a little odd. The map altitudes highlighted in green are composed of the three scraps below them, and by eye they look credible. I’m not sure about the numbers in yellow. The overall map in this example is composed of eight submaps and the reported altitude of 771.64 m is about 2 m above the highest passage. The map includes passage between 550 m and 769 m, and so by eye the average altitude reported should be 660 m. There is also the mystery of the unnamed scrap at 1429.78 m. I don’t know what it is referring to. The highest passage in the system is at 769 m. Elevation maps and scraps are all reported with zero height, which I guess is OK. The original idea was to get a feeling for stacking order, which I guess might sometimes be a concern for elevations. Perhaps a way to report the stacking order would be to replace the real number used for plan scrap altitudes with an integer for elevation scrap stacking order (say zero or 1 is at the bottom). Just an idea, I don’t feel a particular need for it. Thanks Bruce From: Therion <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Stacho Mudrak Sent: Sunday, 24 January 2021 08:15 To: List for Therion users <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Therion] Map altitude NaN as -89999 Hi Bruce, there is no problem calculating map altitude. It was not calculated, because it was not needed for map generation. Added it in the latest commit. S. On Sat, 23 Jan 2021 at 19:20, Bruce Mutton <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: Hi Stacho I mostly get -8999 etc for my maps (not near my computer so cannot be specific on the circumstances) especially where maps are composed of surveys rather than scraps. I'm using Windows 10. I was a little perplexed that the map altitudes are undefined. Shouldn't the second level maps just be a weighted average of the component maps, scraps or surveys? I will try the latest commit in a few days time. Bruce Sent from my Galaxy
_______________________________________________ Therion mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.speleo.sk/listinfo/therion
