> Clutching at straws - I wonder if it because I define lowest level maps
> outside of the survey they are associated with?
Well, that is definitely different from me.
Every survey contains its own maps of its scraps.
survey foo -title "day 1 at the swamp"
map fooMP -projection plan
area1SP
area2SP
endmap
centreline
...data...
endcentreline
endsurvey
Each parent survey contains maps with any potential offsets:
survey thecave
input foo/foo.th
...
#these say how long the arrows should be
# XP = exploded plan, in case you were wondering
map fooXP -projection plan
fooMP@foo [4 -47 m] none
endmap
...
#these say where the arrows should point to - ie. the total offset
#of the "parent" piece of cave it connects to
map thecaveXP -projection plan
fooXP [123 15m] none
endmap
endsurvey
The grandparent survey contains the whole area, minor caves, surface,
etc. and for testing purposes, I added another offset at this level, and
everything worked:
survey thevalley
input thecave/thecave.th
...
map valleyXP -projection plan
thecaveXP@thecave [-20 123 m] none
othercaveXP@othercave
endmap
endsurvey
This is the basic structure that I try to maintain. I do not generally
have sub-sub-sub-surveys since none of my projects so far are big enough
to want to divide a cave into areas within areas. So I do not have any
data to test deeper. (Inception might come into play.)
Who knows why Therion likes my setup more?
Tarquin
_______________________________________________
Therion mailing list
[email protected]
https://mailman.speleo.sk/listinfo/therion
