From: John Halleck (John.Halleck_at_utah.edu)
Date: Wed Jan 24 2001 - 17:14:09 CET
Received: (from mdom_at_localhost) by karto.ethz.ch (8.9.3/8.9.3/SuSE Linux 8.9.3-0.1) id RAA09584 for cavexml-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 17:14:10 +0100 Received: from cor.oz.cc.utah.edu (nahaj_at_cor.oz.cc.utah.edu [155.99.2.2]) by karto.ethz.ch (8.9.3/8.9.3/SuSE Linux 8.9.3-0.1) with ESMTP id RAA09580 for <cavexml_at_cartography.ch>; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 17:14:09 +0100 Received: from localhost (nahaj_at_localhost) by cor.oz.cc.utah.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id JAA20646 for <cavexml_at_cartography.ch>; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 09:14:09 -0700 (MST) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 09:14:09 -0700 (MST) From: John Halleck <John.Halleck_at_utah.edu> To: "cavexml_at_cartography.ch" <cavexml_at_cartography.ch> Subject: Re: Splitting SHOT into constituent members In-Reply-To: <200101241027.LAA07438_at_karto.ethz.ch> Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.05.10101240900410.10235-100000@cor.oz.cc.utah.edu> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-cavexml_at_karto.baug.ethz.ch Precedence: bulk Reply-To: cavexml_at_cartography.ch
On Tue, 23 Jan 2001, Richard Knapp wrote:
Sorry if I've just hit a few things out of context...
> [...]
> I guess you could ask is a shot complete by _just_ having a tape measurement? An azimuth? An
> inclination?
If I'm doing triangulations, the shots don't have distances.
If I'm doing trilateralizaitons, the shots are complete with just the tape measurements.
(And before anyone else sends me private mail, yes, I know it takes four measurements
in three space... but it is still traditionally called a trilateraliation.)
> As long as we continue to use a compass, inclinometer/depth guage, and tape to
> survey caves, I think they _must_ be appropriately grouped.
I can point to real cave surveys that have triangulations.
What you are saying is that I have to throw away good data that I already
have if I want to exchange with you? :)
> [...]
> >Likewise, we wouldn't forget to take
> >a tape measurement just because there is no shot structure
> >which requires it.
>
> I guess that depends on how good the person keeping book watches what occurs. I have seen
> 'completed' surveys with fore/backsights not even close to agreeing. However, the book person
> didn't seem to catch it.
Fore and back shots not agreeing is ***NOT*** necessarily an error.
It is standard in lava tube surveys, since magnetic north varies from
station to station. And it doesn't stop the data from being properly
processed. (As long as you can keep people from averaging the two measurements.)
(http://www.cc.utah.edu/~nahaj/cave/survey/internal-angles-example.html)
I think this is a perfect example of why I want to have all the original measurments,
and not be stuck with someone's assumptions of how this is normally done.
> [...]
> >I claim that the <shot> structure has no place in such a format
> >because it is not general, not necessary and can force measurements
> >(such as depthgauge measurements) into places they don't naturally belong.
I, personally, don't mind shot structure as long as whatever is forcing me
into it has a flexable notion of it.
> To me, without the implied structure given by having shots, the data becomes unstructured. What
> would be the advantage with using XML if there is no structure to the data?
I think this has really become a discussion of what kinds of structures are appropriate,
not one of structured vs. unstructured.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Feb 14 2001 - 00:03:53 CET