Re: Splitting SHOT into constituent members

From: John Halleck (John.Halleck_at_utah.edu)
Date: Thu Jan 25 2001 - 17:07:03 CET

• Next message: Garry Petrie: "Re: Blunders Was: LRUD: 'From' or 'To' ?"
• Previous message: devinkouts_at_earthlink.net: "CaveXML>Range of Fields"
• In reply to: Richard Knapp: "Re: Splitting SHOT into constituent members"
• Next in thread: Paul & Eleanor: "Re: Splitting SHOT into constituent members"

Received: (from mdom_at_localhost) by karto.ethz.ch (8.9.3/8.9.3/SuSE Linux 8.9.3-0.1) id RAA17286 for cavexml-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 17:07:02 +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 RAA17282 for <cavexml_at_cartography.ch>; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 17:07:00 +0100
Received: from localhost (nahaj_at_localhost) by cor.oz.cc.utah.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id JAA06602 for <cavexml_at_cartography.ch>; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 09:07:03 -0700 (MST)
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 09:07:03 -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: <200101250307.EAA11896_at_karto.ethz.ch>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.05.10101250903540.5592-100000@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 Wed, 24 Jan 2001, Richard Knapp wrote:

> [...]
> > Actually I've never seen a trilateralization from a cave....
> > But I have many examples of triangulations to establish ceiling heights and the like.
>
> I have seen it used as well.
>
> > You need CI (Compass, Inclination) since that's what triangulations come
> > in as.
>
> Wouldn't you need _at least_ two ( I know, _tri_angulation) sets of CI data to set a point? So the
> required info would be two different stations with inc/az to the desired point?

  Yes, but they are in separate shots.
  (Ususally one CI shot to the point, followed by a DAI shot to another
  station, followed by another CI shot to the unknown point.)

  And if there was some doubt as to the result, sometimes an independent shot
  from a better point.

> > Philosophicly I hate it, and would prefer to do as I've previously stated.
> > But as a practical matter I suspect that a relative few types would do, and
> > that it might be the best way to go.
> [...]

• Next message: Garry Petrie: "Re: Blunders Was: LRUD: 'From' or 'To' ?"
• Previous message: devinkouts_at_earthlink.net: "CaveXML>Range of Fields"
• In reply to: Richard Knapp: "Re: Splitting SHOT into constituent members"
• Next in thread: Paul & Eleanor: "Re: Splitting SHOT into constituent members"

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Feb 14 2001 - 00:03:53 CET