From: Richard Knapp (richfk_at_attglobal.net)
Date: Thu Jul 11 2002 - 00:10:46 CEST
Return-Path: <owner-cavexml-outgoing_at_ethz.ch> Delivered-To: cavexml-archive_at_cartography.ch Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by karmail.ethz.ch (Postfix on SuSE eMail Server 2.0) with ESMTP id A15B614AAB for <cavexml-outgoing_at_ethz.ch>; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 02:22:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: by karmail.ethz.ch (Postfix on SuSE eMail Server 2.0, from userid 28) id 6FD3414AA4; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 02:22:36 +0200 (CEST) Delivered-To: cavexml-loopcheck_at_ethz.ch Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by karmail.ethz.ch (Postfix on SuSE eMail Server 2.0) with ESMTP id 74B2414AB1 for <cavexml-loopcheck_at_ethz.ch>; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 02:22:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: by karmail.ethz.ch (Postfix on SuSE eMail Server 2.0, from userid 96) id 51E6514A01; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 02:22:33 +0200 (CEST) Delivered-To: cavexml_at_cartography.ch Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by karmail.ethz.ch (Postfix on SuSE eMail Server 2.0) with ESMTP id F1FB914AB1 for <cavexml_at_cartography.ch>; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 02:22:32 +0200 (CEST) Received: from prserv.net (out2.prserv.net [32.97.166.32]) by karmail.ethz.ch (Postfix on SuSE eMail Server 2.0) with ESMTP id 237CA7EA9 for <cavexml_at_cartography.ch>; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 02:22:30 +0200 (CEST) Received: from Muphin (slip-12-65-12-47.mis.prserv.net[12.65.12.47]) by prserv.net (out2) with SMTP id <2002071100132520204574ape>; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 00:13:26 +0000 From: "Richard Knapp" <richfk_at_attglobal.net> To: "cavexml_at_cartography.ch" <cavexml_at_cartography.ch> Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 18:10:46 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: PMMail 2.20.2380 for OS/2 Warp 4.5 In-Reply-To: <3D2CA971.4090801_at_aic.nrl.navy.mil> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: comments on the data model Message-Id: <20020711002230.237CA7EA9@karmail.ethz.ch> X-Loop: cavexml Sender: owner-cavexml_at_karmail.ethz.ch Precedence: bulk Reply-To: cavexml_at_cartography.ch X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11
On Wed, 10 Jul 2002 21:38:57 +0000, Ralph Hartley wrote:
> Richard Knapp wrote:
> > I don't like the way COMPASS stores corrected data (in a separate <===
> > file). Too much to remember. However, with the processing speed of
> > computers these days, should (compiled) coordinate data be stored at
> > all? These are simple calculations and can be done very quickly and
> > stored as a temp file or in memory.
>
> Not only *should* compiled coordinate data be stored, it *must* be.
>
> They are *not* simple calculations. Different programs do different
> calculations, and get different results. There are periodic flame wars
> over what are the correct calculations to do. There is more than one
> "right" way to do it, and not all programs even do one of those.
and on Wed, 10 Jul 2002 18:14:55 +0400, Alexander Nickolsky wrote:
> This is NOT a simple calculation. There is no completed theory on
> multiple loop closing (while single loop closing is trivial). Compass and
> Survex have different approach to it and gives different results.
> No one of processing programs takes walls into account. Actually, the
> data processing is not an easy task and generally we must not rely on
> program output. It should be checked.
I think you missed the intended point. When COMPASS does loop closure
("corrected data"), it creates a copy of the DAT file with new
distances, azimuths, and inclinations (and sometimes survey ties).
Are you saying that is the correct way to handle this (separate
files) or should this be stored with the raw data? Measurements
already have a cvalue (or at least did for a while) to store the
canonical value of the measurement. Why not have a similar attribute
for corrected values?
As to the compiled data (X, Y, Z coordinates), I still don't see why
this is not a trivial calculation. But I'm probably missing
something.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Jul 31 2002 - 23:00:00 CEST