- Therion - speleo.sk

Anyone made any Atlas page-setup Layouts?
by Bruce Mutton 31 Jul '08

31 Jul '08

Hi All Has anyone created a set of atlas layouts for standard paper sizes? Ie portrait & landscape for A4, A3, A2, A1 etc? I thought this should be quite straight forward until I tried to duplicate the default behaviour; ie A4 portrait. The Therion book explanation is reasonably straight forward and I have checked the old forum posts which suggest there may have been some problems a year or so ago. Varying the parameters makes changes to the output produced, but not at all what I expect. It is as though there is a bug in the code whereby the size <width> <height> is fixed at the default values and not calculated automatically. I am using version 0.5.2 from therion-update-20080416.exe My printers printable margins are about 6 to 7mm from the paper edge, so I can not print out a complete default A4 atlas page to scale without clipping. I have not been specifying the size <width> and <height> because the Therion book says it is calculated automatically if not given, and also if the nav pane is on, there is not enough information to allow the user to calculate the height manually. Ie the height of the nav pane is not available to the user. Assistance anyone? Took me some time to get my pages to be labelled from A1. I have figured it out in part, and if I am correct suggest a change to the Therion book definition, (at least for atlas) as follows; origin-label <x-label> <y-label> . set label for atlas page which has the upper left corner at the given origin coordinates. An 'A' for A, B, C sequence. A 'number' for numeric sequence. (number sequence will start at 'number' minus 1) (M, A; default: 0 0) It would be nice for the nav pane to include these as labels along the edge, or at least have the page numbers inserted within the squares, otherwise the nav pane is not as useful as it could be once it is printed on paper. and you are wandering through the cave shuffling pages. Transcription of my layout as follows. #FILENAME: LayoutAtlasPortrait4.thc #================================== #Standard Component File created Bruce Mutton 27 July 2008 layout LayoutAtlasPortraitA4 #------------------------------ #GENERAL PDF SETTINGS #-------------------- #own-pages 0 #number to add to actual page number btm left in brackets page-numbers on #on title-pages off #on #exclude-pages #this is dependant on particular output, include elsewhere #NAV PANE #-------- nav-factor 30 #default = 30: bigger = smaller nav pane size nav-size 2 2 origin-label 2 A #label type <across> <down> 2 A gives A1, 1 A gives A0, 0 A gives A-1 #origin ?? clashes with co-ord system so not related to origin-labels? #PAGE LAYOUT #----------- #page-setup 21 29.7 \ paper width height # 20 28.7 \ page width height (inside margins) # 0.5 0.5 cm margins & units page-setup 21 29.7 \ 20 28.7 \ 1.5 1.5 cm #size overlap 0.5 cm #1 cm duplicated drawing overlap around drawing pane endlayout LayoutAtlasPortraitA4 #!END Regards Bruce

3 2

North True Grid Magnetic Astronomical?
by Bruce Mutton 30 Jul '08

30 Jul '08

The Therion book states .The declination is positive when the magnetic north is east of true north. and north <true/grid> . specify default orientation of the map. By default, true (astronomical) north is used. It is ignored when used with local coordinate system. I'm confused. Presumably almost all cave surveys start out aligned to magnetic north because most of us use compasses that adopt the local magnetic north as their datum. Then, often, we either align the survey to true (astronomical) north manually by specifying a declination, Or align the survey to grid north by specifying a co-ordinate system (that calculates declination automatically) The grid north is usually not the same as the true (astronomical) north, but for the purposes of cave maps and Therion I would assume it is usually considered to be so. (Not strictly correct, but I imagine the error would not be detectable on any printed cave map in most co-ordinate systems) So what is intended by Therion? Presumably some distinction between magnetic and grid north? I have experimented and found that 'north grid' 'north true' appear to produce identical outputs regardless of whether a 'co-ordinate system' or a 'declination' or a 'rotation' is specified. Is there a mistake or am I not understanding something? Regards Bruce

6 13

Next Therion Release?
by Jonny Prouty 20 Jul '08

20 Jul '08

Hello, Is there a target date for when the next stable version of Therion is to be released? Thanks. -Jonny ^v^

2 1

Anketa o pouzivani digitalnich pomucek pri mapovani
by Martin Sluka 19 Jul '08

19 Jul '08

Pokud mate cas, vyplnte. prosim, anketu na nasledujici adrese: http://FreeOnlineSurveys.com/rendersurvey.asp?sid=yl5xhmekxnowc52464237 Diky Martin Sluka

1 0

[CaveDiggers] Questionnaire: Use of Digital Survey Tools in Cave Surveying
by Aaron Bird 18 Jul '08

18 Jul '08

Hi All, This is a questionnaire on use of digital survey tools in cave surveying: http://FreeOnlineSurveys.com/rendersurvey.asp?sid=yl5xhmekxnowc52464237 Based on the efforts of many cavers over the past few decades, digital survey tools have seen increasing use for underground surveying. A number of cavers have been working in this area for some time. For example, in the 1980s Frank Reid evaluated the use of a LIDAR device for positioning caves and in 1986 John Ganter wrote on use of a "Petro-Sonde" for finding passages in a Texas cave from the surface. Through the 1990s, cave-mapping software became more and more sophisticated: see work by David Mckenzie, Luc Le Blanc, Stacho Mudrak, Martin Budaj, Gary Petrie, Larry Fish, and many more.Radio-location techniques were practiced and perfected by Frank Reid, Brian Pease, and others. Impressive 3D laser-mapping tools were used by expeditions to generate multiple and realistic cross-sections of Florida sinkholes. Many, including Mark Passerby, have worked extensively on the process of using advanced/digital survey tools and have recommended procedures for effectively doing so. Others, like Phil Underwood (Shetland Attack Pony), have developed cave-specific surveying tools. Recently, Aaron Addison and Lynn Brucker have evaluated and used the Impulse and Attack Pony digital survey devices and written about their experiences. There are many others who have used high-tech tools for underground cave surveying. However, through all this use of high-tech equipment, most surveyors have continued to rely on the tried and true Suunto compass/clinometer and a fiberglass survey tape. Some feel that this may change someday, and we're wondering if it isn't already happening. So, we're trying to determine how prevalent the use of digital survey instruments is in current cave surveying. If you could, please take a couple of minutes to fill out this short questionnaire on digital survey tools. The results of this questionnaire will be shared in a comprehensive presentation on digital survey tools at the 2008 NSS Convention in Lake City, Florida, USA in August 2008 and in a paper to be distributed after the NSS convention. We hope you will take just a minute to fill out the questionnaire and share your experience and feedback on cave surveying. http://FreeOnlineSurveys.com/rendersurvey.asp?sid=yl5xhmekxnowc52464237 Finally, we're not subscribed to all of the caving-related email groups so please forward the URL as you are able. thanks! Aaron Bird Rachel Bosch David Riggs [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cavediggers/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cavediggers/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:cavediggers-digest@yahoogroups.com mailto:cavediggers-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: cavediggers-unsubscribe(a)yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

1 0

therion list test
by Ladislav Blažek 09 Jul '08

09 Jul '08

Mailman test

2 2

Therion + Subversion
by Jonny Prouty 03 Jul '08

03 Jul '08

Hello All, I have recently begun experimenting with using Subversion to manage my Therion data. I'm curious whether anyone else has done this and if you have any specific advice? So far it works great, but I haven't really put it through its paces. -Jonny ^v^

8 16

OS X Download
by David A. Riggs 23 Jun '08

23 Jun '08

Hi all, I'm looking for a pre-built binary download of Therion for an Intel Mac running OS X 10.5.3. Compiling is not an option. Does anyone have a built version available that would work? Thanks! - DR -- David A. Riggs <david.a.riggs(a)gmail.com>

2 3

outline only
by marco corvi 18 Jun '08

18 Jun '08

hi, how does one make a cave map where some scraps are drawn in full details and others with the outline only ? thanks, marco

4 5

Re: [Therion] Hopefully a bunch of new users; Optimum Data Managment
by Bruce Mutton 16 Jun '08

16 Jun '08

If I interpret Marco's post regarding data structure description correctly, it seems you have folders for (hope my ascii pictures survive intact) -Cave folder |-'surveys', |-'groups of surveys' and |-'whole cave - collection of the groups' [thconfig file((s) for each output task] all at the same hierarchical level, but able to be stacked up or nested if other caves were to be incorporated into the data set. Seems nice and tidy to me, but the folder hierarchy does not match the conceptual hierarchy of the data, which would be more like Jonathan described, -Region folder |-cave folder |-Surveys |-Notes [scanned notes taken in cave] |-Therion [survey *.th data files] |-Pictures |-Date [pictures taken on this date] I like the concept that the folder hierarchy matches the data hierarchy and especially that it is very cave centric, ie not just Therion data, but all data related to the cave Both the above seem quite tidy, and as Martin has just posted, each user will have their own "cave project circumstances and preferences" Marcos seems to me like it would have many versions of a number of thconfig files. I have found maintaining consistency among many thconfigs to be quite a problem, as I am still learning and refining my opinion of what is a good way to set them out. I am also trying to optimise my system for collaborative data entry and development of the Therion cave dataset, which Therion seems ideally suited to. Therefore the tiny size of the Therion batch files is an advantage I want to keep. So I would adopt Jonathans 'single cave centric' model at once, except I don't want to be emailing back and forth large chunks of non-Therion data amongst the people developing the dataset, nor do I want to have to pick out fiddly bits of non relevant data each time. I have adopted the perhaps the lesser approach of having two parallel folders, one for Therion data and one for non-Therion data such as photos, cave related texts and articles, scanned cave survey notes etc. The Therion folders look something like this; (My thconfig files have the extension .thc - much nicer if using with Windows OS) (and as with the others, highly modular, one survey and very few scraps per file) (and with a fairly highly structured and explicit naming convention so you know what is in a file without peering into it - not really described herein) -Regional folder [RegionINDEX.th contains very simple equates and 'maps', Single Region.thc contains layouts and all exports for region wide outputs] |-common folder [layoutSTANDARD.thc, club logos and graphics common to all layouts] |-outputs folder [all output files go here] |-surface folder [overlandsurveys.th, overlandINDEX.th, surfaceINDEX.th, surface.jpg] |-cave1 folder [surveys.th contains centrelines & maps relating to associated scraps, caveAElev290.th2 contains scraps generally relating to survey A, caveINDEX.th containing entrance co-ords; equates; joins and maps, single cave1.thc contains layouts and all exports for cave1 wide outputs, and if there is no actual survey data, caveplan.jpg - a picture of an old fashioned cave plan for which there is no data] |-sketches [sketchAElev290.jpg containing sketches for scraps relating to this cave.] |-cave2 folder [caveINDEX.th contains very simple equates and 'maps', Single cave2.thc contains layouts and all exports for cave2 wide outputs |-group21 folder [same as for cave1 folder above] |-sketches [sketchAElev290.jpg containing sketches for scraps relating to this cave group or branch.] |-group22 folder [same as for cave1 folder above] |-sketches [as above.] Cave1 is a simple cave a few km long perhaps; cave2 might have many km or distinct 'branches'. This is perhaps flatter than Jonathans, but still hierarchical. Has few thconfig files, one per 'family' of passages 'selected' for output and one 'singlesurveytest.thc per cave, to enable frequent and quick checking of survey and sketch data as it is being entered (and still they drive me crazy). The common, outputs and surface folders live at the top level and do not need to be shared (often) among users. The cave data folders can easily be zipped without the sketches and shared by email. This is working well informally with two users, but would require good discipline and record keeping with more simultaneous users. I plan to keep single thconfig files for exporting all outputs, but break them up into referenced modules according to function; ie layoutMapPlan.thc, layoutMapElevation290.thc, layoutAtlasPlan.thc, etc. This might make them easier to manage. We don't do splay legs (well, perhaps one or two for every 100 survey legs, or if the passage is 20m wide and the surveyors' fussy) so I don't make a distinction for them. I have yet to deal with significant levels of the cave which over/under-lie each other, but I will have to come to grips with it shortly. I am hoping my structure above will work well in this scenario. I will heed Martins sage advice quoted below. "The main principle is that the map itself is divided into small pieces - scraps. The scraps are absolutely independent from survey structure created more or less historically. You may use in one scrap data from several surveys made historically in very long interval by different surveyors. Only condition is all the data are accessible in survey which include the map structure with that particular scrap. The main rules to create such structure is to divide the system into horizontal layers (in case of map) which the atlas will be able to recognize and shows in enough simple way. There one may see the importance of idea of scraps -you may reorganize your structure anytime in the future. The main problem is organize the maps and submaps. The structure of survey data itself is existing more or less automatically." Any other insights or ways of setting out the data appreciated. Bruce

3 3