Thank you very much for sharing!
Am 29.11.2020 um 06:15 schrieb Bruce Mutton <bruce@tomo.co.nz>:
This is just an ‘I should have known better’ story, in case you are interested…
Learnings about map output statistics (that are or probably should have been self-evident): This is for a cave where some plan scraps were drawn on the original centreline and were retained in the final map, when the entire original survey was made duplicate due to a subsequent more comprehensive survey that was flagged ‘not-duplicate’. For the extended elevation scraps, these were all drawn on the subsequent ‘not-duplicate’ survey. If a whole centreline is made ‘flags duplicate’ then the explorers names appear in the list, but not the length that they explored (it is shown as zero). You must (also) add the explorers to the corresponding ‘not-duplicated’ centreline to have their explored length credited! Only the statistics for the centrelines that are (partly) included in scraps that are output are presented.
For this plan map, where the duplicated centrelines are actually the ones for which the scraps are exported, the ‘not-duplicate’ centrelines did not have the explorer’s names entered (repeated) and so their names are recorded, but their survey length is not. Lesson: Always record the original explorers in subsequent survey centrelines. This behaviour is nice because it alerts the author to a problem with their data entry. <image002.png>
For this extended map, where the ‘not-duplicate’ surveys have scraps exported, but the duplicate surveys do not, the ‘duplicate’ explorers names are not presented. This is appropriate behaviour. But why is there a surveyor whose name appears with a zero length? I think it is because, for the entire ‘not-duplicate’ survey, I only contributed to one survey leg (and it is in its very own centreline) and this leg is a surface leg connecting the subsequent ‘not-duplicate’ survey to the original ‘duplicate’ survey. So my name is recorded as a surveyor, but I have no ‘cave length’ and Therion records zero. Possibly this is not ideal behaviour, but it would seem inconsistent to change it. <image005.png> Here is part of the html survey-list for the cave, with the statistics discussed above highlighted. <image006.png>
I then thought that if I associated the cave survey with the plan and the elevation maps, <image009.png> the statistics might have been better (a feature that I was involved in requesting if I recall correctly). They are. For the plan, there is no change (I still need to add the original explorers to the ‘not-duplicate’ centrelines). <image013.png>
And for the extended elevation, the duplicate zero length explorers names are brought in, as have the surveyors for the centrelines for which there are no scraps. It matches the plan statistics. Perfect (once I fix my centreline metadata as mentioned above). <image014.png>
Bruce
_______________________________________________ Therion mailing list Therion@speleo.sk https://mailman.speleo.sk/listinfo/therion