On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 11:55:29AM +0200, Martin Sluka wrote:
24. 8. 2014 v 8:33, Olly Betts <olly@survex.com>:
Survex treats cartesian data as counting in the survey length by the same rules as other measured data styles, and nosurvey data never counts towards the surveyed length (it's assumed to be used for things like visual connections or other unsurveyed links like you say, and really the clue is in the name).
This is the way how to recreate missing data set from published map, isn't it.
You're replying to a paragraph talking about both the cartesian and nosurvey styles, so I'm not totally sure which you mean by "this". I've certainly done that with the cartesian style, but if you don't want the recreated data to be measured, you can flag it as "duplicate", though one could argue it should count towards the surveyed length - if there's a map it presumably was surveyed, but the data has been lost. That's certainly the case for some older CUCC finds. I don't think this is really a good use of the nosurvey style - you could calculate where the reinvented stations would be and *fix them, then add nosurvey legs for the passages, but that doesn't play well with adding fresh survey data in later - you probably want to trust the newer data more than the reinvented, but with *fix, the reinvented data is treated as the (under)ground truth. Cheers, Olly