[Therion] How to get the right count for cave lengths

[Martin Sluka]

Try to arange your surveys to a structure with several layers (“name spaces”).

Martin

Odesláno z iPhonu

21. 4. 2019 v 5:58, Bruce Mutton <bruce at tomo.co.nz>:

> Tarquin
> Have a look at 
> https://therion.speleo.sk/wiki/faq#how_do_i_specify_a_main_entrance_and_also_the_other_entrances
> to find out more about specifying what is a cave and what is just another entrance. 
> 
> To see what Therion is interpreting from your input, cave-list and survey-list are a good compliment to the map output statistics. Surface survey is not counted as cave survey, so the statistics are not reported on map outputs. 
> Yes you do need to structure your data to define which trips belong to which caves. I would also have an overall surface survey to contain all of the surface trips. 
> Also, flags surface and flags not surface are required to distinguish cave passage from from surface survey. I prefer to also make sure the surface survey is in its own centreline (or own survey)  if it is more than just once or two legs. 
> 
> In general I find it preferable to keep surface survey for surface (including isolated features like shafts), and create a new trip file for each cave. This helps maintain a clear separation of data for subsequent survey processing and statistics gathering. 
> 
> Bruce
> Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
> 
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Tarquin Wilton-Jones via Therion <therion at speleo.sk>
> Date: 19/04/19 06:33 (GMT+12:00)
> To: therion at speleo.sk
> Cc: Tarquin Wilton-Jones <tarquin.wilton-jones at ntlworld.com>
> Subject: [Therion] How to get the right count for cave lengths
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I have nearly completed the total survey for the system I am mapping. In
> total, there are a series of little caves (actually mines, but I will
> stick with the word "caves" because it is clearer), a blind surface
> shaft, and a couple of significantly long caves. In total, these were
> surveyed over a series of 6 trips. On one of those trips, we surveyed
> the surface, and any short fragments of passage that we encountered that
> way. One of those fragments turned out to be one of the major caves. The
> major cave's survey was subsequently completed on another trip, but its
> first few metres are included in the surface survey.
> 
> I am used to Survex. Each of the surveying trips has its own .th file:
> 
> overall.th ("input"s all the other files)
> surface1/surface1.th (contains the entrances to several fragments, and
> the first 2 legs of cave 1)
> surface2/surface2.th (contains the blind shaft's plumbed depth and some
> other entrances)
> cave1/cave1.th (does not contain any entrances, but is a long cave,
> connected to the "cave 1 legs" in surface1.th
> cave2/cave2.th (contains the first part of cave2, and its entrance)
> cave3/cave3.th (contains cave3, with two entrances)
> cave2ext/cave2ext.th (contains the second part of cave2)
> 
> Cave1 is connected to cave2.
> 
> Each entrance is marked using "station 2 Cave1 entrance" in the
> centreline section of the file where it is defined. Survex only displays
> aggregate statistics. Therion tries to identify "caves", which is a
> concept I am not used to.
> 
> I had hoped that Therion would be smart enough to see that caves are
> connected to each other, and work out the connected lengths. But it
> seems that it only works out the length of the files within the same
> survey. Cave1 doesn't get any length. Cave2 gets only the length from
> cave2.th - the length of the cave2ext and cave1 are not included.
> 
> How do I make Therion realise what caves are connected? Do I need to put
> them into a structure like this?
> survey overall
> survey cave1_2 -entrance 2 at cave2 -name "Caves 1 and 2"
> input cave1.th
> input cave2.th
> input cave2ext.th
> endsurvey
> endsurvey
> 
> And if so ... how do I tell it that *part* of the cave lies within the
> surface survey file? Do I need to split the surface survey up into
> parts, one of which is the entrance to cave1?
> 
> Separately, when using "statistics topo-length on", it ignores the
> surface survey legs, which is quite unfair for the person who surveyed 1
> km of surface to link all of the entrances - they get no credit at all.
> Can it be asked to include surface legs in the topo-length calculations
> for survey credits?
> 
> Thanks for any advice.
> 
> Tarquin
> _______________________________________________
> Therion mailing list
> Therion at speleo.sk
> https://mailman.speleo.sk/listinfo/therion
> _______________________________________________
> Therion mailing list
> Therion at speleo.sk
> https://mailman.speleo.sk/listinfo/therion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.speleo.sk/pipermail/therion/attachments/20190421/ac73f167/attachment.htm>