[Therion] 1 map-connection issue - Offset tests SAMD-ITF-IS example

[Bruce Mutton]

From: Bruce Mutton <bruce at tomo.co.nz> 
Sent: Monday, 11 July 2022 10:16
To: 'List for Therion users' <therion at speleo.sk>
Subject: map-connection issue - Offset tests SAMD-ITF-IS example

 

Tarquin, David

The results of our little quiz made me uneasy, so I found an old test
project that I believe is structured like Tarquin's, a pattern I call 'scrap
and map definitions - inside trip file - inside survey' SAMD-ITF-IS.

The outcome I feared (due to my large collection of projects structured
differently) is that map-connections with multi-level offsets would work
just fine with SAMD-ITF-IS.

 

That has not been the case, I have the same (I think) behaviour with this
test project as I have with my other projects.  So perhaps a degree of
relief but still a mystery to resolve.  With my test project:

*	Offsets work OK.
*	Offsets of offsets (level 2 offsets) work just fine so long as the
most deeply nested offset map is comprised of scraps (and not maps).
*	Offsets of offsets (level 2 offsets) do not work (connection
emanates from grandparent, not the parent) if the most deeply nested offset
map is comprised of maps (a necessary prerequisite when preparing for the
third level of offsetting).
*	Offsets of offsets of offsets (level 3 offsets) map-connections
correctly emanate from their parent level 2 offset map, but the level 2
map-connection continues to incorrectly emanate from its grandparent.

 

I have not progressed this to a fourth level, brain is starting to hurt and
I ran out of scraps associated with the particular sub-survey that I picked
on.

Re-reading Tarquin's last email mentioning sub-sub-sub-surveys, I wonder if
we are at cross purposes a little (or Tarquin is using 'survey' loosely to
refer also to maps).  In my example below (which I think is structured like
Tarquin's) there are two surveys (1 and 2) and a parent cave survey that
contains those two surveys, so only two levels of survey.  However I have
created three levels of map which offset correctly.  When I create a fourth
level of map in preparation for 3 levels of offset, the map-connection
breaks.

 

The code examples below show only to the level 2 and level 3 offset maps,
and these are the maps on the left hand side of the diagrams, as annotated. 

 

Offset of offset is OK like this

map 1-BottomUpPlan-Bottom  \

    -projection plan

  1-BottomUpPlan-s2

    break  

  1-BottomUpPlan-s1 #bottom terminal chamber

endmap 1-BottomUpPlan-Bottom



 

Offset of offset is not OK when same as above but map-of-scraps is split
into map-of-maps that references maps-of-scraps

 

##Setup for OffsetLevel 3

map 1-BottomUpPlan-Bottom  \

    -projection plan

  1-BottomUpPlan-B2

    # break  

  1-BottomUpPlan-B1

endmap 1-BottomUpPlan-Bottom

 

map 1-BottomUpPlan-B2  \

    -projection plan

  1-BottomUpPlan-s2

endmap 1-BottomUpPlan-B2

 

map 1-BottomUpPlan-B1  \

    -projection plan

  1-BottomUpPlan-s1 #bottom terminal chamber

endmap 1-BottomUpPlan-B1



 

 

Offset of offset of offset is OK BUT its parent is not (as above)

##Setup for OffsetLevel 3

map 1-BottomUpPlan-Bottom  \

    -projection plan

  1-BottomUpPlan-B2

    # break  

  1-BottomUpPlan-B1 [0 10] below #OffsetLevel 3

endmap 1-BottomUpPlan-Bottom

 

map 1-BottomUpPlan-B2  \

    -projection plan

  1-BottomUpPlan-s2

endmap 1-BottomUpPlan-B2

 

map 1-BottomUpPlan-B1  \

    -projection plan

  1-BottomUpPlan-s1 #bottom terminal chamber

endmap 1-BottomUpPlan-B1

 

 



 

For what it is worth, here is the overall survey file, consistent with my
SAMD-ITF-IS pattern:

 

survey Cave

map CavePlan   -projection plan

  2-EntrancePlan at 2 

  1-BottomUpPlan at 1 [0 -20] below #OffsetLevel 1

endmap CavePlan   

 

input 1-BottomUp.th

input 2-Entrance.th

 

centreline

equate 1.4 at 1 <mailto:1.4 at 1>  1.4 at 2 <mailto:1.4 at 2>  

endcentreline

endsurvey Cave

 

So Tarquin, Can you pick any fundamnetal differences? Are we doing the same
things? Are we talking about the same things?

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.speleo.sk/pipermail/therion/attachments/20230314/4afee35d/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 38009 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.speleo.sk/pipermail/therion/attachments/20230314/4afee35d/attachment-0006.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 69837 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.speleo.sk/pipermail/therion/attachments/20230314/4afee35d/attachment-0007.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 42937 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.speleo.sk/pipermail/therion/attachments/20230314/4afee35d/attachment-0008.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image005.png
Type: image/png
Size: 65989 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.speleo.sk/pipermail/therion/attachments/20230314/4afee35d/attachment-0009.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image006.png
Type: image/png
Size: 46815 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.speleo.sk/pipermail/therion/attachments/20230314/4afee35d/attachment-0010.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image007.png
Type: image/png
Size: 79376 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.speleo.sk/pipermail/therion/attachments/20230314/4afee35d/attachment-0011.png>