Hi Bruce, > To see what Therion is interpreting from your input, cave-list and > survey-list are a good compliment to the map output statistics.
Indeed - this is what made me realise I was probably doing it the wrong way for Therion to understand. It is definitely a pain having to split up surveys, but the resulting structure will make more sense in future. > Surface survey is not counted as cave survey, so the statistics are not > reported on map outputs. This is a real shame. People who put in work should be recognised for that work, no matter which part of the survey they take part in. I have no problem at all with the part saying "the cave is this long" - which should of course only use the "not surface" part. But it is wrong for the map to say "this person surveyed 50 metres" or to ignore them completely, when they actually produced 1km of surface survey that allowed all of the other surveys to be linked together in the correct positions. I would dearly love some option to say "include surface legs in topo-length statistics". Really hoping you missed something, but you seem to know the program as well as anyone, so if you don't know of such an option then ... :( Guess I should file it as a feature request. > 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. A load of great advice, thanks :) I have basically now done all of this. (I also switched to using a new centreline when the team changes - this is a pain though, because it means any calibration, copyright, date, authorship, etc. also has to be repeated. It would be so much easier for it to respect group.) Thanks again for all the assistance. Tarquin _______________________________________________ Therion mailing list Therion@speleo.sk https://mailman.speleo.sk/listinfo/therion
