Hi Bruce, I have added
log extend feature to thconfig. It should log the traversing sequence of extend algorithm to therion.log file. HTH, S. On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 at 19:29, Bruce Mutton <br...@tomo.co.nz> wrote: > Thanks Stacho, > > I have had a look through my projects, and I don’t think I have ever used > an ‘extend ignore station’ because of its unpredictable results (but I have > used many ‘extend ignore leg’, which usually work as expected). A quick > check seems to indicate all my projects are unaffected by your latest > update 094ac85fc5. > > > > Having a play with Tarquin’s example, it looks like an effect of ‘extend > ignore station’ is to cause the map-connection break to occur at that > station. That is conceptually quite nice for users. It seems to be > consistent in that behaviour for the simple example, and is only > ineffective if the station chosen is not in a loop (as you might expect). I > did not test it where there is a pair of open branches though – that is a > common scenario that should be checked. > > > > One more wish list for extend. I would like a; > > > > debug extend > > > > statement. This would enumerate in the log file the sequence of > stations/legs that the extend algorithm is traversing. In complex survey > networks with many loops it can seem impossible to unravel a sensible > extended centreline. For example, if there are six survey branches coming > into a single station, how do you isolate the particular leg that you > want? A textual debug might help find the answer. > > > > Bruce > > > > > > *From:* Therion <therion-boun...@speleo.sk> *On Behalf Of *Stacho Mudrak > *Sent:* Friday, 15 November 2019 00:09 > *To:* List for Therion users <therion@speleo.sk> > *Subject:* Re: [Therion] Breaking a loop at a specific station on > extended elevation > > > > Normally, > > > > extend ignore 6 > > > > should do the job. But there was a bug in the code, so it did not work as > intended. > > > > It should be fixed now in the latest commit. If some of you have more > complex entended elevation projects, could you please check, whether this > change does not introduce new errors? > > The behaviour of "extend ignore <from> <to>" should not be affected. > > > > Thanks, S. > > > > On Sun, 10 Nov 2019 at 12:08, Tarquin Wilton-Jones via Therion < > therion@speleo.sk> wrote: > > What can I say?! > > Bruce, that was some black magic. I don't quite understand why asking it > to ignore a leg then changing your mind and asking it to draw it anyway, > would cause it to then split it at the point you want. I wonder if I > will be able to make sense out of that in future. > > What is makes me wonder is; why doesn't this exist? > extend break 6 > > This could cause a centreline "weakness", and prefer (but not mandate) > breaking at that point. It would massively simplify this control, and be > much more predictable. > > > try to change the line in your .th file from: > > > > extend ignore 6 5 > > > > to: > > > > extend ignore 5 6 > > > > There is no leg 6-5 in your data, but there is leg 5-6. > > > This does not work. I assume that is because it is trying to extend the > centreline from left to right, so it steps backwards through that oxbow > (compared with the data). Or maybe I have not played with Bruce's > solution enough... > > Cheers! > > Tarquin > _______________________________________________ > Therion mailing list > Therion@speleo.sk > https://mailman.speleo.sk/listinfo/therion > > _______________________________________________ > Therion mailing list > Therion@speleo.sk > https://mailman.speleo.sk/listinfo/therion >
_______________________________________________ Therion mailing list Therion@speleo.sk https://mailman.speleo.sk/listinfo/therion
