Thanks Bruce for checking out. I will investigate the issue - the numbers you marked are really strange. Maybe, it is not an issue yet - but usually sooner or later these unresolved mysteries tend to generate problems.
Thanks again, S. On Fri, 5 Feb 2021 at 10:00, Bruce Mutton <br...@tomo.co.nz> wrote: > These look much better now Stacho. > > When there are no drawings, just maps that contain survey centrelines, the > log is rather simplistic. > > > > ############### export maps & scraps selection ################# > > S -.-- @ () > > ########## end of export maps & scraps selection ############### > > I guess that is OK, but it would be nice to record centreline maps if > possible. > > > > For a typical plan map however it looks like… > > ############### export maps & scraps selection ################# > > M 771.64 DwarfsDoorPlanMap@ (Dwarf's Door Cave) > > M 764.47 DwarfsD-K3-AbovePlan@DwarfsDoor (Dwarfs Door D-K3 plan) > > S 767.89 DwarfsD-K3-AbovePlan-s3@DwarfsDoor () > > S 764.14 DwarfsD-K3-AbovePlan-s2@DwarfsDoor () > > S 761.38 DwarfsD-K3-AbovePlan-s1@DwarfsDoor () > > M 756.36 DE-DwarfEntPlan@DwarfsDoor (Dwarfs Door DE-Entrance plan) > > S 758.95 DE-DwarfEntPlan-s3@DwarfsDoor () > > S 756.09 DE-DwarfEntPlan-s2@DwarfsDoor () > > S 754.03 DE-DwarfEntPlan-s1@DwarfsDoor () > > … > > S 655.11 DwarfsD-K4-DryPlan-s3@DwarfsDoor () > > S 649.25 DwarfsD-K4-DryPlan-s1@DwarfsDoor () > > S 1429.78 @ () > > ########## end of export maps & scraps selection ############### > > > > The map numbers look a little odd. The map altitudes highlighted in green > are composed of the three scraps below them, and by eye they look > credible. I’m not sure about the numbers in yellow. > > The overall map in this example is composed of eight submaps and the > reported altitude of 771.64 m is about 2 m above the highest passage. The > map includes passage between 550 m and 769 m, and so by eye the average > altitude reported should be 660 m. > > There is also the mystery of the unnamed scrap at 1429.78 m. I don’t know > what it is referring to. The highest passage in the system is at 769 m. > > > > Elevation maps and scraps are all reported with zero height, which I guess > is OK. The original idea was to get a feeling for stacking order, which I > guess might sometimes be a concern for elevations. Perhaps a way to report > the stacking order would be to replace the real number used for plan scrap > altitudes with an integer for elevation scrap stacking order (say zero or 1 > is at the bottom). Just an idea, I don’t feel a particular need for it. > > > > Thanks > > Bruce > > > > *From:* Therion <therion-boun...@speleo.sk> *On Behalf Of *Stacho Mudrak > *Sent:* Sunday, 24 January 2021 08:15 > *To:* List for Therion users <therion@speleo.sk> > *Subject:* Re: [Therion] Map altitude NaN as -89999 > > > > Hi Bruce, > > > > there is no problem calculating map altitude. It was not calculated, > because it was not needed for map generation. > > > > Added it in the latest commit. > > > > S. > > > > On Sat, 23 Jan 2021 at 19:20, Bruce Mutton <br...@tomo.co.nz> wrote: > > Hi Stacho > > I mostly get -8999 etc for my maps (not near my computer so cannot be > specific on the circumstances) especially where maps are composed of > surveys rather than scraps. > > I'm using Windows 10. > > I was a little perplexed that the map altitudes are undefined. Shouldn't > the second level maps just be a weighted average of the component maps, > scraps or surveys? > > > > I will try the latest commit in a few days time. > > Bruce > > > > Sent from my Galaxy > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Therion mailing list > Therion@speleo.sk > https://mailman.speleo.sk/listinfo/therion >
_______________________________________________ Therion mailing list Therion@speleo.sk https://mailman.speleo.sk/listinfo/therion
