Passage walls in Survex: Data collection detail, Survex and Therion

[Bruce Mutton]

Hi Andy (and everyone else)

I agree with everything Andy has written below.  I guess I was referring to
'collective effort', although I will admit that I'd prefer more time caving
and instantaneous cave map software.  Even people that never cave and only
draw maps have a backlog I expect.

I'm thinking that there is perhaps a point where the programming effort and
data entry effort for increasing minutiae of detail in a numerical/textual
environment is not worth it from either parties perspective when much
greater detail (but perhaps not accuracy) is easily entered in a graphical
environment, especially when based on the type of ad-hoc data collection
Andy describes. (Sorry about the long sentence).
It's a decision that each programmer/data enterer can make for themselves,
and in some situations an extreme level of detail will be warranted.  Mostly
not I suspect however.  (OK, paperless data collection does warrant
collecting the minutiae). 

I'm assuming here that the primary objective is an up-to-date (and easily
updatable) drawing of the cave with 3d model/textual output being secondary
(but still important) objectives.  If that is not the case then one's focus
would be different.
  
Perhaps I have bias, as I have only just stumbled on Survex, by it's
association with Therion, which is a mixed numerical/textual/graphical
environment. Therion allows the user to jump from numerical entry to
graphical entry at any stage (and is I understand somewhat compatible with
Survex).  Survey data is not even required, (free hand drawing or scanned
maps are OK) so it suits projects with lots of historical baggage as well as
fresh new projects.  I suspect both applications are as 'geeky' as each
other and so should suit similar audiences in that respect.

Food for thought; in the interests in making sure everyone can make informed
decisions about where to best exert their efforts...

Bruce


-----Original Message-----
From: survex-bounces at survex.com [mailto:survex-bounces at survex.com] On Behalf
Of Andy Waddington
Sent: Monday, 2 March 2009 9:28 p.m.
To: survex at survex.com
Subject: Re: Passage walls in Survex

Sometime before sending, Bruce Mutton typed (and on Friday 2009-02-27 sent):

> Presumably the object is to produce an accurate cave map with the minimum
> of effort, so we can focus on exploring the next cave?  

Whilst that is certainly true, you do have to allow that the effort that
goes into getting survey data and the effort that goes into processing
it take place at different times, in different places and are quite
possibly carried out by different people. Making the data faster to
process doesn't necessarily save time for the people actually going
caving and doing the surveying.

On the other hand, time spent editing survey data is often productive
in other ways and can ensure that other project members besides those
going underground become familiar with the layout and structure of the
cave. Notes taken underground are quite often rather ad hoc and may
well include offsets to walls and other features from the survey legs
without including stations. To ensure that the finished map properly
reflects all of the measurements made underground, it seems to me more
important that the processing is as powerful as possible rather than
as easy for new users as possible. But without being deliberately
obscure, as that would just increase the error rate. It has always
struck me that you don't want survey data manipulated, entered, edited
or reviewed by people who don't thoroughly understand what they are
doing...

Andy

-- 
Survex http://lists.survex.com/mailman/listinfo/survex