Dive data with both depth and clino

[Andy Waddington (Cave Surveying mailbox)]

Sometime before sending, Graham Mullan typed (and on Friday 2015-05-08 at 13:15:17 sent):

> Might there be a clash here if the absolute depth readings differ drastically from
> the relative ones arrived at using the clino reading? Which would be prioritised by
> the algorithm and why?

It is not necessarily the case that either would be prioritised.

In the case of a drastic disagreement, what should be flagged is
a blunder detection, and neither clino nor depths should be
accepted without input form the surveyor to say which he/she
believes is more likely to be correct.

It ought to be possible to spot single erroneous depth readings
as giving rise to a clino discrepancy in both survey legs leading to
the point with the absolute depth which is in error. If only a single
leg is affected, it is more likely that the clino is in error. But
this stuff should not be just assumed algorithmically - the
surveyor's attention needs to be drawn to the issue.

If the leg which gives rise to the discrepancy is hanging (eg.
to the end of a passage) then you can't do that deduction
anyway...

Andy