cavermark said:
andrew said:
I did not say unreasonable, but why record anything that can be calculated after the event, in the warm with a drink in hand. Adding unnecessary jobs just increases the amount of work, leading to either less survey, or poor quality for the amount of cave time spent collecting it.
Modern data is compatible with the older stuff, it can be converted.
How to do this
conversion is what I asked in the original post. Apparently it is not easy
My computer has just been thrown in the bin in frustration - I find it better to record the data in the way that it is needed in the cave, than rely on my non existent computer programming skills.
It is easy to do this conversion but you have to decide what you consider to be the criteria for the conversion, the overall height and width, the minimum height and width, the average height and width or whatever else you might have in mind, hence my original question.
For the benefit of this discussion I will post my PM reply to you.
What I?m getting at is this.
If cubes in Survex is based on the sum of cross-sectional area at a station times the leg length then based on the LRUD readings being those bounded by the green rectangle will be very different to those of the red rectangle.
I?ve always used LRUD to define the extents of the passage shape as in the green rectangle where the height of the rectangle defines the ceiling and floor as shown in an elevation and the width defines the left and right walls as shown on the plan.
https://flic.kr/p/q2t8JH
Using the splay shots to define a series of triangles would be much better
https://flic.kr/p/pmTBPd
Sorry but I've not managed to put the sketches into the post, just links.