mirror of
https://expo.survex.com/repositories/expoweb/.git/
synced 2024-11-22 15:21:55 +00:00
259 lines
14 KiB
HTML
259 lines
14 KiB
HTML
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0//EN">
|
|
<html>
|
|
<head>
|
|
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" />
|
|
<title>1990: Cambridge Underground report</title>
|
|
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="../../css/main2.css" />
|
|
</head>
|
|
<body>
|
|
<center><font size=-1>CTS 91.1327/f: Cambridge Underground 1991 pp 28-31</font>
|
|
<h2>Surveying Report Part II - Survey production</h2></center>
|
|
|
|
<p align=right>Wookey
|
|
|
|
<p>This is an attempt to summarize what I have learned about the art/science
|
|
of survey production, from getting people to do it in the first place,
|
|
through processing the data, to producing and distributing the finished
|
|
product.
|
|
|
|
<p>I have only performed this exercise twice so I don't claim to be a great
|
|
expert, but I think it is worth recording the current state of my art (?) to
|
|
give future CUCC surveyors something to work from. Having said that, I
|
|
suspect that much of what I will say will very rapidly become out of date due
|
|
to the extensive use of technology.
|
|
|
|
<p>First, never forget that surveying is ultimately pretty pointless, and
|
|
that most of your compatriots have very little interest in surveying for its
|
|
own sake. These people can usefully be bullied and cajoled into going out
|
|
there and getting you some data, but it is fair to say that an uninterested
|
|
surveyor is not likely to produce outstanding work. Bearing this in mind you
|
|
are likely to have to go and do lots of real surveying yourself. You will
|
|
then notice that it is very hard to do well, and that the only reasons you
|
|
understand your stuff any better than anybody else's are a) because you did
|
|
it yourself, and b) because you learned what information you need from having
|
|
to make half of it up the year before.
|
|
|
|
<p>It is almost impossible to appreciate exactly what is required to make
|
|
drawing up straightforward unless you have tried it yourself, so any
|
|
opportunity to make your surveyors do some should be utilised (I have largely
|
|
failed in this so far).
|
|
|
|
<p>Right, that's enough sermonising.
|
|
|
|
<p>Having got yourself some data what do you do with it? Encourage your
|
|
surveyors to follow helpful practices when writing it up in the survey book,
|
|
and then have a look over it. You may immediately find missing information -
|
|
calibration, compass numbers, names, dates, locations etc. This sort of thing
|
|
is often easy to discover so long as it is noticed quickly. Reference to the
|
|
original notes and/or surveyors should clear up most things.
|
|
|
|
<p>Next stick it in a computer. If you can do this during the expo it
|
|
obviously helps a great deal with spotting errors and with locating likely
|
|
connections. Collar your surveyor, stick a plan/elevation of their bit on the
|
|
screen and ask "does it look at all like that?" Answers like "No" and "That's
|
|
not my bit" should be dealt with by working out which bits are
|
|
backwards/total bollocks so that this can be allowed for or corrected if
|
|
feasible.
|
|
|
|
<p>Current CUCC computer policy is dominated by the fact that our preferred
|
|
surveying software only runs on a C/E/VGA PC, and the club doesn't own any of
|
|
these. This situation is likely to change as we should shortly have some new
|
|
software which should be persuadable to run on lots of things, and hopefully
|
|
someone can eventually be persuaded to give/lend us some suitable kit
|
|
(unfortunately the only offer I have managed to get so far is a Mac, which
|
|
isn't terribly useful). In the meantime we will be using whatever people are
|
|
prepared to take to Austria, or, if no-one does, it will be back to the club
|
|
programmable calculator!
|
|
|
|
<p>The software in question in Sean Kelly's Surveyor '88, written for the
|
|
Queen Mary College Belize Expedition (as it unhelpfully tells you every time
|
|
you run it). Make sure that you are using the improved '89 version which has
|
|
had a major bug fixed and will actually do its sums right. (In the correct
|
|
version SVY2POS has two copyright dates on the title screen - the second
|
|
being 12 Nov 89). SURVEYOR.DOC gives instructions on how to use the program,
|
|
which, although both basic and irritating in some respects, is essentially
|
|
very good and does the job. So far as I know there is nothing better
|
|
available, but Olly and I hope to address this as soon as possible.
|
|
|
|
<p>Processing the data involves lots of comparing of cave plots with survey
|
|
data and drawings to spot the obviously wrong bits. You can also use the
|
|
errors thrown up by loop closures, but this often isn't actually much help as
|
|
the closures tend be a little on the dodgy side anyway. This is primarily
|
|
caused by 'expedition conditions' but as we are likely to be claiming Grade 5
|
|
it is worth encouraging the best practices possible, and to aim for errors to
|
|
be under 2 to 3%. This is a rough guide, as the relationship between
|
|
permitted error (within a grade) and traverse length isn't linear and so the
|
|
percentage error could be more for long loops, and less for short ones. See
|
|
the diagrams in Bryan Ellis's book.
|
|
|
|
<p>Eventually you will have a plot you are happy with (although upon drawing
|
|
up you are likely to discover more errors); and you will be very bored with
|
|
plotting out 'absolutely the final survey', chopping up all the bits of
|
|
paper, and sticking them all together. Unfortunately Surveyor '88 can only
|
|
output onto an Epson compatible dot matrix printer (it might manage some
|
|
slightly dissimilar interfaces but laser printers don't seem to like it at
|
|
all, even when they claim to do Epson emulation. Until a method of getting
|
|
the plots out on bigger bits of paper (eg. in a pen plotter) is created you
|
|
are forced to a great deal of chopping up and sellotaping together of plots.
|
|
This is very time-consuming and is absolutely desperate without access to a
|
|
guillotine.
|
|
|
|
<p>You may now come across some problems caused by adding bits to a
|
|
pre-existing survey. Assuming that you haven't decided to change the view you
|
|
should just be able to draw the new bits independently and graft them on to
|
|
the old survey. Hopefully loop closures and discoveries of old errors will
|
|
not have distorted the old stuff so much that this is impossible (as it did
|
|
this year - aligning Adrian's put Yapate 15 to 20m out, for example).
|
|
|
|
<p>The plan was to try and have something ready for the BCRA conference so I
|
|
drew each new bit onto its own centreline (as this could be done in a tent
|
|
whilst still on holiday), then traced each bit, reduced them onto acetate,
|
|
and stuck the results onto an A4 acetate copy of the '89 survey. This sort of
|
|
worked, but produced a fairly unhealthy-looking result as photocopying more
|
|
than two layers of acetate produces lots of greyness. It is also a very
|
|
expensive procedure as to get from the original 1:500 to A4 required a
|
|
reduction to 22%. Normal copiers can only reduce to 64% (requiring four
|
|
iterations), and plan copiers can manage 47% (so only requiring two
|
|
iterations but they are much more expensive). To do all this for nine new
|
|
bits of cave in both plan and elevation takes forever, requires the services
|
|
of about six copy shops and is definitely not worth the effort or cost.
|
|
Unfortunately I only realised this whilst half way through this epic process
|
|
and decided that having already invested a fair amount of time, effort,
|
|
money, and petrol, I might as well finish and have something to show for it.
|
|
|
|
<p>When drawing the little bits it is helpful to just plot the bit you want
|
|
to draw, but don't forget that you must arrange things so that whilst it is
|
|
plotted on its own, it is still calculated as part of the total net otherwise
|
|
it may 'unspring' significantly giving you an incorrect centre-line to draw
|
|
on.
|
|
|
|
<p>Having discovered that the old and new surveys didn't match properly and
|
|
already having traced each independent bit I decided that the best way to do
|
|
the final drawing was to put the Permatrace sheet on top of the final plot
|
|
and then sandwich each transparent bit of cave between them. This allowed
|
|
alignment with the plot underneath (as both top layers were transparent). The
|
|
old master was treated in exactly the same way but each section between loop
|
|
junctions was aligned separately. This worked very well, the only
|
|
disadvantage being that by the time a bit of cave gets to the master it has
|
|
been copied twice (or four times if you count the original as the one done in
|
|
the cave).
|
|
|
|
<p>If you are doing a new survey then the whole thing can be drawn on the
|
|
final plot and then traced to make the master. The only disadvantage of this
|
|
is that you have to work with a great big bit of paper lying around for weeks
|
|
- OK if you have the space.
|
|
|
|
<p>Obviously other combinations of wholes, sections and tracing could be
|
|
employed - choose according to circumstance, remembering that tracing is
|
|
extremely quick and easy in comparison to drawing originals (except for all
|
|
the bloody rocks).
|
|
|
|
<p>I have rather glossed over the bit which is definitely mostly art -
|
|
drawing round a centreline so that the result looks something like the cave.
|
|
There are actually a number of (sometimes conflicting) considerations here.
|
|
Do you want it to be clear which way to travel or to have lots of realistic
|
|
detail? This really depends on who you think your audience is and your own
|
|
preference. I have aimed for authenticity at the expense of simplicity and
|
|
make no claim that it is at all easy to follow!
|
|
|
|
<p>A quick note on materials is probably in order here. Use a propelling
|
|
pencil for the first drawings, as it has constant width and a rubber on the
|
|
other end. The master needs to be drawn in pen so that it photocopies. Thick
|
|
lines in 0.35mm, thin lines in 0.18mm. We tried 0.13mm in '89 and things
|
|
tended to disappear on reproduction. If drawing at a very small scale you
|
|
will find that 0.35 is just too thick to be sensible and everything will have
|
|
to be 0.18. The club has Rotring isograph pens in the above sizes which have
|
|
been very reliable and have not clogged up even when left from one year to
|
|
the next. The ink these use is erasable which is obviously incredibly useful
|
|
- but note that it is much easier to rub off just after it has gone down than
|
|
a couple of days later. After being in place for a long time it will never
|
|
rub off perfectly.
|
|
|
|
<p>I recommend proper drawing office plastic film (eg. Permatrace) for
|
|
masters as it is 'dimensionally stable', tough, waterproof, more transparent
|
|
than tracing paper, and photocopies better than paper. The disadvantage is
|
|
the cost - nearly £4 per A0 sheet! If using this then use the special
|
|
film rubbers designed to complement it. Also required are a scale ruler (if
|
|
you can't easily do it in your head) and a drawing board (the club doesn't
|
|
own one of these yet).
|
|
|
|
<p>So, you now have a complete survey drawn up - practically finished! Wrong.
|
|
You may be halfway through if you're lucky. Doing the cross sections and the
|
|
lettering is unbelievably time-consuming. Until someone can work out a better
|
|
way you are restricted to getting all the names printed and then cutting each
|
|
one out and sticking it on by hand. At least it's better than doing each
|
|
letter individually with Letraset.
|
|
|
|
<p>A bit more detail on this process. Use a sans-serif font which is nice and
|
|
solid. Helvetica seems to be the most suitable of the commonly available
|
|
ones. This is easy to do on a Mac, but requires some quite flash software on
|
|
a PC as they have only just noticed that there are fonts other than Courier
|
|
in PC-land. Getting all the names, and a suitable selection of question
|
|
marks, pitches, climbs, vdlbs, too tights, and cross section labels out on
|
|
someone's laserprinter should thus be quite straightforward.
|
|
|
|
<p>To align them when sticking them on use sheets of graph paper carefully
|
|
aligned and stuck onto the back of the master to give a grid. Be careful to
|
|
align the text rather than the edges of the bit of paper that contains it. To
|
|
actually do the sticking use the amazing Scotch Magic Tape. This stuff is
|
|
totally photocopier transparent, can be written on and is the right
|
|
stickiness so that you can peel it off again if you get it wrong, without
|
|
tearing anything.
|
|
|
|
<p>The tedium of adding text in this way is perhaps a good reason for
|
|
attempting to scan the image into a computer so that a drawing package can be
|
|
used to add the text. If anyone has access to a scanner then perhaps this
|
|
could be tried next year.
|
|
|
|
<p>The other 'little' thing remaining to do is the cross-sections (on the
|
|
plan at least). First you have to pore over the survey book again and decide
|
|
which ones you want, weighing various factors like how representative they
|
|
are, which ones can be sensibly fitted onto the plan, and how much
|
|
space/time/enthusiasm you have. Once you have chosen them you must mark them
|
|
all, think of a numbering system, draw them all, and number them all (in two
|
|
places, obviously). This does, of course take forever too, although it is a
|
|
task suited to distribution if you have several helpers, as each can do their
|
|
own bit and they can all be stuck on to the master later.
|
|
|
|
<p>Finally, you must get your masterpiece photocopied and reduced to both the
|
|
size people can stick on their walls, and to something that will go in the
|
|
Journal, and Caves and Caving/Descent. This proved to be extremely hard in
|
|
Cambridge, using the Xerox place next to Sainsbury's for the primary
|
|
reduction and a much cheaper copy place on the industrial estate next to
|
|
Tesco on the A45/A10 junction north of Cambridge. Having a slightly better
|
|
quality master this year may have helped but I think it was the copy shop
|
|
which just got it right first time. In Cambridge we had four visits to Xerox
|
|
with several tries each time and lots of Tippex in between.
|
|
|
|
<p>So there you are - piece of piss, and it only takes about 200 hours. If
|
|
you'll just form an orderly queue of volunteers for next year....
|
|
|
|
<p>P.S. if anyone thinks I am being dim doing things as outlined above, please tell me so. Obviously anything that improves either the quality or the efficiency is welcome.
|
|
|
|
<hr />
|
|
<!-- LINKS -->
|
|
<ul id="links">
|
|
<li>Cambridge Underground 1991,
|
|
<a href="../../../jnl/1991/index.htm">Table of Contents</a></li>
|
|
<li>Surveying Report:
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li><a href="svy1.htm"> 1: Calibration</a></li>
|
|
</ul></li>
|
|
<li>Other 1990 Expedition info:
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li><a href="index.htm">Index</a> (more detail than in this list)</li>
|
|
<li><a href="log.htm">Logbook</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="report.htm">Expo Report</a> (Diary)</li>
|
|
<li><a href="cavegd.htm">161 Description</a> to date (ie. 1990)</li>
|
|
<li><a href="162163.htm">Entrances 162 and 163</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="newent.htm">New Entrances</a></li>
|
|
<li>Bosch Cordless Rotary Hammer <a href="drill.htm">Drill Report</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="sponsr.htm">Sponsors</a></li>
|
|
</ul></li>
|
|
<li><a href="../../pubs.htm#pubs1990">Index</a> to all publications</li>
|
|
<li><a href="../../index.htm">Back to Expeditions intro page</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="../../../index.htm">CUCC Home Page</a></li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
</body>
|
|
</html>
|