Can I use less ceiling heights if....?

[anti-jeff]

If I have good number of cross-section and a running profile, can I get away with less ceiling heights?

I think I've been over-doing it on ceiling heights lately, and I realized that in several cases I was including redundant information (because you can tell from the cross-sections/profile)...
I could probably reduce the number of ceiling heights because they aren't really necessary.

Should ceiling heights only be a tool for me to note the exceptions that might not be shown in a cross-section?

[Jeff Bartlett]

[opinion]

In most caves, the floors and ceilings change so often that trying to include every little dome and floor drop and cubbyhole is too confusing. It's more useful to the map reader to just say "this passage is 10ft high" unless you're talking about, say, a squeeze or a water crawl along the route, or a big dome or pit.

[/opinion]

[George Dasher]

Yes, you can use less ceiling height symbols on the plan view if you have a profile view.

A profile cures A LOT of vertical ills on the map (such as too-few ceiling heights and water depths), but all caves are not profilable.