Jeff Bartlett wrote:bronzzhorse wrote:I use CHEAP columnar paper from staples and MAKE my own colums.
I guess that works if you never, ever, ever get the paper wet, or damp, or moist, or muddy, or bring it near water.
Legitimate point...but 99% of the caves that I ever have any intentions of surveying ARE for the biggest part, dry caves.....or at least mostly dry.... Its easy enough in these caves to keep the paper relatively clean, and I have enough DRY CAVE surveys planned to keep me busy for the rest of my life. Plus, paper getting a LITTLE damp or muddy is to be expected, isn't it? And what's it REALLY going to hurt? If its THAT bad, transfer the data to a clean paper once you get home with it or IN THE CAVE if it gets to that point (of course, if you're using $.13 per page IMO paper, you wouldn't really want to do that though would you?) If I have any intentions of working in a WET invironment, then yes, I get some cave survey or waterproof survey paper. ((no sense buying the expensive stuff when you DONT HAVE TO))
Its simple.... do the math.
Using IMO paper, which gives you 11 shots per page...at 13 cents per page, thats 1.1818 cents PER SHOT....
Columnar paper is $3.00 per book of 100. Thats 3 cents per page. You get 40 shots per page if you use ONLY the front. That equals out to 0.0075 cents per shot....
SO, over a years time, at 1 survey per month, 1000 shots per survey, Thats 12,000 shots. you just spent $141 on PAPER ALONE...
Now, using columnar paper, on the SAME surveys, I however have spent only $9 ...... My $9 vs. your $141...that's quite a bit more savings than just a "morning cup of coffee" wouldn't you say??? Sounds to me more like a NICE new piece of caving (or survey) gear PAID FOR BY SAVING MONEY ON PAPER!!
Point is... if the only difference is having to draw a line to seperate your columns, and water isnt a major factor, why not save a dollar.....or 132 DOLLARS!!.....
Jeff Bartlett wrote: It's great if you find a non-standard solution that works for you, but when an admitted newbie is asking the questions, why would you suggest they abandon the "standard" way of doing things before they've figured out what works for them?
Thats kind-of a, forgive the term, "unreasonable" question...... As you said... if someone "HAS NOT FOUND A WAY that works for them", what qualifies you to decide that my slightly modified version of the "standard" method won't be JUST THE THING that DOES work for them...The fact that this thread EXISTS is proof that there is NO
TRUE "STANDARD", so why NOT recomend MY method along with everyone ELSE doing so?.. Someone ASK for others' input and advice based on THEIR methods..That is what I Did. So why is MY method and MY recomendation the one chosen to be 'not acceptable"?? Is it because MINE isn't the way YOU do it... kinda sounds that way to me....Like another way of saying "you shouldn't recomend ANYTHING that isnt the way I do it"..That just seems kind-of pretencious to me...Let THEM judge my method for themself, and let THEM make the decision for themself..... he MAY find SOMETHING usefull in it. (you know, modifications of "standard" methods have led to MANY, many, GREAT advances) I never recomended anyone abondon anything, I just posted MY method (which is more or less just a "modified" version of the "standard" numbering system recorded on a different kind of paper) IN CASE something usefull could be found by someone..or maybe set off a bell in someones head.....just saying..........
And really, what is SO different about my way OTHER than the type of paper, and the numbering system (which I borrowed from a CAVE SURVEY SOFTWARE)?? That doesnt seem like I am really stepping THAT far away from "the standard". Does a difference in paper type REALLY make a difference? .......Someone posted earlier in this thread that
"I once forgot to bring the survey book on a trip, and we ended up recording the data on several flat rocks with a red crayon we happened to have" .........If THAT is ok, then why is it NOT ok to record the data on columnar paper??
I still take down the 3 MAIN peices of info..Distance, Bearing, and Vert. Angle, AS WELL as the Up, Down, Left, and Right.
The SAME information ends up on the Carto-desk EITHER WAY.
Hope I'm not coming across as a d*ck, I just don't think anyone should stop or criticize someone for tossing out new ideas. what's it going to hurt... really??
Jeff Bartlett wrote: Also, you should take more azimuth backsights. Just sayin'.
Also a legitimate point. In this case in particular, we were in a hurry. I know, thats no excuse, but we were in a REALLY BIG hurry....Please don't ask why.
We did set up semi-permenant stations through the section we didnt get backsights for, and plan to go back, calibrate (I guess that what you would call it..Checking that the front sight reading hasn't for some reason changed) to the stations and get some backsights sometime in spring.