hi
hmm as a member of the ExeGesIS users subgroup on GIS/HBSMR I can
confirm we did look into this ... and there was a number of issues raised
concerning these sort of issues.
Technology at present is running what we can do (i.e. mapinfo cannot
handle lots of layers.. We have being playing about with this and there
are ways around it that we adopted for our test databases which have
1 monument layer and numerous other data layers such as sams, SSSI's,
measured survey layer etc all of which have data attached.
Something that did come out very strongly is that the present mapping
solutions just do not fit to user requirements thats why the sub group
was formed ....
one of the key issues that may needs to be resolved is how the mapping
throws back searches etc ... at present it just highlights the selection --
once you click on something the highlights disapear ...
there was a whole host of issues the group came up with .. if you want
any more info on that contact Peter Isles as he led the group and wrote
up the notes. Which i think have gone to EH staff for comment???
As a member of the subgroup i hope both Exegesis and EH DSU staff
have taken the groups comments on board and tried to resolve them.
Increasingly mapping is going to be very important and i am scoping and
experimenting our needs (for NT users) at present. Indeed i think that
there will be a need to think about what we want to display, what
information we want to be able to use (search on etc). I think
increasingly we will need to be able to handle many more layers. I am not
sure that just changing the colour will surfice. Given current limitations of
technology we may need to start thinking how we can achieve what we
want.
I suggest we need to know exactly what as a group we want and need
...
then see what the technology can fulfill ....
this was certainly the approach the ExeGesIS users subgroup on
GIS/HBSMR took we ignored current technology and listed what we
wanted and felt we might like in the future.
I think we must be very carefully to ensure that we do not let technology
lead the standards or our aspirations.
I am aware that the document Peter and the group produced was sent
around the SMRForum and Exegesis users ...
Peter have you anything to say on this???
So the question is what do we actually want?
jason
>>> Tony Pettitt <[log in to unmask]> 30/January/2002 12:38pm >>>
Ingrid
In MapInfo it is not possible to select objects across multiple layers,
therefore we have to place all objects on one layer. All objects created
using the HBSMR system are automatically coded by the monument type,
therefore you can thematically map your HBSMR map objects on the
monument
type value, thus ensuring findspots, listed buildings, monuments etc are
clearly distinguishable. I'm not sure how 'placing objects on different
layers reduces clutter' - all objects must be visible, I would simply
suggest that ensuring different mon types have different colours should
do
the trick.
Regards
Tony Pettitt
-----Original Message-----
From: Peckham, Ingrid [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 11:27
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Digitising monument polygons on GIS
Dear Julia,
I too have been wondering about this, especially the overlying polygons
issue. I've been digitising our records from scratch and started to put in
findspots as polygons (eg: for "flint tool found in Earls Road" I'd put a
polygon around the entire Earls Road block; eg: for "Bronze hoard found
in
Old Shirley " I'd put in a polygon around the entire area of "Old Shirley" -
a village-now-suburb). However in some areas I ended up with lots of
overlapping polygons - it was difficult to distinguish between the various
map objects and difficult to select individual objects. So I gave up on
polygons and put in points instead, as a quick way of getting the data
onto
the GIS.
Ideally I think I'd like to hold the findspots, listed building, monuments
created from excavations etc on different map layers - this might get
round
the problem of clutter - but this isn't possible in the exeGesIS system.
One possible solution - which I may adopt, I'm not sure yet as I haven't
thought it through properly - may be to put the polygons on separate
underlying layers and keep the MON layer for the points linked to the
HBMSR
records.
I think the exeGesIS users subgroup on GIS/HBSMR links covered this
issue -
so I hope the new map module will help when it comes out?? Am I right?
If anyone replies to you off forum, I'd be grateful if you'd forward their
emails to me.
Ingrid Peckham
SMR Assistant
Southampton City Council
Tel: 023 8083 2850
Fax: 023 8033 7593
Email: [log in to unmask]
-----Original Message-----
From: Wise, Julia [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 28 January 2002 18:31
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Digitising monument polygons on GIS
Dear all,
In Bucks we are just begining to formulate SMR spatial recording policies
with a view to developing an updated SMR manual. We are trying to
think
through such issues as the desirability (or otherwise!) of multiple
overlapping polygons, how polygons (and points!) display in general
distribution maps, and how comprehensible the use of different symbols
is to
members of the public.
There is some advice in 'Informing the Future of the Past', although much
of
it is rehearsing the pro & cons of general approaches, and I've not looked
at the ADS 'Guide to Good Practice'...yet.
Has anyone developed a policy on recording monuments (in particular)
as
polygons? If so, what is your policy?
Please reply on or off forum.
Julia Wise
Archaeological Officer
County Archaeological Service
Buckinghamshire County Council
**** Buckinghamshire County Council E-mail Disclaimer ****
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential
and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity
to whom they are addressed. If you are not the intended
recipient, the use of the information by disclosure, copying
or distribution is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have
received this email in error please notify the system manager
at [log in to unmask]
This footnote also confirms that this email message has been
swept by MailSweeper for the presence of computer viruses.
**** End of Disclaimer *********************************************
|