 |
 |
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 *********************************************