Rosine wrote:I guess what we need there is the pit equivalent of the "boulder group" symbol.
Broken ground, eastern part? Although eastern edge/side might be a fairer control site.
Moderators: [nope] cartel, team nopesport
Rosine wrote:I guess what we need there is the pit equivalent of the "boulder group" symbol.
Rosine wrote:At Balkello we have used the "which" column in a somewhat unofficial way.
In a number of places there is a group of for example 4 pits close together but only the deepest one is mapped. Mapping all 4 would crowd the map too much, but each individual pit would be deep enough elsewhere to be mapped. So we used "Eastern" to indicate which of multiple adjacent pits while there was only one pit symbol in the circle.
DJM wrote:
What's wrong with just "fence"?
Because that describes a 1km long stretch rather than a point feature? My feeling is that the control description should narrow it down to a specific point/small area.
NeilC wrote:graeme wrote: But "Coniferous" isn't mapped at all.
Of course not all needle leaved trees are coniferous. I've rarely (never?) noticed this description being used to describe a copse or vegetation boundary, only for distinctive trees which should be distinctive without needing to know the shape of their leaves.
DJM wrote:Neither am I particularly fussed if a planner puts a control on a particular side of a depression
Strictly speaking, it should be "edge" and not "side" as the feature "extends down from the surface of the surrounding ground ..."
Back to the real world - I've never seen the need to have the two descriptors "edge" and "side" in CDs where common sense says that only one is needed, and I trust that the new IOF revision of the CD booklet will remove this unnecessary distinction.
DJM wrote:Now that circles are centred and printed with great precision, it is nearly always obvious which feature is at the centre, so including "NW" in column C is now redundant. I guess we'll need to retain the option however for the very few cases where there might be confusion.
NeilC wrote:There are still people who believe that if you can't describe a feature unambiguously you can't use it.
There are still IOF advisors who won't let you use linear features as control sites until made into a point feature by a bend/junction etc.
Both can be fine once common sense has been applied.
I'm one of those planners who would never use a control site that is not unambiguously defined - eg "fence". If you accept that, then why not just a circle with nothing in it and call it "bit of woodland"??
Also it makes placing the control a bit of a gamble where you have to pace out the location. If you like that then pre-o is for you..
It's a very British thing using random bits of linear features. I don't think I've ever seen that in another country except maybe for an obvious last control on a big path.
Users browsing this forum: Auld Badger and 40 guests