From: Martin S. <Mar...@mg...> - 2011-01-10 18:20:06
|
Looks like I've missed the most interesting part while I was visiting a customer :-) John Denker wrote: > As always, it is nicer to track the authoritative data, rather > than forking it. In some way our elevation/height (for published obstacles/obstructions) data has always to be some sort of a 'fork' for several reasons. Probably the most obvious one is being the fact that different authorities are having different habits of specifying the highest spots. Some authorities are adding 500 ft clearance to the physical top of an obstacle for their published obstacle elevation, some don't .... even though a human definition of the highest spot would be pretty unambiguous, things are getting rather complicated after passing 'authoritative' processing :-) Cheers, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -------------------------------------------------------------------------- |