> Minimally trained Australian Army Reserve soldiers (National Guard or =
TA
> equivalent), i.e. myself, can achive 5km of pacing over very rough =
ground
> with an accuraccy within 20m.
That's not really the point I was making -- I was assuming that the 'mapmakers' would be actually _measuring_ the distance, with ropes or whatnot. And the difficulty I was addressing was that the "as the boot walks" distance will in general _not_ be the same as the "as the crow flies" distance (which is obviously what you want for such a map), due to these changes in elevation.
These will also be relatively small, but together with actual inaccuracies in the measurement itself will make this very much less useful as, recall, a _baseline_ for a whole series of other measurements, throughout which the error will progressively accumulate.
Mind you, I have to wonder what your definition of 'very rough ground' is. Have many sheer cliffs, escarpments, creeks you you negotiate and still claim similar accuracy? I can't imagine such a technique being feasible around Cork, much less Dumbarton, much less around what a European or an American would call 'real hills'.
Sl=E1inte,
Alex.
Powered by hypermail