5th October 2011, 02:30 PM
A problem with recording and interpreting features is not knowing a) at what level they were originally cut from, and b) how much has been lost through truncation/ploughing. This often gives a distorted view of the size of features, and leads to different people using various terms as 'interpretation'.
A good example being post-holes, that after machining down to natural, only survive in depths of 50mm (for example) and not being recognized as 'real' due to lack of depth-untill you point out that they could have been cut from half a metre higher!!:face-huh::face-thinks:
A good example being post-holes, that after machining down to natural, only survive in depths of 50mm (for example) and not being recognized as 'real' due to lack of depth-untill you point out that they could have been cut from half a metre higher!!:face-huh::face-thinks: