OR/13/001 Model workflow: Difference between revisions

From MediaWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
Line 1: Line 1:
A standard GSI3D workflow (Kessler & Mathers, 2004;<ref name="Kessler 2004">Kessler, H, and Mathers, S J. 2004. The 3D geological map&nbsp;—&nbsp;finally capturing the Geologists’ Vision.</ref>; Kessler et al. 2009<ref name="Kessler 2009">Kessler, H, Mathers, S J, and H-G, Sobisch. 2009. The capture and dissemination of integrated 3D geospatial knowledge at the British Geological Survey using GSI3D software and methodology. ''Computers & Geosciences 35'', 1311–1321.</ref>) for superficial geological models was followed, in the parts of the model surveyed as an integrated exercise (all TM) borehole coding was followed by the field survey, the 1:10&nbsp;000 geological lines were captured digitally by CartoGIS from field slips and/or fair drawn linework on plastic. The resulting 1:10&nbsp;000 scale provisional shape files were then provided for use in modelling. Edits to the shape files were made iteratively as a result of the modelling, in particular subcrops at rockhead were revised with the benefit of a 3D visualisation of the geology. It has been assembled and edited using the current versions of the GSI3D software since 2006 i.e. 2.0–2.6–2011–2012 (bedrock).
A standard GSI3D workflow (Kessler & Mathers, 2004;<ref name="Kessler 2004">KESSLER, H, and MATHERS, S J. 2004. The 3D geological map&nbsp;—&nbsp;finally capturing the Geologists’ Vision.</ref>; Kessler et al. 2009<ref name="Kessler 2009">KESSLER, H, MATHERS, S J, and H-G, SOBISCH. 2009. The capture and dissemination of integrated 3D geospatial knowledge at the British Geological Survey using GSI3D software and methodology. ''Computers & Geosciences 35'', 1311–1321.</ref>) for superficial geological models was followed, in the parts of the model surveyed as an integrated exercise (all TM) borehole coding was followed by the field survey, the 1:10&nbsp;000 geological lines were captured digitally by CartoGIS from field slips and/or fair drawn linework on plastic. The resulting 1:10&nbsp;000 scale provisional shape files were then provided for use in modelling. Edits to the shape files were made iteratively as a result of the modelling, in particular subcrops at rockhead were revised with the benefit of a 3D visualisation of the geology. It has been assembled and edited using the current versions of the GSI3D software since 2006 i.e. 2.0–2.6–2011–2012 (bedrock).
==References==
==References==
{{reflist}}
{{reflist}}
[[Category:OR/13/001 Model metadata summary report for the Colchester LithoFrame 10-50 model | 08]]
[[Category:OR/13/001 Model metadata summary report for the Colchester LithoFrame 10-50 model | 08]]

Latest revision as of 12:00, 4 August 2021

A standard GSI3D workflow (Kessler & Mathers, 2004;[1]; Kessler et al. 2009[2]) for superficial geological models was followed, in the parts of the model surveyed as an integrated exercise (all TM) borehole coding was followed by the field survey, the 1:10 000 geological lines were captured digitally by CartoGIS from field slips and/or fair drawn linework on plastic. The resulting 1:10 000 scale provisional shape files were then provided for use in modelling. Edits to the shape files were made iteratively as a result of the modelling, in particular subcrops at rockhead were revised with the benefit of a 3D visualisation of the geology. It has been assembled and edited using the current versions of the GSI3D software since 2006 i.e. 2.0–2.6–2011–2012 (bedrock).

References

  1. KESSLER, H, and MATHERS, S J. 2004. The 3D geological map — finally capturing the Geologists’ Vision.
  2. KESSLER, H, MATHERS, S J, and H-G, SOBISCH. 2009. The capture and dissemination of integrated 3D geospatial knowledge at the British Geological Survey using GSI3D software and methodology. Computers & Geosciences 35, 1311–1321.