3rd April 2009, 12:37 AM
I think that there are actually two queries here and they throw up a multitude of answers.
If you are measuring/surveying archaeology with a view to creating hand-drawn plans or maps then there is a degree of tolerance built into the operation that will allow for a greater degree of innaccuracy on site (scale of drawing, thickness of pencil line, thickness of pen line, scale of finished/published drawing etc). And as a result a greater degree of tolerance off site. And thats OK we have been doing it for years with fairly consistent and useful results.
If however you are surveying with a view to applying your data to digital media (raster or vector created maps for example) then your degree of accuracy should be at least equivalant to the degree of accuracy of the intended media. Accurate survey data can always be fitted to the requirements of an archaeological project. Innacurate survey data can't. And there are some examples where a strecthed 20 or 30 metre tape isn't good enough (particular with multi layer 3-D finds assembalages for example or understanding spatial relationships derived from complicated overlaying stratigraphy)
I find the largest number of queries I receive regarding my survey data and its translation into finished drawings are regarding what I call 'mixed media' e.g site field leaders asking why don't their post-ex digitised hand drawn sites plans seem as accurate as my TST site survey or grid locations.
As for GPS. It is as accurate as you are willing to pay for. If you think that a hand-held GPS is accurate enough, you probably have good reason for believing that to be the case. If you (or your employer or sponsor) can afford better you soon become accustomed to using better.
With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...
If you are measuring/surveying archaeology with a view to creating hand-drawn plans or maps then there is a degree of tolerance built into the operation that will allow for a greater degree of innaccuracy on site (scale of drawing, thickness of pencil line, thickness of pen line, scale of finished/published drawing etc). And as a result a greater degree of tolerance off site. And thats OK we have been doing it for years with fairly consistent and useful results.
If however you are surveying with a view to applying your data to digital media (raster or vector created maps for example) then your degree of accuracy should be at least equivalant to the degree of accuracy of the intended media. Accurate survey data can always be fitted to the requirements of an archaeological project. Innacurate survey data can't. And there are some examples where a strecthed 20 or 30 metre tape isn't good enough (particular with multi layer 3-D finds assembalages for example or understanding spatial relationships derived from complicated overlaying stratigraphy)
I find the largest number of queries I receive regarding my survey data and its translation into finished drawings are regarding what I call 'mixed media' e.g site field leaders asking why don't their post-ex digitised hand drawn sites plans seem as accurate as my TST site survey or grid locations.
As for GPS. It is as accurate as you are willing to pay for. If you think that a hand-held GPS is accurate enough, you probably have good reason for believing that to be the case. If you (or your employer or sponsor) can afford better you soon become accustomed to using better.
With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...