Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
Charts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Gold Prospecting
Metal Detecting for Gold
Difference Between 100K Fault And 250K Fault In Geovic?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Help Support Prospecting Australia:
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Deepseeker" data-source="post: 608814" data-attributes="member: 13321"><p>Thanks for your suggestions so far guys. I kind of understand what you're getting at diggit, but still think it wouldn't make sense. If we looked at a map of Melbourne at 1:100,000 with Elizabeth St running through the middle of it and all of it's various other streets and lanes, and a map at 1:250,000 with Elizabeth st running through the middle of it with the same streets and lanes, we still have the respective roads,lanes, etc., all in the same place in relation to the buildings, just shown in a different scale.</p><p></p><p>Equally BrokeInBendigo, surely if the 100K layer is a more recent/accurate survey, then it would just make the 250K survey redundant, in which case why use it at all? And maybe Geology isn't an exact science, but in other areas when using these two different layers they are just so different as to seemingly have no relationship to each other at all. Surely using modern magnetic aerial survey equipment they could get a fairly accurate idea of whether a fault actually ran north/south or east/west?</p><p></p><p>Hopefully goldierocks can chime in, and maybe even give us an idea of whether or not we should be completely ignoring the 250K data?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Deepseeker, post: 608814, member: 13321"] Thanks for your suggestions so far guys. I kind of understand what you're getting at diggit, but still think it wouldn't make sense. If we looked at a map of Melbourne at 1:100,000 with Elizabeth St running through the middle of it and all of it's various other streets and lanes, and a map at 1:250,000 with Elizabeth st running through the middle of it with the same streets and lanes, we still have the respective roads,lanes, etc., all in the same place in relation to the buildings, just shown in a different scale. Equally BrokeInBendigo, surely if the 100K layer is a more recent/accurate survey, then it would just make the 250K survey redundant, in which case why use it at all? And maybe Geology isn't an exact science, but in other areas when using these two different layers they are just so different as to seemingly have no relationship to each other at all. Surely using modern magnetic aerial survey equipment they could get a fairly accurate idea of whether a fault actually ran north/south or east/west? Hopefully goldierocks can chime in, and maybe even give us an idea of whether or not we should be completely ignoring the 250K data? [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Gold Prospecting
Metal Detecting for Gold
Difference Between 100K Fault And 250K Fault In Geovic?
Top