The dsh Terrain Building Test

[Glenn Woodward]

Since no one is going to bother to read this post anyway, I can say what I want.

LET me attempt to clear up some of Scott's confusion and some others.

There is NO such thing in chief as TP (Terrain Perimeter) elevation. So there is nothing to set. All references are (fixed) to 0 -- assumed to be sea level. It CANNOT be changed. This has been explained before and generally does not cause a problem except to surveyors and builders who usually reference to a local marker. if you have no terrain , terrain level is assumed to be zero, if you have a terrain, it's whatever the elevation data says it is (default 0) , always in relation to 0 (sea level ).

Pad elevation is related to wherever the center point bottom foundation level is to its location on the terrain surface. And is given in relation to 0 - sea level - explained before.

Contour elevations are +- to sea level 0.

Everything is Okey-Dokey unless you get surveyor's data referenced to a local Surveyor's marker level, thus the confusion between sea level and elevation data. You CAN NOT bias the 0 point (sea level).

Gerry,

I agree with the thrust of what you say - there is no such thing as Terrain Perimeter Elevation.

But, I'm not sure that we are talking semantics here, but I see things a bit differently.
I think of all levels set in relation to chiefs zero floor level - nothing to do with "sea level" - does a negative elevation mean the building is below sea level? - not very realistic.

I can have relative levels (relative to Chiefs zero floor level) by specifying minus levels for below Chiefs zero floor level and positive levels for above Chiefs zero floor level.

I can have absoulte levels by specifying a Pad Elevation at an actual elevation and then terrain levels at actual elevations (but, everything still remains relative!).

If there is any confusion, have a look at the 3 plans I attached in a previous post - no mention of sea level, not a wave in sight (or should that be site).

Oh, one other thing, when you say: "if you have no terrain , terrain level is assumed to be zero, if you have a terrain, it's whatever the elevation data says it is (default 0) , always in relation to 0 (sea level ).

Once again, what has it got to do with sea level?
In these situations isn't terrain level whatever the formula is (eg: -6" - floor thickness below Chiefs zero), and not zero.

I think we are agreeing but just seeing things from a different frame of reference or relativity.

The main point being that I have no confusion about terrain levels and things all work great as they are!