Field studies, qualifying topography

[^Atti Hekotik^]

Walking around various back-country landscapes, and sorting through some of the various community short-cuts, and tributaries that have been fledged in between various stages of architectural decay.

Obviously, I'm compelled to chart the grid-defying amolgamations. I'm always preferential to depicting the dominating composite graphic expression, of these intervening corridors, in stark relation to identifiable topographic anomolies.

Unfortunately, what this inadvertently fails to address, is a corresponding perspective priority.

I don't carry a bevel, or any prospecting scope around. I end up taking hyper-critical note of metallurgical 'hand-rules'; in order to, later on, stitch together the intricate correspondence of the edifiable geomorphic trajectories.

Roughly speaking; there are an enormous verse of topographical indicators, which can be procured by various older, pre-automated, traditional rubrics for [{what I typically refer to by^}] 'hand-rules'. A brief example, being; the use of the length of 'your arm, as a fairly known, constant, proportioned length.

I'm curious. Has anyone ever succeeded at configuring a very coherent, expansive likeness of an area, using any sort of older, traditional methodology's [{°I've been fascinated with 'dowsing, ever sense my grandfather had a new well dug, earlier in my youth}]

I could attempt to prompt more insights into the practice of observational, field topography analysis. I just thought I'd start with this, though; for now.


Atticus Heccotic'--

------+-+---------

{The file-sharing-path, needed to upload images, is proving to be painfully unresponsive}°
[{`I do hope to get a morsel of visual graphics, up on here, soon}]