Talk:Levelling

Accuracy
There does not seem to be any info here on what sort of accuracy can be achieved. 92.40.60.108 (talk) 05:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Errata
"The effect may be significant for some work at distances under 100 meters." Probably meant : "The effect may be insignificant for some work at distances under 100 meters." Tc02 (talk) 21:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I think it is correct as it stands. It certainly can be significant, although often ignored for less critical work. Perhaps the statement could be "The effect is often ignored for short distances but may be significant for critical work at distances well under 100 meters." BillHart93 (talk) 01:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Level (instrument) into Levelling
significant overlap fgnievinski (talk) 05:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree that something has to be done about all of the overlap. Maybe leave the methodology and details in the levelling article and remove the identical text in the level page, and just leave a brief history and description for the instrument on it's page, since it is a significant historical instrument.--JLavigne508 (talk) 17:19, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I have removed duplicate images and duplicate description for levelling details that were in both articles. In my opinion the description and history (and pictures) of modern and historic level instruments should have it's own article like the way it is now (think of how important levels have been since Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia right up to the present). Levelling is a process unto itself so I think they should stay separate articles (with separate content), will wait to see if anyone else has any other ideas before removing this discussion tag.--JLavigne508 (talk) 01:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Closing, given the consensus to distinguish the content between the two pages rather than to merge. Klbrain (talk) 15:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC)