You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
There are two Caballo faults, one in NM and one in TX. The geodetic modelers did not consider (were not supplied the) Texas faults as a class in 2014. However, it seems the TX Caballo fault variant, with longitudes in the -105° range, was supplied in lieu of the NM variant. The texas faults without geodetic slip rates were generally corrected to receive a weight of 1, however the Caballo fault model is overweighted in TX (the geologic branch weights assume there are no geodetic branches, but there are) and underweighted in NM (the geologic branche weights assume there are geodetic branches, but they're aren't any).
In reformatting 2014 for 2018 we're leaving everything as is.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Migrated from usgs/nshm-cous-2014#41
There are two Caballo faults, one in NM and one in TX. The geodetic modelers did not consider (were not supplied the) Texas faults as a class in 2014. However, it seems the TX Caballo fault variant, with longitudes in the -105° range, was supplied in lieu of the NM variant. The texas faults without geodetic slip rates were generally corrected to receive a weight of 1, however the Caballo fault model is overweighted in TX (the geologic branch weights assume there are no geodetic branches, but there are) and underweighted in NM (the geologic branche weights assume there are geodetic branches, but they're aren't any).
In reformatting 2014 for 2018 we're leaving everything as is.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: