CIP A 2003 XIX th International Symposium, 30 September - 04 October, 2003, Antalya, Turkey 
684 
The entire heritage record shared the same coordinate system, 
allowing different elements to be combined for study. Heights 
of interior and exterior elevations could be compared and 
different floor and roof plans could be overlaid for analysis. 
This also assisted the documentation process and quality review 
by comparing common elements of the drawing set. For 
example, loopholes, doors and windows of both floor plans and 
elevations could be combined and then compared to see if they 
were in-line. This was one tool to help determine if the final 
product met the precision specified for the project deliverable. 
5. WHERE VALUE LIES 
Feedback was sought from different conservation team 
information users regarding the usefulness of the heritage 
record. From the conservation architect’s point of view, prior to 
the completion of the heritage record, there was never a check 
or confirmation of the original drawings of the fort. In the past, 
the original drawings were traced and manipulated as working 
drawings for major interventions. It was often not clear if 
specific original drawings accurately represented what was 
built, or if it was a conceptual drawing. Various information 
users can feel confident that they have a heritage record in hand 
that reflects the state of the fort as it stands today. 
Dimensions obtained from the heritage record were also 
compared to the written record of the construction of the fort, 
helping to identify the configuration of the fort in different eras. 
Also the roof plan provided a base drawing for the architects, 
engineers and historians to graphically represent the different 
eras of the fort (1862, 1864,1878 and 1938) (Fig. 5). These 
documents where then used to convey information to the client. 
1878 
"V - / 
barbette emplacements 
removed 
board and batten removed 
Fig. 5: Roof plans showing the different eras of the fort 
■ 
% v 
A ■ ■ 
./ . 
> 
Historic photos where also compared to the heritage record to 
identify the different eras shown in fig.6. The 1910 photo was 
rectified and compared to the 2002 heritage record. With this 
exercise, it was determined that the roof was previously at a 
higher level. During the renovation of 1938, the roof was 
lowered, possibly to provide drainage. 
Fig. 6: Historic photo compared to heritage record