At the moment I think there is a slight inconsistency for some bindings in bindinddata.csv with where the hole positions (X coordinates) are relative to - i.e. heel, toe, or centre.
With pin/tech bindings it is clear at the moment (to me anyway) as the toe binding hole positions are relative to boot pin line, and heel hole positions are relative to boot heel. But with frame bindings, for example Marker-Duke, all hole positions are relative to the boot toe (including the centre and heel holes). It has to be like this (as the binding is a fixed length on the ski) but it is not clear in bindinddata.csv that the heel and centre holes are in fact relative to the toe. I think this could also be better explained in variables.
At the moment I think there is a slight inconsistency for some bindings in bindinddata.csv with where the hole positions (X coordinates) are relative to - i.e. heel, toe, or centre.
With pin/tech bindings it is clear at the moment (to me anyway) as the toe binding hole positions are relative to boot pin line, and heel hole positions are relative to boot heel. But with frame bindings, for example Marker-Duke, all hole positions are relative to the boot toe (including the centre and heel holes). It has to be like this (as the binding is a fixed length on the ski) but it is not clear in bindinddata.csv that the heel and centre holes are in fact relative to the toe. I think this could also be better explained in variables.