Further finding re the KM-published errata: Errat'ling the Errata.
#1056: Ashley is correct; the knots ARE identical (and can be show as such
in the orientations given (i.e., they're not mirror images).
#1077: I wonder in what material the commenter found this to be true? trying
the knot in a fine (2.5mm?) nylon (?) braided cord, with (only) 3 eyes, I don't get any slippage. --in 100#? test monofil w/5 eyes, ya, slips a bunch, quickly;
but in used 0.25 inch laid PP, w/6 eyes, loaded w/some pulley help, no/little slippage.
#1080: eh, debatable
#1083: "Bad" is in the eye of the user?! Perhaps the object is to make an eye with multiple
strands for the sake of comfort against one's body (as opposed to connecting to many
objects). In any case, the images are correct EXCEPT for the uppeRight one, where
the loop cast in the SPart is shown in reversed crossing (the SPart should be hindmost,
as in the lower left image). One can position the eye-to-eye continuation part differently,
more down in the SPart's loop/turn.
1100 comes on p.200, not 201. This comment refers to
#1110 & 2569. Yes, the righthand (completing tying) images are intended to be
identical, but at 1110 the lower close end of the arrow should extend to the 3rd line
from the left (i.e., crossing over one part & spanning the GAP before going under/behind
the part to the right (and then out of sight). And thus it shouldn't be shown in front
of this 2nd/rightside part.
#1121: Certainly topologically the knots are the same, and given Ashley's arrow
for how to tie 1121 it is to become the same. But in angler's images & instructions of
tying the "grinner" or "Uniknot", one can wonder if the symmetric, multi-overhand
form is intended, by the shifting of slick material, or ... what.
#1122: Given the truth about 1121 & 20, Ashley is correct, though referencing
the earlier and conspicuously formed knot would've been more perspicuous.
#1142: Ashley is correct, and the image beneath the star follows exactly as his
arrow indicates from the image above. [Again, it's surprising that some of these
citations got so far as hard ink--where are the eyes ...
#1155: Yes, a botched drawing (more a sort of graphical *typo* than an error).
#1182: Okay, cross-ref. (There's a reason the Strangle isn't so great for a line
of bindings: it's not easily tied tight w/o working and pulling on each end, which
will loosen material between hitches. Rather, the Seizing H. is used (though
this occurs but ONCE in Ashely, and not for such an application!).)
#1200: Again, the righthand image has a bad crossing; the knot should be #1253,
which is a good binder (better than #1252, IMHO). The center image as a rough
approximation of appearance is okay; otherwise, it's imprecise & wrong.
#1209: Eh, in many cases of casual use, the finger-on-knot is needed against some
flat surface, and the extra twist here is of little help there.
#1223: Hmmm, the setting isn't right for a Sheet Bend; but then, I don't see how
Ashley expects to get this topological equivalent of that asymmetric knot so "that
the parts are symmetrical." !?
#1233-4: The arrow in the rightside image for #1233 that finishes at the bottom
should have its rightwards finishing run be OVER-under (a non-crosing in fact)-under,
to match the 1234 lower left image (and the corresponding upper end).
#1250: Two aspects: firstly, the assertion that using a slip-tuck makes a knot
easily untied should be soundly rejected: many hard-loaded practical knots will make
budging that jammed slip-tuck impractical, and even if the end is hauled outwards,
likely the slight bulge of the bight tip will be sufficient to impede freeing the slip-tuck;
but I think that here Ashley intends the ring to attach to the rightmost image,
#1251 tied with a bight-flip. (His placement of such rating symbols varies.)
#1298-9: agree that the digit '8'=>'2'.
#1432/40/43: agree w/reference =>273.
#1467: Again, hogwash! (-:
p.273 table, ref.s: concur
#1697: Ashley is right, the comment wrong. I suspect that in reasonably flexible
natural-fiber rope such structures jammed practically tight with wet rope,
and that e.g. the oft' presented "Killick/Killeg/..." hitch was intended to similarly
jam tight around something--not used in the spaced Timber H - & - HHitch form
that might be used for hauling (valid use; just don't combine & confuse w/K.H.).
#3267: It's hard to tell what's right here. Certainly "in opposite ciruits" sounds
like the citation is correct; but the lefthand image is unambiguous. One COULD
see the binding as simply splitting the ends on either side of the initial Girth H.
(Bale Sling H.), and then one (lower) end brought from behind & below the wraps
to begin the crossing with the other.