-
Entering angles-left/right and deflections-left/right
In another thread, [msg=16029]entry of quadrant bearings[/msg], i only asked about the name of a method, but the discussion took off and became about actual alternative methods of bearing/azimuth entry. Some replies included methods for entering angles-left/right and deflections-left/right, and i thought i should start a new thread.
HP angle codes (given by Dennis Everett):
NE 1
SE 2
SW 3
NW 4
AZ 5 (azimuth)
AL 6 (angle left)
AR 7 (angle right)
DL 8 (deflection left)
DR 9 (deflection right)LL angle codes (given by Jim Frame and paraphrased by me):
NE 1
AZ 1 (azimuth)
SE 2
SW 3
NW 4
AL -5 (angle left)
AR 5 (angle right)
DL -6 (deflection left)
DR 6 (deflection right)I like the idea of the HP or LL methods summarized above, and would consider them if starting from scratch (building land survey software).
However, Copan already has a well-established method of entering azimuths and bearings, and i’ve now got (from the other thread) two possibilities for adding a quicker method of entering bearings.
Copan also already has a means of entering angle-left/right and deflection-left/right in its COGO module:
, +
, –
, +
, – -
where spaces are optional and
is the backsight point number
is the at point number
is the angle-right value
is the angle-left value
is the deflection-right value - is the deflection-left value
In the cogo module, each traverse leg is stand-alone, hence the need to give point numbers for reference.Now here’s where i might borrow from the HP/LL idea:
In the Map Check and Map Trav modules in Copan, where non-trivial traverses are entered and closure is displayed, the current angle-left/right and deflection-left/right methods (used in cogo) don’t work. The reason has to do with how copan looks up stored coordinates in cogo versus temporary traverse coords in map-check/map-trav. I could modify those modules to work, but i could also add a modified HP/LL “angle code” method:
5/
-5/
6/
-6/-
or even
AR
AL
DR
DL-
which has the advantage of added clarity but the disadvantage of non-keypad use.
I’m not really asking a question, just thinking allowed, and welcome any thoughts on the matter.
I suggest you use the [msg=16029]earlier thread[/msg] if you specifically wish to discuss the entry of quadrant bearings and azimuths.
Thanks
-
7 Replies
-
HP Method
Those HP leading values are almost industry standard, in data collectors and CAD/COGO packages. Do not require your users to learn a new system, as it may turn most off from ever considering your product.
BTW, in most programs the default value is 7 (angle Right). Many programs when the prompt for an angle set 7 as the default which you can easily change. The then prompt for the last value used as you continue the data input.
Paul in PA
-
HP Method
The “HP” angle labeling convention was used by Maptech in the early 1980’s.
As Paul said don’t reinvent the wheel. -
Directional Entry: sexagesimal values
Many years ago, I wrote routines in Versacad cpl for surveying and highway design. Users of the program were mostly beginners just out of college. Entry had to be made easy and fast. As a consequence, after some trial-and-error, I developed the following system which seemed to work very well and required very little training or instruction. A personal proverb I worked by was:
.. The effectivness of a computer program is inversely proportional to the amount of training and support required.
Every time I wrote a program or routine, it was my guiding principle.directional entry
. angle right: dd.mmss
. angle left: -dd.mmss
. azimuth (north reference) add.mmss
. azimuth (south reference) asdd.mmss
. deflection right: ddd.mmss
. deflection left: d-dd.mmss
. bearings: n/sdd.mmsse/w
. quadrant ne q1dd.mmss
. quadrant nw q2dd.mmss
. quadrant sw q3dd.mmss
. quadrant se q4dd.mmssI realize that some prefer to have quadrants sequentially numbered clockwise. I, and many of my associates have always preferred anti-clockwise. It can not be assumed that either orientation is automatic or intuitive. The user has to be informed or, preferably, given a choice. Also, the programs accepted either upper or lower case alpha characters. There were a few users who would enter angles using the degree symbol along with symbols for minutes and seconds. In those cases, the program converted the degree symbol to a period, or decimal point, and stripped the minute and second symbols as well as any decimal points entered after the first.
Entry was such that the right hand was on the number key pad and the alpha characters were entered using the left hand. Entry was easy and fast.
As for those who state “don’t reinvent the wheel, I suggest looking at Apple: they do not follow status quo. The iPod, iPhone and iPad are definitely better wheels!” There’s a new generation taking over. Us old f’s are getting phased out.
Best of luck with your programming.
-
HP Method
They appear to be the same as used by the Olivetti and Monroe machines a generation before that.
-
Directional Entry: sexagesimal values
>
> I realize that some prefer to have quadrants sequentially numbered clockwise. I, and many of my associates have always preferred anti-clockwise. It can not be assumed that either orientation is automatic or intuitive……..>
Aren’t we taught in school to use the clockwise method anymore. I know I was in Geometry and Trigonometry in junior high all the way through college.
It intuitively makes sense to follow the rotation of a clock as well as the 360° rotation of a compass.:-/
Rob
-
Directional Entry: sexagesimal values
The real advantage of the HP system was that your fingers never left the 10-key pad. You could crank out an input series in any combination without ever having to move to the querty keys. Not moving your hands = FAST!
JBS
-
Directional Entry: sexagesimal values
I appreciate the comments, MLS, thanks.
I’m curious about two things:
If it’s logical to number quadrants anticlockwise, are your azimuths also anticlockwise? 😉
Are your highways designed by beginners? 😉 [one might guess that from your opening statements]
Log in to reply.