Aloha,
I was overwhelmed by the amount of support shown and help provided by the Forum members with my recent post about detecting blunders and errors with traverse loop.
I have a lot of respect for this profession and the professionals who practice it. It just when up several notches! Not because the help I was given but the tenacity, the analytical and investigative mind power possessed by all of you.
I learned in the past couple days that surveyor don't just survive but thrive when they are faced with challenges.
I learned that pushing buttons are easy when all is well. But when something do not go as intended the skill to utilize the art and science of these profession needed!
I learned that you all are so passionate about what you do that you are willing to sacrifice so much.
MAHALO, MAHALO, MAHALO!:-)
It's been 10 hrs since you posted that. I didn't read it as I've been out and about and it got really long, but have many of your other posts.
All the things you mention about our passion of our profession is true.
It's that passion and the gods will of Wendell and his gang to put us all together. So here we are enjoying it all.
Bless you yswami (I don't know any South Pacific lingo, but I'm sure there is a short word for it)
Back in the flatlands of MI we'd just raise a toast with a "yahooski". Until the next toast, and the next one.... oh never mind.
Cheers 🙂
> I was overwhelmed by the amount of support shown and help provided by the Forum members with my recent post about detecting blunders and errors with traverse loop.
My inner Jim Frame requires me to mention that many of us land surveyors just like puzzles and my inner Kent McMillan just likes to see things done properly. What I think motivated both of us (figuratively speaking) was a desire to work the puzzle you presented and for you to go forward and do things properly. :>
Those are kind words.
I was going to chime in on that post about the redundant point labeling on check shots. There was so many responses, I thought it would be addressed sufficiently.
But I do it different way. In TDS or FG, if we checked into a control point such as # 8, software would assign a new pt. # but we would give AKA8 as the description.
Also Williwaw advice on check backsite is mandatory for all set-ups. Not only to verify target and HIs but making sure one is sighting the correct point.
Aloha, Wayne:
You can pretty much get away with "da kine" in any situation here. 😀
>
> Bless you yswami (I don't know any South Pacific lingo, but I'm sure there is a short word for it)
>
Aloha, Kent:
I love both your "inner you!" I read almost all your comments on this forum and admire you push toward precision and accuracy. I will admit, I am yet to put everything into practice. I think you and others have nudged me toward doing things properly.
For my own education and refinement in surveying, I have decided to redo the loop with force centering method!
Thank you!
>
> My inner Jim Frame requires me to mention that many of us land surveyors just like puzzles and my inner Kent McMillan just likes to see things done properly. What I think motivated both of us (figuratively speaking) was a desire to work the puzzle you presented and for you to go forward and do things properly. :>
Aloha, Robert:
Thank you for additional thought.
Carlson SurvNet requires the redundant point's description to =8 That is why I think Kent's suggestion of giving the number and alphabet would take care of the challenge there.
Yes, I took Williwaw suggestion very seriously and will not make any exception to it in all my work for now on. Thank you for reinforcing that again! :hi5:
Aloha
> But I do it different way. In TDS or FG, if we checked into a control point such as # 8, software would assign a new pt. # but we would give AKA8 as the description.
> Also Williwaw advice on check backsite is mandatory for all set-ups. Not only to verify target and HIs but making sure one is sighting the correct point.
