2022
I was asked to send comments and requests for the new coordinate system being designed. There are some choices to be made. Basically, they would like to know what surveyors would like to see. One state zone, the existing zones, LDP’s. I would like to see all three choices. Getting LDP coverage with official projections would get GIS users to incorporate them.
It also appears that they are considering shifting the projections off the ellipsoid to make them closer to ground, this may only be out west and not in the flat land states.
Anyway, send in your comments to the NGS office for your region.
- 12 Replies
I would like to see a system that defines what is zero elevation and all on one worldly GPS system and build from there up with local abnormalities.
…
It also appears that they are considering shifting the projections off the ellipsoid to make them closer to ground, this may only be out west and not in the flat land states.
…
Psst, that sounds like a LDP, don’t tell Kent.
A Harris should be very happy with the design for the new reference frame planned for 2022. NAVD 88 (and the various island vertical datums) will be replaced by the North American-Pacific Geopotential Datum of 2022 (NAPGD 2022) with an internationally adopted equipotential number of 62,636,856.0 m2/s2 as the origin definition for global mean sea level, while NAD 83 will be replaced with the International Terrestrial Reference Frame of 2014 at epoch 2020.00, another global standard. The only difference from his post is that this reference frame will be accessed by the full range of GNSS constellations (GPS, Galileo, Beidou and Glonass).
Psst, that sounds like a LDP, don’t tell Kent.
psst, kent doesn’t care. (he’s re-re-ret… i can’t even type the word out.)
Dang. If Kent retired, the world is worse off in two ways. 1) it lost the services of a very highly skilled and thorough surveyor, and 2) he has more time to argue with someone in whatever venue.
.Kent does not appear the type to retire.
He called upon me to go to some noman’s place called Clarksville to do some research and I could not abide because that is way off my route and was not going to ruin a day by going there.
I tought he was spotted a week ago at a seminar until I remembered he would have never been caught at one.
happy trails dude
NGS did accept comments from any interested parties during the public comment period for their Federal Register Notice on the draft SPC2022 policy and procedures documents. The public comment period closed on August 31, 2018. The final documents should be released in early 2019. Unless something changes, states will have until the end of 2019 to send their consensus request to NGS. Input will only be accepted from the NGS defined stakeholder groups (defined in the procedures document) being State DOT’s (or other state agencies in conjunction with the DOT), academia, State GIS associations, and State surveying associations. Those groups may seek comments from their members, but the NGS will not recognize them if they are sent directly from the individuals. Additionally, all of the stakeholder groups must come to a consensus or the NGS will implement their “default designs” as defined in the P & P documents. A state may get their “traditional” SPC zones (we have 6 in California), plus a statewide zone, under the “layered zone” option, but they would not get LDPs in addition to those. I think the idea of shifting the projection surface to closer to the average for the zone coverage will happen, unless a state requests otherwise. For example, most of the population of California is in the coastal zones, so we have requested (and will formally do so later) that a population weighting algorithm be applied to coastal states. It makes no sense to reduce distortion where few people live and little work is done and greatly increase the distortion along the coastal zone.
Michael Dennis, SPC2022 project manager for NGS, is giving another webinar to update on January 10, 2019.
https://geodesy.noaa.gov/web/science_edu/webinar_series/state-plane-coordinates-3.shtml
I called Kent about a month ago to discuss a theory on an H&GN RR Co Survey and left a message when he didn’t answer. Something I read said he is no longer in Austin and he has yet to return my call. I was going to ask here if that was the case but thought better of it. He was usually very willing to offer information and has been very helpful over the years.
Something I read said he is no longer in Austin
I believe he lives in Wimberly now. He’s active on Facebook, you can probably get through to him there.
Something I read said he is no longer in Austin
I believe he lives in Wimberly now. He’s active on Facebook, you can probably get through to him there.
In these parts moving to wimberley = hanging up the boots and taking up wine tasting.
Nope. My liberterian views are such that we are no longer facebook friends. I’ve long since moved on with the question and will not pursue a return call at this time.
I’d imagine the resulting new map would/should look something like this:
Log in to reply.