-
NGS Webinar Apr 25 on the fate of the US Survey foot
I am curious how they intend to eliminate the need to worry about the difference in US foot vs International foot. They could easily make the 2022 SPC replacements all in international feet, but there are many states with a legislated choice for US Survey feet.
https://www.ngs.noaa.gov/web/science_edu/webinar_series/Webinars.shtml
-
112 Replies
-
While I [kinda] plan on watching the Webinar, I have serious doubts about the “need” for any such discussion @ the NGS.
I believe that the NGS SHOULD just return EVERYTING in Meters, and leave it up to the end-users (State, Local, whatever) to decide which foot, cubit, vara, Smoot, or WHATEVER serves their purpose.
Just my 2 bits
Loyal
-
I agree with Loyal, the only thing coming out of NGS should be meters.
-
I couldn’t agree more. Just go metric already.
-
So Loyal, you have the same burr under your saddle blanket, eh?
The new datum will have a horizontal shift of approx. 4 feet from NAD83 (at least in Colorado).
+
Sprinkle that offset with the potential that the new North American Terrestrial Reference Frame of 2022 (NATRF2022) will adopt the International Foot instead of keeping the U.S. Survey Foot
=
Needless and nightmarish mass confusion
Why do I say this. With regard to the related North American Pacific Geopotential Datum of 2022 (NAPGD2022) I just got done reading an article by a “knowledgeable” surveyor who claimed that the current GPS on Benchmarks program will help build the hybrid geoid model of the 2022 datums….SIGH!
In all seriousness I hope a certain retired NGS Chief Geodetic Surveyor thrives well into his 90s presenting seminars on the 2022 datums!
-
Needless and nightmarish confusion?!?
Really?
Its just another conversion factor. The mathematics are a non-issue. If you just need it close (hikers and the like) then no worries. If you are a professional in the realm of measuring, it is expected that you would be both knowledgeable and capable of managing such data.
Bill does bring up an interesting point regarding laws and policies. Tough to change state law / county code in time for adoption. A certain county near me just swapped over from NGVD27 three years ago…….
-
Well, I’m glad you live and work in an area where ALL professionals are intellectually curious and always stay up to date with things.
-
Just say no to the metric system. Its been tried in this neck of the woods at the state levels with abysmal results. I can certainly do without it.
-
I too thought this webinar was to announce that NGS would no longer publish any values in feet, including heights, leaving it to each state to use there preferred conversion to their flavor of the foot. However, the presenter has assured me that there is much more to what will be presented and that a compelling case will be made for moving entirely to the international foot. As others have said, in many states (most) it is not easy or fast to change laws and codes and something like 40 or 41 states use the U.S Foot as their standard.
I will remain objective on the topic as I listen to what Dr. Dennis has to share with us.
-
I’m staying neutral on this topic, but whatever you think please let NGS know. It’s really important that your opinion is heard by those who will make the decisions.
-
I am sure many of you think all of these recalcitrant countries still using the archaic metric system should join us in using two kinds of feet…This map shows countries NOT using the metric system. How wrong all of the rest of them are…I mean how unnatural is it to use things based on a system of 10 (apologies to base9geodesy)…
-
I’m not sure it was abysmal. The stupid thing was going back after the effort of making the switch. I’m sure the first surveyor’s to go from chains to feet felt the same way.
-
I recall someone at NGS once stating that the the NGS felt they made a huge mistake when they left it up to the states for NAD 1983.
-
Those states are going to need to revisit there laws and codes anyway to adopt the new datum.
Several years ago Oregon transferred the definitions of coordinates systems from Statute to Administrative Rules which can easily be adjusted by a committee of those that use the systems on a day to day basis. I would suggest that other states look into this model before 2022.
-
-
Even before the the switch to administrative rule, in Oregon, the law was simply that SP zones of NAD27 were defined in US Feet, NAD83 in Int’l Feet. There was never any law that said that surveyor had to use one or the other in their daily work. And there still isn’t.
I’m a big fan of LDP’s.
Metric only becomes a problem when you switch back and forth. If you go metric and stay metric the pain only lasts a short time. I speak as a person who has worked in the metric system day to day, in Canada.
-
Can you recommend an appropriate email to direct comments to?
-
“Can you recommend an appropriate email to direct comments to? “
Watch the webinar and they will tell you how to submit your comments.
-
Maybe I’ll do that with my free hours. Right now I’m off to the field.
-
I was a big advocate for the switch to metric.
Until it happened with DOT.
That cured me.
It wasn’t as simple as I thought.
As far as U.S. or International feet, I’m neutral.
Log in to reply.