Activity Feed › Discussion Forums › GNSS & Geodesy › State Plane practices
-
It depends on your data collector. Trimble Access manages your observations when started with GNSS observations whether it’s GNSS or total station or both because when starting with GNSS, points are stored as latitude and longitude- nit coordinates. I’m not sure how survey pro handles data.
-
In recent years I’ve done time with Access running on a TSC3 and a TSC7, Survey Pro on a TSC3, Magnet on a Tesla and an FC5000, and Captivate on a CS20. I also had a day with SurvCE on a I-dont-know -what. Every one of those will run both GPS and TS. Any dc bought in the last 10 years – and kept anywhere near updated – that can’t run both has got to be pretty obscure.
-
Out of all of those… for the most part, which did you like best right off the bat? I use MicroSurvey FieldGenius (Windows tablets / Android still WIP) with Leica RTS’s and Emlid receivers.
Trimble seems the cleanest overall… Captivate is nice too. Hate SurveyPro and SurvCE/SurvPC.
But yes, depends on your equipment… i.e. Trimble equipment with Trimble Access etc.
-
This Survey Pro tutorial says if you configure your job to state plane the GNSS and TS observations are scaled to grid. Easy Peasy. Trust but verify. You should disagree with calibrating a state plane grid job. The purpose of calibration is to determine a scale which is already programmed. If something isn’t fitting there are other issues.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0T5EDyaFI9k- This reply was modified 3 months ago by Norm.
-
“Out of all of those… for the most part, which did you like best right off the bat?”
In the long run I Iiked Access best and Survey Pro least, but the gap between best and least is pretty narrow. Right off the bat – Survey Pro was probably the easiest learning curve.
I’m currently working with Captivate. Circumstances are such that I probably will be for the duration of my career. I’m comfortable with that.
But I only mention those softwares I’ve used in the recent past. Those that are still an option in more or less the form they were in when I used them. My experience with dc software goes back to SMI and TDS running on HP48s in the mid 90’s.
- This reply was modified 2 months, 4 weeks ago by Norman_Oklahoma.
-
If you haven’t already done so, call the photogrammetrist or lidar team and discuss your issues with them and ask about the accuracy capabilities of the equipment they’ll be using. Their standards, ASPRS Vol 1 or 2, require triple on double accuracy (RMSE or 67% confidence level) of the control/check points. If their deliverable is a 2′ contour interval topo, you’d be hard pressed to find somewhere in America where a photo panel could be observed from the air but a R12i or Carlson BRx7 or similar base/rover setup couldn’t obtain the required accuracy. An RTK base/rover kit with twin R12i receivers, data collector, poles etc. is $375/day at Duncan-Parnell: “https://www.duncan-parnell.com/geospatial-equipment-for-rent”.
Any solution to your problem that doesn’t involve ground to grid conversion will be the preferred solution. A conversation with the photogrammetrist may reveal that you could have a bit more uncertainty in horizontal positions on a couple of points, which may allow you to quickly run levels while getting a good enough horizontal shot with direct GNSS occupation. It’s likely that some of your shots will be held as fixed control acting as a sort of H & Z anchor, while others are simple checks against major errors and might have an acceptable error range of a quarter of a foot or more.
You may be chasing hundredths when the tools used by the photogrammetrist cannot realize your precision.
-
I appreciate the reply,
But I am not stressing about hundredths, not renting equipment, and the targets’ positions have been determined already based on the only possible position for them. Not only is it a less-than-ideal site for GNSS, it’s sister’ed with a heavy construction project we’re doing as well. So it’s busy, and some “better” spots for targets end of being staging areas for heavy equipment for example.The site and construction is on top of hill/mountain, with many multi-story buildings on a topographically diverse landscape, where some of the targets go. The others are on the narrow canyon roads below with power lines, houses and trees, and some on the neighboring ridges surrounding (which I will hike to).
Plain and simple, it’s a challenging area for GNSS work. I already have tried to get signal in every location.
Some of them I got good results, the others have to be traversed in.And that’s where this post originated, as I was curious about common field practices related to that aspect.
- This reply was modified 3 months ago by Native1.
-
good video. I learned about lat/long being the “true” measured positions, and grid coordinates are the calc’d ones. If you have lat/long and elevation, you can always re-establish things.
Also was interesting seeing the comparisons of the 3 different methods of establishing scale factors.
-
Yes, the “combined” scaled factor explanation of the ground AND ellipsoid was very helpful… basically just to “squeeze” all the longer areas down to the smaller grid area beneath the surface at their intersections.
Some people are so smart and understand completely, they can just explain something seemingly complex very SIMPLY.
-
Funny. I use TA and the time I had to use Survey pro for a week it looked and functioned like simplistic program for a child. Too few options, features and not intuitive.
-
> I learned about lat/long being the “true” measured positions, and grid coordinates are the calc’d ones.
True, but only up to a point.
If you change your spheroid model even the lat/lon changes -
“… I use TA and the time I had to use Survey pro for a week it looked and functioned like simplistic program for a child. Too few options, features and not intuitive.”
Yup. That pretty much sums it up. Except that since I had cut my electronic data collection teeth on TDS many years previously Survey Pro was quite familiar, and therefore intuitive – to me.
Log in to reply.