Question for yswami
> I have question in this regard. The raw data process by Dave Karoly looks nice and clean. The same data looks so confusing in SurvNet (Carlson). I wonder what is the best way to clean up the data like Dave and Kent posted in Carlson's SurvNet? See attached screenshot.
Okay, I may be misunderstanding what you're asking. The input files Dave and I posted are from Star*Net, which was originally developed by StarPlus software and is now sold by MicroSurvey, not Carlson.
The real power of Star*Net is that it has an editable ascii text input file that can have a format that reads pretty much like a field book. The user can edit and combine different files as desired.
[pre]
.Units FeetUS
.Units DMS
.Order FromAtTo
.Sep -
.3D
.DELTA OFF
.INST ELTA50x2
# At Spike 679
DV 679-680 140.9312 89-07-22.40 5.650/4.935 'SPIKE.WASHER
M 680-679-678 179-59-11.95 46.0070 91-20-30.50 5.650/4.935 'SPIKE.WASHER
DV 679-680 140.9323 89-07-19.75 5.650/4.935 'SPIKE.WASHER
M 680-679-678 179-59-12.50 46.0075 91-20-31.50 5.650/4.935 'SPIKE.WASHER
DV 679-680 140.9330 89-07-22.00 5.650/4.935 'SPIKE.WASHER
M 680-679-250 89-37-11.50 132.7868 90-58-39.75 5.650/4.935 'SPIKE.WASHER
DV 679-680 140.9313 89-07-17.25 5.650/4.935 'SPIKE.WASHER
M 680-679-250 89-37-11.50 132.7867 90-58-41.25 5.650/4.935 'SPIKE.WASHER
# At Spike 678
DV 678-680 186.9252 89-13-00.50 5.620/4.935 'SPIKE.WASHER
M 680-678-251 90-15-28.50 117.2155 91-39-32.50 5.620/4.935 'SPIKE.WASHER
DV 678-680 186.9260 89-12-57.25 5.620/4.935 'SPIKE.WASHER
M 680-678-251 90-15-30.25 117.2113 91-39-33.25 5.620/4.935 'SPIKE.WASHER
# At Spike 250
DV 250-679 132.7763 89-22-51.25 5.075/4.935 'SPIKE.WASHER
#M 679-250-251 288-34-32.25 49.9142 91-53-32.50 5.075/4.935 'SPIKE.WASHER
DV 250-679 132.7788 89-22-51.50 5.075/4.935 'SPIKE.WASHER
M 679-250-6 92-30-19.25 209.1465 88-07-03.25 5.075/4.935 'SPIKE.WASHER
# At Spike 680
DV 680-679 140.9613 91-27-55.50 5.680/4.935 'SPIKE.WASHER
M 679-680-6 243-53-32.25 156.5143 88-57-56.75 5.680/5.935 'SPIKE.WASHER
DV 680-679 140.9642 91-27-54.50 5.680/4.935 'SPIKE.WASHER
M 679-680-6 243-53-34.50 156.5143 88-57-56.25 5.680/5.935 'SPIKE.WASHER
[/pre]
SurvNet Raw Data view
Aloha, Norman:
Let's hope someone familiar with SurvNet will chime in.
I am no expert and new to the software...
SurvNet will only open .RW5 format. So I import TDS .RAW into the RW5 editor then save it as .RW5. Attached is the screenshots how it looks in the editor within SurvNet.
I need to clean it up...but not sure how. Perhaps I'll post a separate question on the subject to get more attention. 🙂
Thank you Mark.
> I have only the briefest of experience with Carlson SurvNet. Perhaps others could advise on this matter better than I can. What you are looking at in your screen cap is the raw pointing data. The starnet stuff Dave and Kent have posted is reduced to angles. Are you importing to SurvNet via the RW5 editor? Isn't there an alternate method of converting the data inside SurvNet that yeilds data that looks more like StarNet?
Question for yswami
Aloha, Kent:
What I have is SurvNet which is part of Carlson Survey.
I don't have Star*Net. I was just wondering how to create i.e. clean my data so that it looks like what you and Dave shared here.
I hope I am making sense.
Thank you.
>
> Okay, I may be misunderstanding what you're asking. The input files Dave and I posted are from Star*Net, which was originally developed by StarPlus software and is now sold by MicroSurvey, not Carlson.
>
> The real power of Star*Net is that it has an editable ascii text input file that can have a format that reads pretty much like a field book. The user can edit and combine different files as desired.
Question for yswami you Dave!
Aloha, Dave:
Thanks. I understand this now.
> Point 7 should always be Point 7. If you want to collect more sets to point 7 the DC will ask if you want to overwrite or collect more observations or something like that, you want to collect more observations. Then your DC will store the angles to the correct point number.
>
> This way a least squares program can process and adjust using all the data to that point.
Aloha, Ruel:
Thank you for sharing this!
> Back in the day (pre-Star Net), if I found that I had an angular blunder, I most-times would be able to find out where it occurred thus:
>
> Using the unadjusted angles, run unadjusted traverses each direction. Where the coordinates came together, most likely the source of the bust.
> > ....Surveyors are addicted to math like it's crack.
> When Mulford wrote that having a bad position on the right point is better than a good position on the wrong one he did not intend to endorse mediocre positioning.
Yeah, the actual expert surveyor recognizes that having an excellent position on the right point is the object of professional surveying. It probably wouldn't make much of a snake oil seminar peddling expertise by the bottle, though.
Question for yswami
> Survey Pro will not allow duplicate point numbers. It had to unique.
Wow. That's crazy. I suppose if I were stuck with something like that, I'd add an alphabetic suffix to the point number to make the numbers easy to correct when the data was exported to Star*Net. So repeat shots to Pt.7 would be Pts. 7a, 7b, etc.
Best file format/converter for Starnet
> > I have question in this regard. The raw data process by Dave Karoly looks nice and clean. The same data looks so confusing in SurvNet (Carlson). I wonder what is the best way to clean up the data like Dave and Kent posted in Carlson's SurvNet? See attached screenshot.
>
If I might jump into the party and ask Yswami's question a slightly different way:
If Starnet can output a nicely readable format, what is the best file format to use to get it into Starnet? I know there's been discussion of various file types, but can they go directly from the DC to Starnet, or does one need to purchase one of the converters mentioned on Microsurvey's website? If so, which is the best to use to get from either SurvNet or SurveCe? Heck, might as well ask about Magnet too while I'm at it.
We now return this hijack to Yswami's regularly scheduled thread...:-)
Question for yswami
Aloha, Kent:
That was a brilliant idea. I just pulled out my DC and tried adding alphabetic suffix it worked!
>
> Wow. That's crazy. I suppose if I were stuck with something like that, I'd add an alphabetic suffix to the point number to make the numbers easy to correct when the data was exported to Star*Net. So repeat shots to Pt.7 would be Pts. 7a, 7b, etc.
Best file format/converter for Starnet
Thanks rfc! 😀
>
> We now return this hijack to Yswami's regularly scheduled thread...:-)
I knew the mere mention of Lucas would get you going Kent:-)
Question for yswami
I own a copy of SurvNet, haven't used it in years.
SurvNet uses the Carlson RW5 file straight out of the DC. The RW5 is not easy to read. Carlson provides Xport which makes the file easier to read and edit plus it seems to me you add your fixed control points in there.
StarNet uses a more readable DAT format.
Best file format/converter for Starnet
> If Starnet can output a nicely readable format, what is the best file format to use to get it into Starnet? I know there's been discussion of various file types, but can they go directly from the DC to Starnet, or does one need to purchase one of the converters mentioned on Microsurvey's website?
I don't have a version beyond Ver.6, but I understand that the converters from various DC formats are built into the later releases. You don't have to purchase them as separate programs as Ver.6 users do.
As far as functionality, I can vouch for Star*SDR working fine and generating essentially ready-to-run input files. I just add comment lines to improve legibility. Part of the reason for that is almost certainly that the SDR file format was well thought out, stable, and well documented when the converter was written.
> I knew the mere mention of Lucas would get you going Kent:-)
Well POB Magazine has been hawking $300 "discounts" on his latest traveling medicine show. By my estimate, that would mean that attendees are owed $275 once the discount is applied.
I mentioned that previously.
But nobody paid attention.
I think there may be problems with Zenith Angle usage.
But everyone wants to use StarNet.
Maybe using a sledgehammer to kill a fly?
I mentioned that previously.
But nobody paid attention.
I think there may be problems with Zenith Angle usage.
But everyone wants to use StarNet.
Maybe using a sledgehammer to kill a fly?
I never saw where you did an angular closure on the traverse.
That's usually the first thing you do before any traverse calculations.
i.e total sum of n angles = (n-2)*180 (for a closed figure)
ex. So for a triangle total = 180
Then correct each angle by error/n
> I never saw where you did an angular closure on the traverse.
> That's usually the first thing you do before any traverse calculations.
> i.e total sum of n angles = (n-2)*180 (for a closed figure)
The angular misclosure was 01'17" which is large, but not unlikely for a traverse with so many short legs using the centering methods reportedly used.
Aloha, Bob:
You are right!
I saw the mis-closure which was significant in my mind--my initial impulse was to redo the whole traverse again. Then it occurred to me that I can post the questions on how to troubleshoot it. I was looking for steps to do it. But in return I received generous help! I was amazed how amazingly helpful many of you are!!:party:
I am in the process of creating a workflow with blunders and error detection procedures. I will add your suggestion below to this.
Thank you so much Bob!
> I never saw where you did an angular closure on the traverse.
> That's usually the first thing you do before any traverse calculations.
> i.e total sum of n angles = (n-2)*180 (for a closed figure)
>
> ex. So for a triangle total = 180
>
> Then correct each angle by error/n
Kent McMillan, questions for you
Aloha, Kent:
May I trouble you with couple more questions here based on your reply to BobKrohn?
1. Due to topography of the land I had to have so many short legs. However, if I create a line of sight between Pt. 22 and 29 do you think I will give worthwhile angular closure? It is a fairly thick wall of Banyan (Ficus Benjamina) but doable.
2. You implied in the note there is another method of centering that might improve the angular misclosure. I used prism poles instead of tripods for my back sight and foresight--as I was not confident that I'll measure the vertical accurately.
Anything you (or others) can share will be immensely appreciated!
Mahalo!
>
> The angular misclosure was 01'17" which is large, but not unlikely for a traverse with so many short legs using the centering methods reportedly used.
>
>