Well, it's been an interesting spring. Armed with the knowledge learned from this thread:
https://surveyorconnect.com/index.php?mode=thread&id=312955
I headed out to continue gathering data for a 3D control network project. I soon found out that the joy of being out in the woods, gathering data has been almost completely wiped out by the challenges of learning two new software systems (SurvCE and TraversePC), not to mention the need for absolutely rigorous field procedures.
I started by using a combo of Jim Frame's and Kent's solution of keeping each day's work a separate job in SurvCE but immediately tripped myself up by choosing what I thought was the last point sighted to the previous day (but wasn't). I could never figure that one out, so just soldiered on for some days as the leaves were getting fuller by the minute, and wanted to take advantage of long shots in deep woods unfettered by deciduous obscuration.
Then, I made the mistake of incorrectly rotating and translating some, or all, (still trying to figure out which), of my previously gathered data, and in doing so, created a many duplicate points representing the same point to TPC (which would "go away") once reduced with LSA, but I'm far from even doing that yet, so put that problem aside for the moment. Plus the coordinates of my control file points seemed to change by the day, depending on what I brought into the mix. I'm now never sure that my back sight azimuths are true and correct and in sync with what I've done before.
It probably didn't help that I started out doing multitudes of D&R sets at each point, only to find that TPC treats these a little differently, and that SurvCE does some meaning itself when gathering. The result is 5 or 6 separate traverse segments, each connected to each other in some fashion (still working on tying them all together in some coherent manner) so that I can run LSA on the mess, and see what I've got.
I made further mistakes with my raw data by using point numbers that I had entered manually from an old survey (and hence no elevation data associated with them), rather than using a different numbering system to keep gathered data separate from "historical" data.
Spending the winter with Ghitani, Wolf, Davis Foote and Kelly seemed like a good idea at the time, but it sure isn't doing any good at the moment. This isn't about theory anymore...This is pure practice and experience (or a gross lack thereof). The ADD probably isn't helping any either. Just keeping track of naming and saving files appropriately, keeping raw data separate from the rest, is driving me crazy. Nothing's tied together yet; I can't even tell whether or if I have blunders in my field data. To put it bluntly, I've got a mess on my hands.
I'm not completely discouraged yet though. It could be I just have a long way to go to learn the software. Would any other software have been a better choice? Can't answer that yet. I'm putting my faith now in the concept that If I just keep gathering more data, and keep it safe from my own mucking with it, that eventually (once I learn more of what I'm doing in the office side of things), I'll be able to drag it all in again, edit mistakes, process it all correctly with LSA, and "publish" my beautiful, highly precise control network on my wife's 25 acres. Meanwhile I'm getting way behind making the detailed topo we need to site the pond, the guest house, the well, the septic system etc.
The days sure are beautiful though out in the deep woods, listening to the breeze in the trees, the birds chirping....
And the total station beeping away at the data collector; the data collector clicking back, telling each other "it's all good. We got this one!...The grasshopper just doesn't know it yet".B-)
> I started by using a combo of Jim Frame's and Kent's solution of keeping each day's work a separate job in SurvCE but immediately tripped myself up by choosing what I thought was the last point sighted to the previous day (but wasn't). I could never figure that one out, so just soldiered on ...
Okay, I'll bite. How in the world were you able to do that if the distance and height difference to the supposed backsight point didn't check the same measured forward? If your data collector doesn't flag that sort of stuff, this is all going to be more of the same.
Sounds like your office work is gonna be much longer than your field work.
Hope that you kept some paper notes to sort thru your raw data and assemble your traverse correctly. If not your memory best be sharp.
You could train yourself in the office or anywhere with your equipment setup and go thru the motions of turning angles, side shots and traverse to get it worked out before going on an actual job. If you have refelectorless it will be simple. If not just set some prisms around everywhere and just backsite one and foresight another and keep going. At first just go thru the motions and don't worry about doubles, learn the tool and what it does with the data before you begin to apply precision.
There is a 3 hub course in my backyard that every new Iman and every new gun and every new data collector and new gear goes thru before any thought of being on a job.
Download your data before applying any corrections to the data collector.
I find it much easier to do most corrections with the office software.
Double checking yourself is not wasting time, it is training.
good luck
> Okay, I'll bite. How in the world were you able to do that if the distance and height difference to the supposed backsight point didn't check the same measured forward? If your data collector doesn't flag that sort of stuff, this is all going to be more of the same.
I think it actually did, Kent. I vaguely remember one screen (I think it was either in the "set report", or immediately after the first back sight, that the DC reported something like: "Distance measured: 272'; calculated: 181'; Difference of 91'"...something like that.
I'd never seen it before, thought it might have had something to do with my previous day's office COGO party, so passed it by without too much thought. Those first days, I was completely lax in keeping the kind of copious notes, including sketches, as I'd taught myself to do, armed with only a field book and no DC. Big mistake. It probably would have alerted me to the fact that I wasn't where I thought I was.
I think I have everything to figure out how to align the two segments (assuming I haven't "stepped on" my original raw data file for either day). I just need to carefully piece it together. If not, once I finish tying several more points across the middle of the traverse as a check, I can go back and traverse across the "boundary" of the faux pas, thereby "splicing" the two together. It's going to suck though, because those blackberry bushes have a ton of thorns which were nowhere to be seen back in early April.