John Hamilton, post: 449240, member: 640 wrote: Here is another one...
On August 2, 2017 they changed the receiver from a LEICA GRX1200GGPRO to a LEICA GR25, and the antenna from LEIAX1202GG to LEIAR10. I assume they put it on the same mount. Note the jump in position...
Now, maybe I misunderstand the purpose of antenna models, but shouldn't the antenna models take care of these differences?
Maybe they are waiting until X number of days with the new receiver/antenna to update the position?
2 cm in the vertical seems like antenna modeling. But 2 cm in northing is the eyebrow raiser.
Check with the NGS about photos taken of the old equipment.
Also, you might download data before and after the change and post-process with PARL. Maybe NGS hasn't updated the antenna model?
That is a possibility, Gene. The log has been updated, but maybe they have not updated their processing script. I did look at photos, but I don't know what those two antennas look like so i would not know the difference.
John, It looks like NGS has only updated some of their photos. This is a Leica AX1202GG antenna and included in the photos for PAPH.
They also have a photo of the serial number which is for the AR10?!?
And this is a photo of the Leica AR10 antenna with radome.
I submitted two 24 hour files for that station to Trimble Centerpoint, one before the change and one after the change. Both had sigmas of 2/5/6 mm (N/E/UP).
The inverse between the two is 0.0184 m in azimuth 165/345, 0.007 m in height. Possibly within the noise level of the RTX processing.
Okay, sorta on topic here;
I am just finishing up a little survey somewhere out in the Great Basin. It covers about 10 sq. miles, and there is a NON-CORS PBO station pretty close to the project, which I elected to use as my "center of the Universe" for post processing of Static and Rapid Static observations on site. So I decided to down load 10 days of 24 hour data from UNAVCO, and use OPUS to generate a NAD83(2011) Epoch 2010.000 coordinate estimate on it. The days are spread over 47 days, and were selected because those were the days Matt was actually in the field there (semi random).
Day UTM N (m) P-P UTM E (m) P-P NAD83 Eh P-P
-------------------------------------------------------------------
170 4377847.835 0.003 (m) 581662.239 0.010 (m) 1948.319(m) 0.026(m)
171 4377847.836 0.001 (m) 581662.239 0.009 (m) 1948.321(m) 0.022(m)
207 4377847.837 0.002 (m) 581662.239 0.010 (m) 1948.319(m) 0.018(m)
208 4377847.839 0.006 (m) 581662.238 0.009 (m) 1948.310(m) 0.008(m)
209 4377847.839 0.001 (m) 581662.239 0.009 (m) 1948.314(m) 0.018(m)
210 4377847.838 0.003 (m) 581662.238 0.012 (m) 1948.320(m) 0.027(m)
215 4377847.838 0.001 (m) 581662.237 0.010 (m) 1948.320(m) 0.030(m)
216 4377847.838 0.006 (m) 581662.238 0.011 (m) 1948.316(m) 0.020(m)
217 4377847.838 0.002 (m) 581662.240 0.007 (m) 1948.321(m) 0.024(m)
218 4377847.838 0.004 (m) 581662.239 0.008 (m) 1948.323(m) 0.027(m)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
0.004 0.003 0.013 P-P
The CORS I used (all UNAVCO and/or PBO) are situated 188.7 (Km) 117.3 Mi., 200.5 (Km) 124.6 Mi., and 238.5 (Km) 148.2 Mi. distant. In fact they are pretty much the CLOSEST CORS to the project.
I'd say that is pretty good agreement.
Loyal