You better have all those statistics at your fingertips.
The first thing every title person asks me for are the reports showing the uncertainties.......
And if you go to court they ask for that before anything else....
The checkers too; I can't tell you how many times I've had to show my error ellipses to them......
MightyMoe, post: 383001, member: 700 wrote: You better have all those statistics at your fingertips.
Yes, absolutely. Since all measurements contain errors, being able to characterize the effects of random errors is an important part of professional practice. As modern specifications move toward specifying uncertainties as the ALTA/NSPS spec does, just lying about compliance doesn't seem like a very good option.
Hardly a day goes by without me having to produce uncertainties for someone
MightyMoe, post: 383028, member: 700 wrote: Hardly a day goes by without me having to produce uncertainties for someone
That's a great brand..."Photon Surveying" - Uncertainties at the speed of light! Call now for a quote.
MightyMoe, post: 383028, member: 700 wrote: Hardly a day goes by without me having to produce uncertainties for someone
The great thing about uncertainties is you'll discover that you don't have to "produce" them. They are always there regardless. When one gets comfortable with that, the professional question is how to describe the *limits* of the uncertainties in all of the quantities one has calculated from a load of mostly indirect measurements. That's where statistics enter the picture and allow a surveyor to make quite definite statements about unknown errors.
and 95% at that
MightyMoe, post: 383034, member: 700 wrote: and 95% at that
And 95% confidence is for nearly all practical land surveying purposes certainty. It has the advantage of being widely recognized in a way that "I shot 'er twice and the mean wasn't right on, but wasn't too far off" isn't, and being able to say that there is only a 5% chance that the error is 50% greater or less is part of what measurement quality means.
Nate The Surveyor, post: 382848, member: 291 wrote: I would hazard a guess that those who decide to "Go Javad" are not of the flavor to do "quick and dirty" surveying. Those who bother to go this route, are looking for the very best they can.
You're painting with a VERY broad brush my friend. JAVAD makes the cheapest receiver I'm aware of, period. If I wanted the absolute cheapest receiver I could find I'd buy a triumph-2. You associate JAVAD with quality, I associate it with being cheap. No connotation intended.
A neat idea. Although I think that having that detector on the rod would make it all too tempting to
a) dig for the monument with the rod or
b) just shoot the hot signal and not dig at all.
Nevertheless, a pocket sized detector might be something I could go for.
A neat idea. Although I think that having that detector on the rod would make it all too tempting to
a) dig for the monument with the rod or
b) just shoot the hot signal and not dig at all.
Nevertheless, a pocket sized detector might be something I could go for.
Duane Frymire, post: 382957, member: 110 wrote: Am I correct that an rtk location can't be analyzed with a least squares program
Well, no, you are not. I've used several different receiver/data collector combinations and they all have the capacity to export vectors with covariance data. An exception was a Leica GS15/Microsurvey Fieldgenius combo which couldn't transfer covariance data. But that was a bug, not a fundamental feature.
The trouble with RTK is not the technology itself, but that all too many users suppose as you have supposed. It is a tool for making measurements, not a magic box coordinate generator.
Mark Mayer, post: 383096, member: 424 wrote: Well, no, you are not. I've used several different receiver/data collector combinations and they all have the capacity to export vectors with covariance data. An exception was a Leica GS15/Microsurvey Fieldgenius combo which couldn't transfer covariance data. But that was a bug, not a fundamental feature.
The trouble with RTK is not the technology itself, but that all too many users suppose as you have supposed. It is a tool for making measurements, not a magic box coordinate generator.
Actually I didn't suppose that, but was trying to figure out what Kent was saying. Turns out he was saying it couldn't be with JAVAD and others have said it can be.
But more to the point, I'm trying to figure out the real value in doing it. What it will do for analysis and what it will not. Of course it's not magic (although I like to call it that) but it's not edm combined with angle turning either.
Frankly, I think there are misconceptions coming from experienced users when it comes to rtk. But I could be wrong.
Either a Surveyor will take personal responsibility to provide professional services or they want. The equipment is secondary to a person's ethics. The computer, data collector, total station, plotter and GPS receiver has given the the unethical imitation surveyor the ability to increase the volume of imitation surveys. To say the equipment is the problem misses the root problem. This is like legislation to limit the manufacture of firearms instead of determining who should have the legal right to own them. To criticize new technology because it can be abused is an irrational augurement.
In the past, I have appreciated some of Kent's comments on RTK, as they have challenged me to review my procedures to be sure that I knew what I know. I also appreciate the procedures and comments from the Pro RTK camp. I have changed some of my procedures and I am very confident that my results can be defended. A person that does not even consider the possibility that an approach with which they are not familiar can have adequate results will eventually lose their credibility. The main reason I like this board is that I am challenged to consider different possibilities. Please cuss the sloppy practitioner and not the technology.
Either a Surveyor will take personal responsibility to provide professional services or they want. The equipment is secondary to a person's ethics. The computer, data collector, total station, plotter and GPS receiver has given the the unethical imitation surveyor the ability to increase the volume of imitation surveys. To say the equipment is the problem misses the root problem. This is like legislation to limit the manufacture of firearms instead of determining who should have the legal right to own them. To criticize new technology because it can be abused is an irrational augurement.
In the past, I have appreciated some of Kent's comments on RTK, as they have challenged me to review my procedures to be sure that I knew what I know. I also appreciate the procedures and comments from the Pro RTK camp. I have changed some of my procedures and I am very confident that my results can be defended. A person that does not even consider the possibility that an approach with which they are not familiar can have adequate results will eventually lose their credibility. The main reason I like this board is that I am challenged to consider different possibilities. Please cuss the sloppy practitioner and not the technology.
Either a Surveyor will take personal responsibility to provide professional services or they want. The equipment is secondary to a person's ethics. The computer, data collector, total station, plotter and GPS receiver has given the the unethical imitation surveyor the ability to increase the volume of imitation surveys. To say the equipment is the problem misses the root problem. This is like legislation to limit the manufacture of firearms instead of determining who should have the legal right to own them. To criticize new technology because it can be abused is an irrational augurement.
In the past, I have appreciated some of Kent's comments on RTK, as they have challenged me to review my procedures to be sure that I knew what I know. I also appreciate the procedures and comments from the Pro RTK camp. I have changed some of my procedures and I am very confident that my results can be defended. A person that does not even consider the possibility that an approach with which they are not familiar can have adequate results will eventually lose their credibility. The main reason I like this board is that I am challenged to consider different possibilities. Please cuss the sloppy practitioner and not the technology.
Either a Surveyor will take personal responsibility to provide professional services or they want. The equipment is secondary to a person's ethics. The computer, data collector, total station, plotter and GPS receiver has given the the unethical imitation surveyor the ability to increase the volume of imitation surveys. To say the equipment is the problem misses the root problem. This is like legislation to limit the manufacture of firearms instead of determining who should have the legal right to own them. To criticize new technology because it can be abused is an irrational augurement.
In the past, I have appreciated some of Kent's comments on RTK, as they have challenged me to review my procedures to be sure that I knew what I know. I also appreciate the procedures and comments from the Pro RTK camp. I have changed some of my procedures and I am very confident that my results can be defended. A person that does not even consider the possibility that an approach with which they are not familiar can have adequate results will eventually lose their credibility. The main reason I like this board is that I am challenged to consider different possibilities. Please cuss the sloppy practitioner and not the technology.
geopro_consultants, post: 383090, member: 9959 wrote: You're painting with a VERY broad brush my friend. JAVAD makes the cheapest receiver I'm aware of, period. If I wanted the absolute cheapest receiver I could find I'd buy a triumph-2. You associate JAVAD with quality, I associate it with being cheap. No connotation intended.
The reason it is less expensive, is that there are no dealer costs.
And, then they totally re inventing the "cogo, and data flow" of a job. It requires some learning. With a product that requires learning, you cannot just hand it to your crew, show several things, and out the door. And, after just a few bumps, you are good.
It is really quite simple... but you simply MUST understand SPC, rotations, and projections, and scale factors.
IF I were in charge of designing the LS, I'd have made it a near clone cousin, of the best of TDS, and the BEST of carlson, along with the many improvements I see would go there nicely. And then put the "magic that is Javad" on the coordinate collection, and stakeout side. This would have hit the market easy, and made a tidy profit.
Somebody else went to the drawing board, with a DIFFERENT vision, and started with the VERY BEST GPS engine, and built around this, and it has very little of previously existing cogo, or procedure in it.
So, it takes a bit to get used to, in a productivity environment.
I don't think you can even do an angular stakeout with it yet. It has inverse, and I think you'd have to subtract the azimuths, or bearings to do that.
(That would be so you can set up 2 nails in a field, and stake a corner in the trees)
No matter. The GPS engine would probably allow you to stake it, and the amount of time spent would probably be less, than the total station mechanism, in most situations.
N
geopro_consultants, post: 383090, member: 9959 wrote: You're painting with a VERY broad brush my friend. JAVAD makes the cheapest receiver I'm aware of, period. If I wanted the absolute cheapest receiver I could find I'd buy a triumph-2. You associate JAVAD with quality, I associate it with being cheap. No connotation intended.
The reason it is less expensive, is that there are no dealer costs.
And, then they totally re inventing the "cogo, and data flow" of a job. It requires some learning. With a product that requires learning, you cannot just hand it to your crew, show several things, and out the door. And, after just a few bumps, you are good.
It is really quite simple... but you simply MUST understand SPC, rotations, and projections, and scale factors.
IF I were in charge of designing the LS, I'd have made it a near clone cousin, of the best of TDS, and the BEST of carlson, along with the many improvements I see would go there nicely. And then put the "magic that is Javad" on the coordinate collection, and stakeout side. This would have hit the market easy, and made a tidy profit.
Somebody else went to the drawing board, with a DIFFERENT vision, and started with the VERY BEST GPS engine, and built around this, and it has very little of previously existing cogo, or procedure in it.
So, it takes a bit to get used to, in a productivity environment.
I don't think you can even do an angular stakeout with it yet. It has inverse, and I think you'd have to subtract the azimuths, or bearings to do that.
(That would be so you can set up 2 nails in a field, and stake a corner in the trees)
No matter. The GPS engine would probably allow you to stake it, and the amount of time spent would probably be less, than the total station mechanism, in most situations.
N
Nate The Surveyor, post: 383120, member: 291 wrote:
I don't think you can even do an angular stakeout with it yet. It has inverse, and I think you'd have to subtract the azimuths, or bearings to do that.
(That would be so you can set up 2 nails in a field, and stake a corner in the trees)
Nate, you can do this with the CoGo Triangle function but I agree it would be better to have a separate stakeout function for total stations.
Sorry, duplicate post