I get warm and fuzzy when I can finally express to the client that I'm 95 percent certain I have his corner.
matt8200, post: 383125, member: 6878 wrote:
Does the graphic notation of the triangle represent the data? It appears not to represent the tabular data for the Int. Angles etc
Maybe I'm seeing it Azzwackards.
Still trying to wrap my head around why everything needs to be stuffed in a box on a stick
MightyMoe, post: 383130, member: 700 wrote: I get warm and fuzzy when I can finally express to the client that I'm 95 percent certain I have his corner.
The more correct statement is "there's only a 5% chance that the position of this corner differs by more than ___ in Northing or Easting from that I've determined, which for all practical purposes means that the results of my survey are essentially exact and reliable."
matt8200, post: 383125, member: 6878 wrote:
Does the graphic notation of the triangle represent the data? It appears not to represent the tabular data for the Int. Angles etc
Maybe I'm seeing it Azzwackards.
Still trying to wrap my head around why everything needs to be stuffed in a box on a stick
matt8200, post: 383125, member: 6878 wrote:
Does the graphic notation of the triangle represent the data? It appears not to represent the tabular data for the Int. Angles etc
Maybe I'm seeing it Azzwackards.
Still trying to wrap my head around why everything needs to be stuffed in a box on a stick
matt8200, post: 383125, member: 6878 wrote:
Does the graphic notation of the triangle represent the data? It appears not to represent the tabular data for the Int. Angles etc
Maybe I'm seeing it Azzwackards.
Still trying to wrap my head around why everything needs to be stuffed in a box on a stick
Robert Hill, post: 383132, member: 378 wrote: Does the graphic notation of the triangle represent the data? It appears not to represent the tabular data for the Int. Angles etc
Maybe I'm seeing it Azzwackards.Still trying to wrap my head around why everything needs to be stuffed in a box on a stick
Robert if the user taps the graphic notation a map displaying the triangle with the data entered.
Adam, post: 383137, member: 8900 wrote: Robert if the user taps the graphic notation a map displaying the triangle with the data entered.
What does this represent?
Adam, post: 383137, member: 8900 wrote: Robert if the user taps the graphic notation a map displaying the triangle with the data entered.
What does this represent?
Duane Frymire, post: 383104, member: 110 wrote: 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.
The real value in adjusting vectors derived by GNSS methods is to lift the curtain on the black box and to determine what the actual uncertainties in the vectors are and to test process consistency (which has reliability implications), so that the uncertainties in quantities derived from those vectors can be realistically estimated. When one is working to a specification with survey accuracy provisions like those of the ALTA/NSPS, the standard way to demonstrate compliance with the specification is by uncertainty analysis via a least squares adjustment, and that requires dealing with GNSS vectors as stochastic quantities.
If one is using RTK as a magic box, all he or she gets is numbers, all of which are wrong by varying amounts and from which bearings and distances are computed that contain even greater errors of varying magnitudes. Without a powerful way of estimating the way in which the errors propagate through the survey results, that's just a drafting exercise.
Robert, you can say that again! 🙂
Wendell, the forum has been acting like it did NOT post, when it actually did.
N
Kent McMillan, post: 382862, member: 3 wrote: Well, isn't it a given that if you're using RTK you ARE sacrificing accuracy for speed? Most RTK users would say that all things considered, they don't need to have a really accurate result if they can get one that is close 'nuff and get it much faster. That's pretty much the whole sales pitch for RTK, right there.
This would be the exact same rationale for the Locate-a-Ping function. It would be so fast that it might well be adopted as a new standard!
No. This is not a given and is only the words of someone who has yet to test the equipment for themselves.
Nate The Surveyor, post: 383154, member: 291 wrote: Robert, you can say that again! 🙂
Wendell, the forum has been acting like it did NOT post, when it actually did.
N
Yep [USER=1]@Wendell[/USER] something is out of sync for replying and replying in conversation too. I thought it was my phone
Once they integrate a compass aligned with a disto into the unit, many dreams will be fulfilled.......
I have the opportunity to converse with some of the budget techs running RTK by the hour for a few surveyors that have streamlined their days to around 3hrs field time that absolutely rely upon the unit's ability to give an approval to each setup reading.
They never believe me nor care when I am concerned with my findings being different of theirs on a regular basis. After all, they are simply collecting data and setting points where the unit claim to be in the correct position.
Their mindset is that it is the licensed boss's job to decide to use what their collected data or not.
I am grateful to know some true gurus that are on the cutting edge of RTK technique and are getting the job done the way it should be done as their locations check very well with my TS work.
0.02
Once they integrate a compass aligned with a disto into the unit, many dreams will be fulfilled.......
I have the opportunity to converse with some of the budget techs running RTK by the hour for a few surveyors that have streamlined their days to around 3hrs field time that absolutely rely upon the unit's ability to give an approval to each setup reading.
They never believe me nor care when I am concerned with my findings being different of theirs on a regular basis. After all, they are simply collecting data and setting points where the unit claim to be in the correct position.
Their mindset is that it is the licensed boss's job to decide to use what their collected data or not.
I am grateful to know some true gurus that are on the cutting edge of RTK technique and are getting the job done the way it should be done as their locations check very well with my TS work.
0.02
Kris Morgan, post: 383162, member: 29 wrote: No. This is not a given and is only the words of someone who has yet to test the equipment for themselves.
Sure, of course it's a given that one can always get a more accurate result by methods other than RTK. So, the reason to use RTK isn't accuracy.
Kent's generous accusations are somewhat accurate, with the older and single engine RTK systems, especially when used without a manual verification process. I ALWAYS practiced a manual verification process. Even this, yielded sloppier work, that desirable, BUT when done properly, it did not contain large errors. (I posted an example of this above) It was an example of one of the LARGEST in my career.
I will say, that Javad has seriously automated, and streamlined that process, to such a degree, that it is not only on par with his own procedures, but has a number of situations that are superior. The integration of Post Processed vectors, is a part of this process.
What I think is hacking Kent, (And I agree with him), is he is REGULARLY finding errors, by RTK practitioners, in the magnitude of 1 foot, 3 feet, and more. Kent is RIGHT to eschew this unprofessional activity.
There is an old admonition, "Prove all things, hold fast that which is good" It is sure applicable here.
N
Robert Hill, post: 383134, member: 378 wrote: Still trying to wrap my head around why everything needs to be stuffed in a box on a stick
Well, Robert, it works, and it works well.
I don't think I ever want the DC and the GPS separated.
Yes, it is a change. But it works, and it opens doors.
Just the other day, I needed to set a corner. I got the GPS within 1/2 a foot of the position, (I-balling, and close estimation, with RTK engines) and Downloaded all the coords onto my thumb drive.
WHILE it was performing the observation.
Took the data to the laptop. Integrated the data, made new search locations, made new coords and put them on the thumb drive, went back to the LS, (which was done getting the observation) uploaded that data, and went back to work.
Different... yes, but Advantages? yes.
James Vianna, post: 382965, member: 120 wrote: I don't get the train of thought that because a position is repeatable it is accurate. You simply really don't 100% know and are assuming based on past experience. I'll use the title insurance analogy here. Title companies only go back 20 - 30 years as they rarely see problems crop up longer than that. The few times they get bit for not going back will be outweighed by the money they save doing it quickly and cheaply. RTK is no different, its a "calculated/insured risk". Whether you decide to assume this risk based on your experience or beliefs is up to you.
I am envisioning the following exchange:
JUDGE/ATTORNEY:
Please tell the court how you arrived at the distance between the two corners.
SURVEYOR:
Well I placed my new $40,000 RTK device on each corner and it told me it was okay to store the location and move on to the next point.
JUDGE?ATTORNEY
What do you mean by that
SURVEYOR
Well it averaged the location a bunch of times and the results were all with 0.10' so it must be correct
JUDGE/ATTORNEY:
So once again did YOU actually measure the distance between the corners
SURVEYOR:
Well no not in the traditional sense, I let the black box tell me the coordinates were okay to store and move on. As I'm not privy to the software code nor would be able to explain the mathematics involved, I relied on the manufacture to calculate the actual measurement, I just report what it tells me
JUDGE/ATTORNEY
So the box measured the distance, how do you know the box is correct.
SURVEYOR
Well it tells me the same answer every time. I have verified this on other jobs against conventional instruments.
JUDGE/ATTORNEY
So on those OTHER jobs the box agreed with conventional measurements, those other jobs are not why we are here, what about this job where you only used the box
SURVEYOR
well it worked great on the other jobs so it must of worked here
JUDGE?ATTORNEY
do you have an independent verification on this job that the box is correct
SURVEYOR
No, but I could go out there today and get the same answer
JUDGE?ATTORNEY
your dismissed
It seem like that exchange could be about your edm or total station, or static survey measurements in addition to an rtk measurement. It seems that the surveyor needs to be able to talk more intelligently about what s/he is doing than saying that they got the answer from the black box machine.
James Vianna, post: 382965, member: 120 wrote: I don't get the train of thought that because a position is repeatable it is accurate. You simply really don't 100% know and are assuming based on past experience. I'll use the title insurance analogy here. Title companies only go back 20 - 30 years as they rarely see problems crop up longer than that. The few times they get bit for not going back will be outweighed by the money they save doing it quickly and cheaply. RTK is no different, its a "calculated/insured risk". Whether you decide to assume this risk based on your experience or beliefs is up to you.
I am envisioning the following exchange:
JUDGE/ATTORNEY:
Please tell the court how you arrived at the distance between the two corners.
SURVEYOR:
Well I placed my new $40,000 RTK device on each corner and it told me it was okay to store the location and move on to the next point.
JUDGE?ATTORNEY
What do you mean by that
SURVEYOR
Well it averaged the location a bunch of times and the results were all with 0.10' so it must be correct
JUDGE/ATTORNEY:
So once again did YOU actually measure the distance between the corners
SURVEYOR:
Well no not in the traditional sense, I let the black box tell me the coordinates were okay to store and move on. As I'm not privy to the software code nor would be able to explain the mathematics involved, I relied on the manufacture to calculate the actual measurement, I just report what it tells me
JUDGE/ATTORNEY
So the box measured the distance, how do you know the box is correct.
SURVEYOR
Well it tells me the same answer every time. I have verified this on other jobs against conventional instruments.
JUDGE/ATTORNEY
So on those OTHER jobs the box agreed with conventional measurements, those other jobs are not why we are here, what about this job where you only used the box
SURVEYOR
well it worked great on the other jobs so it must of worked here
JUDGE?ATTORNEY
do you have an independent verification on this job that the box is correct
SURVEYOR
No, but I could go out there today and get the same answer
JUDGE?ATTORNEY
your dismissed
It seem like that exchange could be about your edm or total station, or static survey measurements in addition to an rtk measurement. It seems that the surveyor needs to be able to talk more intelligently about what s/he is doing than saying that they got the answer from the black box machine.
