I would like to throw out an idea to the roughly 7900 members on this forum...This year for Surveyors Week how about we all do our part and participate in the GPS on a BM promotion. Not only will the data collected help out the NGS, it would be a great way for all of us to post a picture of us doing what we do. We can share the info and let NGS know the data was collected by a RPLSToday.com member...What do you think?
https://www.ngs.noaa.gov/GPSonBM/
https://www.ngs.noaa.gov/GPSonBM/OnePagerGPSonBenchMarks2018.pdf
https://www.ngs.noaa.gov/GPSonBM/prioritize.shtml
?ÿ
This is a great idea. I would love to see the participation and the photos, not to mention the contribution it would make to the surveying profession as a whole.
I've just created a Facebook event to help promote this. Thank you for getting this rolling!
I've been going over the priority list in the areas I frequent.?ÿ There are a lot of marks on it that haven't been reported in decades, or even that have NF reports.?ÿ So the ones that CAN be found and measured are very important.?ÿ I see that six of them are probably on the list because they are ones I have submitted a session on, and they want a second confirming session.?ÿ Those were carefully chosen in or near the red areas of the Geoid12b map and there were hardly any other suitable ones around.
I'm wondering if this one would be suitable for GPS before the leaves come out.?ÿ It seems marginal at best.?ÿ It's on the base of the stone monument, and I expect the stone column would attenuate the signals somewhat, but probably not cause serious reflections because it is non-conductive.?ÿ Anyone with applicable experience?
Do the survey and use the report to decide if you like the results. Occupy for 6 to 8 hours.?ÿ
@Bill93 - that is a beautiful monument in an attractive setting.?ÿ
?ÿ
Where is that and is it a war memorial??ÿ I'm guessing World War I or earlier.
bump
Tipton, Iowa, Civil War monument.?ÿ I haven't been to the site, but grabbed a photo from Geocaching.
https://www.ngs.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/ds_mark.prl?PidBox=MG0401
?ÿ
Lots of questions. First would it be possible if an unlicensed surveyor be able to participate? Would anyone be able to guide me into the right direction into doing the proper procedures and proper equipment checklist to makes sure I'm collecting the right information.?ÿ
Absolutely anyone can participate. The only requirement is to have a dual frequency survey grade receiver. I believe there are links on the NGS website to procedures, etc.?ÿ
Can someone tell me if they will accept OPUS only or will they accept only OPUS shared solutions on the priority marks??ÿ
For your observations to be a part of this program they must be submitted to OPUS Shared Solutions
When you submit to OPUS, you click on OPTIONS and on that page you add share and all the info.?ÿ You can do a few other options too.?ÿ ?ÿHere is the link?ÿ https://www.ngs.noaa.gov/GPSonBM/Report.shtml
It seems strange to resubmit photos and a description on a point that already has a shared solution. What happens to the already posted solution? We went to a lot of work to post the shared solution that is existing. It rubs me the wrong way to replace it....if that's what is being promoted. Or do they allow an unlimited number of shared solutions for the same mark??ÿ
This may be a silly question, but here it goes...
Many of the marks that need attention in my area of SE Michigan are located along abandoned railroad beds.?ÿ Typically, these points were destroyed when crossing improvements were made.?ÿ Would it be acceptable to set a new mark in the area to help "tighten things up"??ÿ I'm thinking that drilling a monument of some sort into a bridge abutment would yield the best results.?ÿ Am I way off base with this?
?ÿ
It seems strange to resubmit photos and a description on a point that already has a shared solution. What happens to the already posted solution? We went to a lot of work to post the shared solution that is existing. It rubs me the wrong way to replace it....if that's what is being promoted. Or do they allow an unlimited number of shared solutions for the same mark??ÿ
?ÿWhen you search shared solutions you see the latest one, and it contains a link to any prior shared solution and/or original data sheet.?ÿ They are all still available.
There might be a theoretical limit on number of shares on a mark, but if so I doubt it would be reached in practice.?ÿ For GPSonBM they say one session on an optically leveled mark is useful for checking the model, and at least two that confirm each other will qualify them for actual input to fitting the model.
Would it be acceptable to set a new mark in the area to help "tighten things up"?
It might be useful for local surveyors but it won't help the GPSonBM program whose purpose is to compare the optically leveled elevations to GPS measurements.
The only way a new mark can help GPSonBM is if you do an official Reset per procedure (to get a new PID) in order to get a point with usable sky and a tie to the optically leveled network. (Well, there is also Blue Book submission, shudder)
Some of us think there should be a looser eccentric setup procedure for the GPSonBM program because of the relatively small number of marks that survive AND have decent sky view.?ÿ Allowing us a procedure that maintains transfer accuracy of a few mm (versus the cm+ of GPS) but doesn't require setting a permanent mark and submitting for a new PID, with the effort and delay involved in that, would open up many more old marks to measurement for this program.
?ÿ
It seems strange to resubmit photos and a description on a point that already has a shared solution. What happens to the already posted solution? We went to a lot of work to post the shared solution that is existing. It rubs me the wrong way to replace it....if that's what is being promoted. Or do they allow an unlimited number of shared solutions for the same mark??ÿ
The new photo helps confirm that the information reported is correct- the station , HI, and antennae type.
You don't have to add any additional info to the description if existing info is sufficient.
The second observation gives redundancy to?ÿthe first one for NGS' adjustment purposes. All shared solutions are visible on the shared website.
?ÿ
That makes sense. They have one priority BM that we know is off and we said so in the recovery note. They wouldn't publish the recovery note. I hope they are just validating what we told them and don't intend to use it.?ÿ
I'd say after looking at their priority list, that it was made based mostly on location relative to gaps between HARN etc. stations, and bumped up by presence of one prior share submission.?ÿ I don't think they read the recovery notes in this selection process, because they include quite a few that have a Not Found as the most recent recovery report, and one our DOT reported in its Share submission as appeared to be moved.
Tell us more about the report they didn't post.?ÿ They did get behind by many months last year on processing the web form recovery reports, so maybe it eventually made it??ÿ Or did they edit your report to leave out that assessment?
They will decide which to use in their model fitting according to agreement with others in the area.?ÿ If the one you called off doesn't fit and others around do fit, then it will get rejected.
?ÿ
