Neat Javad trick:
(I can speak a little from this end of the field, but want to hear from leica, and sokkia, and Topcon, and Trimble, and anybody else with their hat in the ring).
Running with no base station. No corrections. In the open field, is nearly 100% within 3 feet accuracy. Typical is within 1.5'!
This is awesome, for recon. Finding old base stations. Etc.
In the woods, this deteriorates. Something around 10'.
Recently, i used this to locate some power poles. And, a house, in a field, where higher accuracy was not needed.
This is using WAAS corrections.
So, 2 things. Is anybody else doing this, with their rtk-static-gnss system?
And, from a end- user point of view, anybody else that can give a report, i'd welcome it.
Staying current is a challenge. I'm trying to promote "staying current". I know many surveyors who are falling behind... Pretty far too. Their "technology train" stopped way back at total stations...and hp 48. Find another surveyor, and help 'em make another step...
I had one, who wanted me to do his gps...and plats... But not learn it himself.
I understand why... (not too old to learn, but too old to WANT to!)
Gotta go...
Nate The Surveyor, post: 443498, member: 291 wrote: Staying current is a challenge. I'm trying to promote "staying current". I know many surveyors who are falling behind... Pretty far too. Their "technology train" stopped way back at total stations...and hp 48. Find another surveyor, and help 'em make another step...
I had one, who wanted me to do his gps...and plats... But not learn it himself.
I understand why... (not too old to learn, but too old to WANT to!)
Gotta go...
I think this is, or should be, the reason for continuing education requirements. But instead people take the same courses over and over about stuff they already know. And they end up so far behind the technology curve that they are no longer profitable.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
When I am searching for control and other points that I have located with my PM3s, I go back with the handheld only and do a GOTO points that takes me within a few feet and turn on the Schonstedt to zero in.
I have a Surveyor2, but haven't checked how close it is. I used a Garmin previously that is WASS enabled, it was within about 6 to 9 feet usually. I used the Garmin to locate roads on a large park/ranch. Worked really well, all that was available before was old quad maps. Googlearth but you couldn't really distinguish between natural lines, scars, old logging roads and current roads on the images.
I think I payed about $250 for the Garmin.
Jawja, post: 443511, member: 12766 wrote: I think this is, or should be, the reason for continuing education requirements. But instead people take the same courses over and over about stuff they already know. And they end up so far behind the technology curve that they are no longer profitable.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Yep. "Gonna take the boundary law class. Anybody can measure." Usually spoken by people who are horrible at actually measuring, especially with GPS.
I'd rather hire someone who knew boundary law and was poor at measuring than vice versa.
Well, it kinda depends on HOW POOR.
Somebody measures. I have seen wild measures...
The reason we even have to deal with boundary law is because of horrible measuring.
billvhill, post: 444004, member: 8398 wrote: The reason we even have to deal with boundary law is because of horrible measuring.
I agree. Everybody knows a surveyor that when they have to follow them the first thought is "crap". I mean the guy where you know "his bearings might be decent but his distances suck" or "his distances will be close but don't trust his bearings". Where I cut my teeth, we had a guy that you knew neither would work going in. He was the only surveyor I have ever known to have had 2 different license numbers from the same state; he had a license revoked, sat for the test again and passed. So obviously he knew the right way to do it but just didn't do it.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk