I agree with Olemanriver that F2F can get a bit burdensome at a certain point. Is there a shortage of drafters and excess of field crew that makes it necessary to have the 2 or 3 person field crew spend the extra time entering the info into the data collector in the field in the elements rather than the single drafter reducing the notes in a nice cozy office? I know that my sketches aren??t anything to write home about, but adding another task to my list to make the drafters life easier while I play frogger in the road to perform my dips is not high on my priorities. All that being said, I perform the calculations, field work, and drafting, and I have tried both F2F and non-F2F. For me the best method is just putting my notes into my point description, along with quick and dirty sketches of dips, and worrying about it later while drafting. Gives me the opportunity to put my eyes on everything going on with the Survey and I catch more mistakes I made in the field this way.
@tim-libs Yeah their is a line that to many codes vs getting data in is unbalanced. But a drafter vs field crew vs survey coordinator manager have different roles. I want my drafter drafting what I mean is not connecting dots but labeling checking and making the deliverable purdy. And sound. Yes he or she can draw lines no doubt. But if I can eliminate most by a KISS keep it simple stupid approach and my crews can look at the rod as a tracing pencil and they are on site and can see how it looks who better to draw it. ?ÿNow when we had a crew chief that ran a crew with a rod and not a rod and data collector he or she could easily see watch and know where he was going several shots ahead. With a robot and having a rod and data collector all on it plus watching bubble and typing changes things a little. I will admit I could yell out codes to my i man and move much quicker with the rod only back in the day than I can with everything on my pole. But I have adapted and just take a pause and look around etc. ?ÿWhen I ran a crew from the rod and had i man at the gun it was a different game. I man coded what i stated. I guess if you ran a robot and had a i man that could walk with you and run dc that would be similar. ?ÿBut now days when i am mapping in the field i am usually solo. ?ÿI went and did a job Friday like that. Just me r12i and mother nature. But I will be doing everything from qa/qc to drafting to surface and getting it into a position for LS to stamp. ?ÿIf I ever get back to the office lol. I am in a situation where we as a larger multi state firm is a start up in another state. So i have everything from new crew chiefs to creating a code list etc.?ÿ
maybe some seasoned folks ?ÿan elaborate i have done this before ?ÿI will take the code list from sister company in different states and also have my new crew chiefs tell me what they are use to for codes and place it all in a spreadsheet and try and make a happy medium of things to develop the code list ?ÿfrom scratch ?ÿso everyone has input and its just not me and my brain . Once that is done I should have a fairly good base of codes to start with. I do like what @rover said about using the cad function in tsc7 ?ÿbut we might have some hand me down tsc3 etc and such ?ÿso codes will still be important on jobs.?ÿ
?ÿ
?ÿ
I'd be interested in hearing more about the local software you use. Does it create pipe networks and flow directions?
It doesn't, but it has a lot of nice options?ÿ for construction of new non-observable points. Cogo in your linework.?ÿ
I'll simply add a the code info file here.
My favourits are the offset lines through measured points, way faster then keying in the HO & VO, and you can specify another feature code for the offsetlne. And the way you measure buildings add 2 RightTurns in begin and endpoint and add a housenr. and descriptive text in 1 code.
?ÿ
I've been looking at attributes in TBC and see you can add them to points but also to lines. I do have to read some more about smart labels I guess to see how to add the calculated inverts at the manholes with the data available as attributes.
?ÿ
We have been working with fieldsketches for 30 yrs, it sure works but with the bigger screen and TSC7 power in the field possibilities change and there's no doubt that how sooner in the project you digitize your data the less data you loose.
?ÿ
I agree with Olemanriver that F2F can get a bit burdensome at a certain point. Is there a shortage of drafters and excess of field crew that makes it necessary to have the 2 or 3 person field crew spend the extra time entering the info into the data collector in the field in the elements rather than the single drafter reducing the notes in a nice cozy office? I know that my sketches aren??t anything to write home about, but adding another task to my list to make the drafters life easier while I play frogger in the road to perform my dips is not high on my priorities. All that being said, I perform the calculations, field work, and drafting, and I have tried both F2F and non-F2F. For me the best method is just putting my notes into my point description, along with quick and dirty sketches of dips, and worrying about it later while drafting. Gives me the opportunity to put my eyes on everything going on with the Survey and I catch more mistakes I made in the field this way.
That's fine if you're the one doing both the fieldwork and the drafting.?ÿ When you're in the office trying to do the work from sloppy incomplete codes and even sloppier field notes, with few to no sketches it's a whole different story.
@bobwesterman so true. When i get to go to meetings and the. Am able to go walk around with my crew and see exactly what??s going on it makes a world of difference. I usually am able to tell my crew chief hey. Don??t worry about this or that. Just get me this as now i see what it really is and can save him some time and allow him to get just what i need. ?ÿBut only those cases because if i can??t see it then they have to be my eyes and do a little more. It would go a long long way for everybody if a crew chief had nothing but points on a screen and was told to connect the dots. Nothing fancy it would make him or her better and have a better understanding that the cad tech which a lot of them have never even been in the field and they are good at what they do but they are only as good as what they are given or interpret from the field. Especially areas like where shots are close together and on a screen they are all on top of one another. ?ÿ
i helped a friend out for a couple days when the company i was with was out if work and it was to wet to cut hay. I went out and mapped some areas for a boundary garden gravel drives barns sheds ?ÿetc. rural boundary being divided for family from great grandma. When i got done with all the field work he plotted out several copies of my points. He is solo so no codes. Gave me a few pencils and i sat at the kitchen table connecting dots so he could follow my work. He uses traverse pc. But it reminded me of many years ago doing the same thing so a new cad guy could do his job better. It reminded me of how and why I locate the way i do and why it is important to make sure someone else can follow me. Because it can get touchy at times. Would not hurt the cad folks to walk a site either makes both sides understand each other and learn to compromise a bit and learn from one another. I think @rover should do just that and make sure in areas where it gets crowded he blows them up take a rainy day and crew chiefs that don??t want to use line-work codes give them color pencils make a legend and say draw . Might open the eyes of those crew chiefs a bit. I take a lot of pictures now days from control point and back towards control points which a few cad guys love as they get to see it a little better. And even catch things that are missed. I wanted to implement the 360 panaramo photo from thr Trimble vx we had. No points just evry set up let the gun do the 360 photo . ?ÿGood field coding is very valuable. And we have all been guilty of fussing about the cad guy. Now i am re learning cad lol so I imagine my ears will be burning. But my role allows me to do site visits and adjust the game plan as i need to which is very nice. And i get to share my experience with new chiefs and learn from them as well. All is good.?ÿ
We have been working with fieldsketches for 30 yrs, it sure works but with the bigger screen and TSC7 power in the field possibilities change and there's no doubt that how sooner in the project you digitize your data the less data you loose.
That's exactly right.
Same thing with F2F codes. I tell the crews that I shouldn't have to do more than half an hour of cleanup in TBC as far as the lines, symbols, and attributes are concerned.
The more data we get correct and digital up front, in a format that automates its path to the deliverable product, the faster it is to get the job done right, and the first time too.
That's fine if you're the one doing both the fieldwork and the drafting.?ÿ When you're in the office trying to do the work from sloppy incomplete codes and even sloppier field notes, with few to no sketches it's a whole different story.
Yeah, this is my experience as well. I used to be really bad about slacking off when I went in the field, because I was processing all my own data (usually that night) and I would just wing it.
But nowadays I take the time to do it right. Office-me thanks the field-me, and both of us are more efficient when I do that.
It's also better because my memory is no longer razor sharp. It ain't butter knife yet, but it's trending that way.
I've been doing F2f in one form or another since 1993. Doing F2f greatly reduced the need for detailed field sketches, and the advent of Google Earth pretty much ended it altogether. I haven't done a comprehensive field sketch in many years. I will occasionally sketch some detail or another.?ÿ
F2f is 100% worth the time it takes in the field. Which, after the operator becomes comfortable with it, is practically no extra time at all. There is a learning period but that is usually much more brief than the denier believes. It is true that there is a point of diminishing returns, that the last couple percent of every drawing just needs to be drawn in.?ÿ You rarely get 100% of the lines and symbols in a drawing done with F2f only. But 98% is very do-able.?ÿ
I encourage all my competitors to refuse to do F2f.?ÿ
Agreed.?ÿ I've been using F2F for over 25 years at this point.?ÿ I keep to simple lines and descriptions and take notes when I have some weird stuff going on.?ÿ
I've also worked with people who write meticulous descriptions, which in my mind, could be avoided by taking an additional shot or two.?ÿ To each his own, though
For me, I do my topo, and later take a 11x17 field plots out to mark up with the inverts, and connect all the structures on the plot.?ÿ
It doesn't take much office time to reduce notes for the inverts.?ÿ Much less time, in my opinion, than having the field crew adding rod heights and figuring how to shoot when there are 5 pipes and what's going where, and how to shoot so it all makes sense.
I 100% agree that F2F is useful for linework, especially when the person drafting isn't the person performing the survey. I mentioned that I personally don't, since it helps me catch field mistakes easier during the drafting process since I will be physically looking at every point I shoot. I am talking about the situations where I don't think F2F is of benefit, and I would say As-Builting structures would be one of them. I am comparing reducing As-Built notes in the office to entering each measurement into a tablet on the fly. I just don't think it's worth the extra hassle on the field person to have it done in the field, since they already have their hands full with what already going on in an uncontrolled environment. As I type this though, I think that if it's a 2-person crew in the same rig, the passenger can input the measurements into a program on the ride home if it's a long enough drive.?ÿ
My feelings on F2F are kind of like my feelings on Civil3D. Automation is great for a lot of situations, but for certain applications it's a pain in the rear end or just plain not worth the hassle.
It's also better because my memory is no longer razor sharp. It ain't butter knife yet, but it's trending that way.
If I've learned one thing over the years, it's that everyone's memory sucks
Lots of good ideas here to make the OP question take about 0.000003 secs:?ÿ?ÿ
https://automatetheboringstuff.com/2e/chapter13/
?ÿ
Question: for those that prefer paper fieldnotes, would a template not help speed up the field process, provide clarity, and eliminate blunders??ÿ It was usually an 8.5" x 11" and the crew chief would have a construction binder with a neck harness that doubled as a small writing desk.?ÿ When doing highway structure topos around 15 years ago, that's what we did.
?ÿ
When I worked at an engineering firm around 10 years ago, they set it up so that you would code everything and then export out a csv back at the office.?ÿ You could then edit in things that you missed coding/scribbled in the field (ie. PVC, 300mm, "clogged with debris" etc.) with the point number.?ÿ You then imported that csv file into Civil3d and it drew the pipe network with diameters, etc.?ÿ That along with the comments were placed in a Structures Table.?ÿ It was pretty slick.?ÿ If you preferred paper notes, you edited the csv back in the office.?ÿ If you preferred digital codes, you learned the code order so that the import "just worked."
?ÿ
There are a few options
1) in CAD
you can create custom point label style that use simple formulas to pull data from your description and manipulate it to generate additional data lines within the point label style.?ÿ
2) in excel
add your csv data to page 1 inside excel. On page 2 create a formula that copies the data from sheet 1 into sheet two, together with ifthen statements to see if there is anything in the raw description after a space.?ÿ
the problems I foresee with this method are a) determining the point number to use for the newly generated invert point that is not all ready used within the project and b) problems with other point coding that might occur with spaces in it.
?ÿ
?ÿ
Thanks!?ÿ ?ÿYes, those are issues for sure.?ÿ ?ÿ A possible numbering workaround would be to generate new points for the inverts but retain the field point number.?ÿ When importing, it will ask how to handle the points and we could just tell it to add some large number.?ÿ ?ÿI wish C3D handled alpha numeric, we could add the cardinal direction of the invert to the structure point number.?ÿ?ÿ
?ÿ
Andy?ÿ?ÿ
@andy-j You can use secondary field codes, field 1, field2, etc.?ÿ For cardinal directions just use numbers for each quadrant.?ÿ
Or field codes...Field code: 700 = Sanitary, Material = PVC 1, diameter = 8", directcion, East = 2
Point field code would be 718.2
Field code 2 would be Invert = 12.4'
?ÿ
N= 10,000.00
E= 7,000.00
Z= 100.00
Code= 718.2
Code2 = 12.4
500, 10000.00, 7000.00, 100.00, 718.2, 12.4
This is a data management task. Sounds like a Technical Session one could put together for a one of those money grab Society meetings...
