I would use the group command (not pointgroup) to select to bad points and the align command to correct them.
If you need a vertical bump do this before importing the good points
I'm kind of amazed that people use the text or coordinate file from the DC.?ÿ
I have found that far more people do that than deal with the raw data like you and I do.?ÿ So I'm dismayed, not amazed.?ÿ The advantages are obvious. I like to say that if the raw data is correct it takes only a few minutes to review and run it.?ÿ If it isn't it is worth whatever time it takes to fix.
I'm kind of amazed that people use the text or coordinate file from the DC.?ÿ
I have found that far more people do that than deal with the raw data like you and I do.?ÿ So I'm dismayed, not amazed.?ÿ The advantages are obvious. I like to say that if the raw data is correct it takes only a few minutes to review and run it.?ÿ If it isn't it is worth whatever time it takes to fix.
And how is it possible to run an adjustment without all of your observations that are in the Raw File??ÿ
And how is it possible to run an adjustment without all of your observations that are in the Raw File?
Some data collectors have functions to adjust traverses before outputting coordinates, but that is going to be a really challenging way to go about it. I sincerely doubt that such functions get used much.?ÿ Otherwise, it is not possible to make adjustments without raw observation data. Therefore we may assume that those who use coordinates exported directly from the dc are not adjusting, nor even really reviewing, their data.?ÿ ?ÿ ?ÿ
Got to be honest, when I first read " Is there a Civ 3D tool that correct occupation errors" my initial thought was a tool that would bring occupation into agreement with record boundaries.?ÿ Now that would finally be an upgrade worth paying for.?ÿ?ÿ
?ÿ
I thought the same thing...
Thanks for all of your responses. It looks like Topcon does have a solution. Their desktop software "Topcon Link" sorts data by station and allows any point stored as a control to be swapped in. I guess I don't need civ3d.?ÿ
@bushaxe From this statement I would think @cworld29 is a student. Your comments have merrit for an experinced crew, but this student seems to be learning the hard way.?ÿ
Yes I am. It helps to try and fix a problem before the instructor explains; just easier for me to understand that way.?ÿ?ÿ
nor even really reviewing, their data.
I think we all might be surprised at this.?ÿ?ÿ
I've talked to some field guys who were used to just exporting the coordinates, and they say stuff like they do their inverses right there in the field and they check "balls on".?ÿ
I mention that if somehow they put in a bad BS point number, they could be staking everything out wrong, but their inverses on their DC and in CADD would tell them they did it all right.?ÿ I'd get a blank look, and they'd just repeat about their inverses.
I think we all might be surprised at this.?ÿ?ÿ
I've talked to some field guys who were used to just exporting the coordinates, and they say stuff like they do their inverses right there in the field and they check "balls on".?ÿ
I mention that if somehow they put in a bad BS point number, they could be staking everything out wrong, but their inverses on their DC and in CADD would tell them they did it all right.?ÿ I'd get a blank look, and they'd just repeat about their inverses.
It's not just field staff. It's usually the office folks who tell them to just do coordinate dumps.
I worked for a firm with a satellite office that never QC'd their raw data. Their crews never took notes either. When I mentioned to one of the six licensees that there was no way to check rod heights, offset directions, measure-ups, feature codes, or even what type of gear the crew was using, I was told "We pay our crews to not make mistakes." They had the most f'ed up datasets out of the entire geomatics group, and were always wondering why none of the other offices wanted to workshare with them.
?ÿ
Appears the younger generation only work with cartesian coordinates. They don't seem to maintain the raw data anymore, or just don't know-how. A sad fact.
Who do you think the younger generation learned from if not the older generation?
?ÿAll those licensees in that satellite office were older than me by anywhere from 10-20 years. I'm 38.
It's usually the office folks who tell them to just do coordinate dumps.
I can't argue with that, since they wouldn't be doing that if the last LS didn't allow it.?ÿ
Sad, but you're right.?ÿ There are some older guys?ÿ who're just counting down till retirement
I worked for a firm with a satellite office that never QC'd their raw data. Their crews never took notes either. When I mentioned to one of the six licensees that there was no way to check rod heights, offset directions, measure-ups, feature codes, or even what type of gear the crew was using, I was told "We pay our crews to not make mistakes." They had the most f'ed up datasets out of the entire geomatics group, and were always wondering why none of the other offices wanted to workshare with them.
I was having a conversation once with a PC about some questionable data. He got rather flustered and stated "I stand behind my data". To which I replied. "No, I stand behind your data !"?ÿ?ÿ
BTW, "QC" is in how the data is collected. Checking it in the office is "QA".
Jere is an example of how a BS Check saved me today. I thought for sure the BS pt# was 1204 ?ÿTurns out it was pt# 1203. I even checked my notes and read it wrong. But my measurement didn??t lie. Just a little off.
?ÿ
@bushaxe?ÿ
Definitely true.?ÿ But if I've figured something out in life, it's that everyone gets complacent.?ÿ Sometimes people miss that check in the field.?ÿ Could be for a number of reasons.?ÿ Not an excuse, but it happens
Appears the younger generation only work with cartesian coordinates. They don't seem to maintain the raw data anymore, or just don't know-how. A sad fact.
Lee
I know just as may older surveyors who just download coordinates and not the raw data.?ÿ When I ask them why, I am usually met with a blank stare.
?ÿ
