Missing F2F codes in carlson

1. "direction-direction intersect" (aka bearing-bearing intersect) - You'd have to shoot two points per line to define each line and then specify the coding between each pair of measured points to determine how/where the intersection point is determined, or,
2. "distance-distance intersect" - You'd have to shoot two known points with a specified distance to measure from each point and then govern the proper applicable solution (if one exists) for the desired intersection location, or,
3. "direction-distance intersect" - You'd have to shoot two points to define a line and shoot another point with a specified distance and then govern the proper applicable solution (if one exists) for the desired intersection location.

Figuring approach #1 would be the most applicable (e.g. corner of a line is obstructed), I'd be curious about the desired syntax of the "intersection" code vs. the use of the COGO routine?

As for coding the offset from (say) a point and its linework code based on the measured distance to some other point, my approach would be to:

1. Shoot the point (e.g. back of curb) and give it "place holder" descriptions of OH and/or OV (for offset horizontal and/or offset vertical) and then,
2. Shoot the point (e.g. face of curb) and then perform a 2D or 3D inverse between these two points and then,
3. Modify the description of the first point to contain the inversed distance(s).

I'd tend to want to control the placement of the descriptive data vs. a routine that might go back to an earlier measurement and update the description I've already placed. If, however, there is a better work-flow to either of these scenarios, feel free to back-channel me at lnelsonATcarlsonswDOTcom and/or direct it to the Carlson Tech Support team so I/they can elevate to the development teams.

I hope this information helps.