Need a little guidance on TBC issue

@john-hamilton I am very similar in my thinking. All control has alpha numerical values but they always say cad canƒ??t handle that. Also older data collectors had issues with same point numbers but this is 2022 last time I checked. When using survey controller years ago I adopted the point name and also depending on howbi was locating something like observed control topo rapid shot for rtk i used and set unique point names so easy to manage way before TBC. Also calced points for stake out i used alpha numerical so staking curb and gutter might be TBC_0001 etc. code 3ft o/s RP or PVC HL angel whatever made since to keep it simple. I never except a typo blunder had issues with point ranges. Same with control for rtk set or conventional always its control. Same name etc. i proposed this at my last job as we would get work that was new project but close enough we could use the same control. But as you say they would point #1 etc. so something would have to be renamed. If we are all moving towards working on a datum it makes more sense to use unique names for control so when you are in the vicinity you can use your old control instead of reinventing the wheel every job. I proposed by zone spc county then client shortened of course something along those lines and just keep a running spreadsheet updated no issues

I don't use CAD much, but I have Carlson Survey, which does accept alphanumeric point numbers

@john-hamilton carlson does a great job of field to finish also. I set me friend up so Trimble and carlson field codes and f2f were pretty much identical. He had to do some manual fixing on some types of curves as they both had strength and weaknesses. But it worked. It took me literally 15 minutes for making a library in tbc from scratch to automatically draft for a site because of the way they have civil3d auto drafting was messing up the fbk. I am working on that as well.

I am by no means an expert in Carlson, but I do like the way it works. I started out manual drafting many decades ago, and never got real proficient at CAD. But I can do enough to be dangerous.?ÿ

@john-hamilton lol. I have a Leroy letter set still. I came in as manual drafting was still a required college course but cad had just started taking off. My ex wife had such awesome penmanship that she was used to do all the edits manually and she was so good she could do it free hand for those quick fixes. I canƒ??t draw a straight line with a edge lol . But i did a little. Just no artistic ability. I grip my lead to tight. LOL

I was never a good drafter, and my field notes are not at all neat. But I never had to be, where I started surveying field people were field and office people were always in the office.?ÿ

My first boss used to always tell me I did good work but needed to make my notes neater. That is the case to this day. Info is all there but a bit sloppy. At least I can always figure them out, though.?ÿ

C3D can technically handle alphanumeric point names using the "Name" field...but it still requires the number field which cannot have alpha values and which cannot be duplicated, which defeats the entire purpose.

I'm not sure it would make much difference if they ever changed that. If a crew can't handle using different numerical point ranges for primary control, secondary control, aerial targets, topo, staking, etc., they probably can't handle putting PC, SC, AT, TP, ST in front of alphanumeric names too.

But I'd still like to see that happen. I'd love to use NGS PIDs for the point number rather than a different 100-series number every time we tie the monument for a different project...

@john-hamilton Awesome I am not the only one with messy handwriting. My teachers in school use to say I was going to be a doctor because no one could read my writing. ?ÿI was forced to become very neat for number in field book. When wild soft came out and I know longer had to make as many site sketches I was a happy camper. ?ÿThen sdr map and auto cad with eagle point. Sdr map to me is not much different for field to finish thinking than TBC. Simple but effective and efficient for both field and office. I am learning how powerful civil3d is but i just canƒ??t see the logic of having codes to make things easier in the office that requires way to much time to type. I think it needs to be a balance approach. Sometimes because we can doesnƒ??t mean we should lol.

@rover83 yes on NGS pid. So forward thinking and effective. Yes well some people canƒ??t get out of 1980 surveying work flows when they have 2022 software that eliminates some old workflows. ?ÿ

I noticed something today messing with all this data as i was trouble shooting and it didnƒ??t light up the brain cells until my ride home today. Is anyway TBC could not be applying the convergence angle by chance. Had an azimuth error that is fairly opposite of what that correction would make it. Not exact but close and it could be just coincidence. Only reason I thought of it is because I am very far west of meridian and my traverse runs south to north mostly and it is a lambert not mercator. I just happened to look at a monument from NGS that was close by and the convergence angle kept popping in my head. Most of the work i have done in this state has been very close to meridian and on sites small enough that it would not be caught. But this one and such is small but all my hairs stood up when I started troubleshooting.?ÿ

@rover83 I should add that I have always used the PID's rather than a random ID when a station is in the NSRS

I want to thank everyone. All the help was greatly appreciated for sure. As I learn how to work in this OTS. TBC and figure all the tricks out yall have been great. I was going to reduce the travers in excel and that would have been no fun. Lol.?ÿ

Posted by: @olemanriver

Is anyway TBC could not be applying the convergence angle by chance. Had an azimuth error that is fairly opposite of what that correction would make it. Not exact but close and it could be just coincidence. Only reason I thought of it is because I am very far west of meridian and my traverse runs south to north mostly and it is a lambert not mercator. I just happened to look at a monument from NGS that was close by and the convergence angle kept popping in my head.

There should be no problem with convergence unless someone attempted to hold a geodetic bearing as a starting grid azimuth for the traverse in the field or office. That would be very rare.

Once you have a projection set in TBC (required if you have terrestrial data in a project), any geodetic data will be projected to grid. So if you are starting off on a traverse whose initial two points were defined by RTK observations, the initial bearing for the traverse will be affixed to grid, and raw angle & distance observations flowing out from there are treated as grid bearings.

@rover83 Thank you. You confirmed what I checked this morning. I also read that convergence off the ngs sheet way wrong. I was not wearing my eye helpers as i was walking out the door lol. One of these days if we ever get some more hires I might have to reach out to you about using that selection tool as it seems it will make my life way easier. Right now i am just putting out fires. More work than people. I am trying to figure out now how i go to the field for two days and work and drafting the next two days all at once. Have a job we need done and not enough crews so i am strapping boots on and going to do it. Then draft at night