Numeric field coding - F2F issues

When I have run numeric coding it was with LisCad and the way that strings were handled were as follows: Say the code for Top Back Curb (TBC) was 210, then entering the code 210 would create a point with the code. It should be noted that the system assumed a leading zero, ie: 0210.

To run a line we would add the line identifier before the code so TBC1 would be 10210, a second line would be 20210 and so on.

Of course this is with a different soft but this is one approach. As an aside I have yet to see a field software that has as robust a instructional code library as LisCad, it was pretty awesome in my opinion.

I am a fan of numeric coding, but realize that many do not share my opinion on the matter.

> First off, I've been lurking in the shadows for a while and truly appreciate the collective knowledge that this forum offers, so thank you all.
>
> I've recently started at a new firm and things are done a bit different than I have been used to. Namely, numeric field codes. I'm used to alpha field codes in which I've been able to run multiple lines of the same code (ie TOP1, TOP2, TOE1, TOE2, etc.) and also do double coding for offsets and connecting up multiple lines. I've tried several different ways without success. Before I go down the rabbit hole any deeper I thought maybe someone here has already done the digging and can provide some help. Any information on this would be appreciated.
>
> Are many people using numeric coding? I'm aware of several instances of agencies changing from numeric to alpha coding, so, do I need to make that suggestion to improve efficiency?
>
> I'm using Civil 3D 2013 and Trimble Access.
> Thanks in advance.

The only time I/we did numeric coding was when we did North Carolina DOT stuff. We had F2F all setup - and thank goodness. Several folks quit and it was left to me and my PC Tony (who hated computer stuff). I didn't know squat about CAD but figured out that the F2F did the stuff for me if field coded properly. By then I had figured out how to check our work in the field on the Carlson CE to draw it up. It sure saved our buts a few times.
E

Try:
2 for TOP
2.1 for TOP1
2.2 fro TOP2
etc...
3 for TOE
3.1 for TOE1
3.2 for TOE2
etc...

Depending on tour type of DC i should suggest switching to alpha coding. I made the switch 10 years ago, never looked back! We use the TSC2 with full keyboard.
Chr.

We use ACAD Civil3D, and run Carlson SurvCE on our data collectors.

Our coding goes like this:

TOE1 BEG
TOE1 END

etc...

It requires some set up in C3D, but we simply import them as a text file. Does the lines, break lines, symbols come in, and the break lines and appropriate spot shots are added to the surface with a few clicks.

So it is possible, and straightforward, really. The hardest part of the implementation is finding coding that works the same on the DC as on the desktop (so that your line work is QC'ed in real time).

I don't know how to explain in this space, but it can be done.

Large corp that I work for uses Carlson survey with Leica viva dc
.cp1
/cp1
./cp2
cp clo
cp rect
cp beg ep

> Are many people using numeric coding? I'm aware of several instances of agencies changing from numeric to alpha coding, so, do I need to make that suggestion to improve efficiency?
I used numeric coding for years and rather favor it. The place I work now uses a hybrid system - alpha codes for line features and numeric codes for non-linear features.

The advantage of alpha is it's (said to be) easier to remember codes. The disadvantage is that it's easier to think you remember codes and make something up. For example, I've seen data sets with edge of asphalt coded as EA, EASP, ASP, EPAVE, PAVE, and more all on the same day.

A suggestion - breaklines are breaklines. No need to have separate codes for TOP and TOE. They are both just BLs. The contours you generate will tell the tale.

Another disadvantage of alpha coding if you are working in a two person crew is that so many letters sound the same as others, with numbers you really only have to worry about 5 and 9 and sometimes teens and multiples of ten like 15 and 50.

The break line suggestion is interesting but if running multiple top and toe strings in the field it is easier to keep track of them separately rather than having twice as many strings. top1 and top2 toe1, toe2 and toe3 instead of brk1,brk2,brk3,brk4,brk5.

Unless they are all out in a row like in the street I can get turned around running too many strings.

I do not like begin codes, it should be evident that you want to run a line if you are starting a string code, the end code is handy though for re-using the string designator.

> Unless they are all out in a row like in the street I can get turned around running too many strings.
I also have trouble keeping track of too many breaklines at once. So I limit the number I am running at any one time to 2 or 3. Just finish them off before I start a new one. I may do more walking but my fat rear end can bear it. I lose nothing in quantity and gain in quality.

Back in the early days 1985ish we used numerical coding to run features. 100 was a break line and you continued it with the #1 and ended it with the #2. So first shot was 100, next shot was 1 which continued until the end which was a #2. Each feature say flow line had a number you put in once then continued with a 1. I liked it, it was fast and simple. Now our code book is a real book and although the field guys are good using it it takes time in the field.

But each way produces a "hands free" drafting experience.

So either way works the alpha coding covers more things however.

The three "problems" with Alpha coding are:

1) people "think" they know what the code should be

2) different customers give different meanings to the same alpha codes; for instance BL may not be a breakline, it might be a bollard. A breakline might be a BS (break of slope), but BS could also be a Bus Stop.

3) Alpha needs 26 keys to hit (or miss!), numeric only needs 10. You can normally get the right numeric keys even in the dark.

I've always used numeric by choice. Our set up is for 1-19 to be point features and then 20-49, 50-79, 80-99 to be feature strings, with similar types of feature being 30 or 60 greater than the basic one. For instance we use 28 as a post and rail fence, 58 as a post and wire fence, 88 as a security fence.

Individual string numbers get added on the end. For anybody interested our website holds an index table of the features we use (in English, not American I'm afraid!)

http://www.scssurvey.co.uk/downloads/go4.pdf

> .. For anybody interested our website holds an index table of the features we use (in English, not American I'm afraid!)
Looking at your list reminds me of another way to simplify. I do not trust myself to look at a utility pole and its associated wires and state that they are electric, telephone, cable tv, or....whatever. Nor has anyone ever asked me to. Utility Poles are utility poles and overhead wires are overhead wires. In the rare occasion that such information is known, and significant, a special note can be made.

Are there really still telegraph poles in Britain?

Yes, we still have a countryside full of poles (and quite a lot in urban areas as well). Nowadays "telegraph" poles would generally be carrying "telephone" wires, of course, except railway ones which carry a mix of telephone and telegraph bell codes (in those areas where cost means the 20th. century hasn't yet arrived).

Most UK poles have a marker plate or a code cut into them, so you can tell immediately what they are if you can't recognise the conductors and insulators. Electricity poles also generally carry details of the voltage and the sub-stations at either end.

Really no different than Oklahoma, then. At least in this limited way.

I suppose I could figure out whether a pole has electrical or telephone, or both on it. But that would just encourage some engineer to rely on my judgement in matters that I'm not really qualified to judge, and that I'm not being paid to accept liability for.

In the same sense a tree is a tree. Location and size. I'd be intruding on an arborist's turf if I tried to identify what species of tree it was.

Thanks for all the input. I'm going to be doing some work on this now that winter has arrived.

Civil 3D has no issues with numeric field codes.

If you set your Description keys and your Figure prefix database up correctly, the description keys will convert your numeric “raw desc.” into a “full desc.” and the figure prefix database will connect up all of your lines. Here is an example of numeric coding for edge of pavement if edge of pavement = 200.

1,northing,easting,elev.,200 B
2,northing,easting,elev.,200
3,northing,easting,elev.,200
4,northing,easting,elev.,200
5,northing,easting,elev.,200 E

The “B” & “E” shown above are the out of the box special codes in the Linework code set, also note that there is a between the code and the special code this is important. If you wanted to run a second EP line at the same time it would need an additional suffix e.g. (200 B)