Star*Net questions

> 1. I don't see traverse closure information. I have the "Traverse Closures" box checked in Menus--Project Options>Listing File tab. What am I missing here?

In earlier versions, you have to enter the data as traverse lines, i.e. "T" lines, that define the traverse. Star*Net doesn't automatically detect loops.

> 2. I do I get .CSV file from StarNet? There is list of coordinates in coordinates tab on the Output window...

Tools > Points Reformatter used to do the trick. I assume that Star*Net has kept a similar feature in Version 8

> 3. As for the listing text...I assume you all normally just cut and paste text?

Cut and paste is usually easiest, although I assume that Version 8 of Star*Net still generates a separate file with the suffix .LST in the project directory.

> > 1. I don't see traverse closure information. I have the "Traverse Closures" box checked in Menus--Project Options>Listing File tab. What am I missing here?
>
> In earlier versions, you have to enter the data as traverse lines, i.e. "T" lines, that define the traverse. Star*Net doesn't automatically detect loops.
>
> > 2. How do I get .CSV file from StarNet? There is list of coordinates in coordinates tab on the Output window...
>
> Tools > Points Reformatter used to do the trick. I assume that Star*Net has kept a similar feature in Version 8:good:
>

Aloha, Kent:

Thank you!

Could you please post an example of where you would enter the "T"?

Was able to generate the coordinate file!! Thanks:-)

> Could you please post an example of where you would enter the "T"?

My advice would be to save the traverse mode for making calculations on metes and bounds descriptions from deeds. I wouldn't (and don't) use it for calculations on my survey measurements because it is so much more flexible to enter data as "M" lines.

> > Could you please post an example of where you would enter the "T"?
>
> My advice would be to save the traverse mode for making calculations on metes and bounds descriptions from deeds. I wouldn't (and don't) use it for calculations on my survey measurements because it is so much more flexible to enter data as "M" lines.

Aloha, Kent:
When you mention M line...now I see you are talking about entering "T" in the .dat file. I have study the user manual I think...a bit over my head.

Thanks

> When you mention M line...now I see you are talking about entering "T" in the .dat file. I have study the user manual I think...a bit over my head.

Yes, the "M" data type is in the form that Norman Oregon posted, i.e.:

[pre]
# At CP 9
DV 9-8 415.6207 87-31-20.28 5.149/5.630 'CP8
M 9-8-10 50-17-26.67 302.0197 88-53-43.87 5.149/5.535 'CP10
M 9-8-10 50-17-26.82 302.0187 88-53-44.36 5.149/5.535 'CP10
M 9-8-10 50-17-26.34 302.0179 88-53-43.87 5.149/5.535 'CP10
M 9-8-10 50-17-26.61 302.0188 88-53-44.03 5.149/5.535 'CP10
[/pre]

I personally prefer to have the stations in From-At-To order, rather than At-From-To, just because it follows standard conventions. Choose whichever makes the more sense to you. I just add a comment line to indicate the station where all the observations were made (the "# At CP 9") and that makes the series of occupations easier to navigate by setup.

What you do is enter the traverse in order using T records in the DAT file then StarNet will give you a traditional traverse closure but it doesn't affect the adjustment at all.

For example:
[pre]
TB 4
T 1 90-00-00.00 100.000 90-00-00.00 5.000/5.000 'Set spike
T 2 90-00-00.00 100.000 90-00-00.00 5.000/5.000 'Set spike
T 3 90-00-00.00 100.000 90-00-00.00 5.000/5.000 'Set spike
T 4 90-00-00.00 100.000 90-00-00.00 5.000/5.000 'Set spike
TE 1
[/pre]

I think I did that right. If your data is in individual pointings, such as Kent's example, you need to reduce it to one line by meaning the angles and distances. You can add redundant data such as the DV lines and cross tie M lines to strengthen your adjustment.

With our work flow the T lines are no longer used. I prefer a network solution so M is the ticket..

> With our work flow the T lines are no longer used. I prefer a network solution so M is the ticket..

Yes, who really cares about traverse closure ratios if the whole thing passes the Chi Square Test with realistic weights and no problematic residuals. The M data type frees up the whole entry format to add measurements that wouldn't fit into the traverse format.

> > When you mention M line...now I see you are talking about entering "T" in the .dat file. I have study the user manual I think...a bit over my head.
>
>
> Yes, the "M" data type is in the form that Norman Oregon posted, i.e.:
>
> [pre]
> # At CP 9
> DV 9-8 415.6207 87-31-20.28 5.149/5.630 'CP8
> M 9-8-10 50-17-26.67 302.0197 88-53-43.87 5.149/5.535 'CP10
> M 9-8-10 50-17-26.82 302.0187 88-53-44.36 5.149/5.535 'CP10
> M 9-8-10 50-17-26.34 302.0179 88-53-43.87 5.149/5.535 'CP10
> M 9-8-10 50-17-26.61 302.0188 88-53-44.03 5.149/5.535 'CP10
> [/pre]
>
> I personally prefer to have the stations in From-At-To order, rather than At-From-To, just because it follows standard conventions. Choose whichever makes the more sense to you. I just add a comment line to indicate the station where all the observations were made (the "# At CP 9") and that makes the series of occupations easier to navigate by setup.

Aloha, Kent:
Norman Oregon?:-P 😛

Yes, I did change mine to From-At-To as that is how I write in my field book. It made sense to me logically. Didn't realize that is the standard convention. 🙂 Thanks for the comment line idea. I noticed Norman used the commenting feature a lot too.

Thanks Kent

> > With our work flow the T lines are no longer used. I prefer a network solution so M is the ticket..
>
> Yes, who really cares about traverse closure ratios if the whole passes the Chi Square Test with realistic weights and no problematic residuals. The M data type frees up the whole entry format.

Aloha, Kent:
This is a new lesson for me. I always thought closure ratios is the way to see how good ones survey is...
Looks like I have to learn more about
Chi Square Test
Realistic Weights
Problematic Residuals

> What you do is enter the traverse in order using T records in the DAT file then StarNet will give you a traditional traverse closure but it doesn't affect the adjustment at all.
>
> For example:
> [pre]
> TB 4
> T 1 90-00-00.00 100.000 90-00-00.00 5.000/5.000 'Set spike
> T 2 90-00-00.00 100.000 90-00-00.00 5.000/5.000 'Set spike
> T 3 90-00-00.00 100.000 90-00-00.00 5.000/5.000 'Set spike
> T 4 90-00-00.00 100.000 90-00-00.00 5.000/5.000 'Set spike
> TE 1
> [/pre]
>
> I think I did that right. If your data is in individual pointings, such as Kent's example, you need to reduce it to one line by meaning the angles and distances. You can add redundant data such as the DV lines and cross tie M lines to strengthen your adjustment.

Aloha, Dave:
I have multiple pointing. Will play with you example here...
Thanks!

Change the numbers a little bit, add a C record for 1 and a B from 1 to 4 and run it.

> This is a new lesson for me. I always thought closure ratios is the way to see how good ones survey is...
> Looks like I have to learn more about
> Chi Square Test
> Realistic Weights
> Problematic Residuals

Closure ratios provide only one piece of information. You can get an extremely good closure ratio by pure accident as a result of multiple offsetting blunders along the way.

That's why it was recommended in your early traverse, to try to shoot angles and distances ACROSS the traverse, between two non adjacent points, forming a network.

To use Dave's simple square as an example, shooting the diagonals, and adding these measurements to Star*net, gives you a much stronger "solution" than simply looking at the closure ratio.

(insert usual "Grasshopper Advice" disclaimer here).;-)