SurvCE Set Collection

Posted by: JPH

...so what is the advantage or reason to use Set Collection instead?

?ÿ

Nothing: personal preference.

?ÿ

I didn't think you could do more than 1 set when checking on Topographic in Config., it also doesn't re-shoot the BS for?ÿF/R true set average. Without that full set I don't think the Raw Data Editor will see it as a Traverse point when processing unless you ad a PT record.

Posted by: Luke J. Crawford

I didn't think you could do more than 1 set when checking on Topographic in Config., it also doesn't re-shoot the BS for?ÿF/R true set average. Without that full set I don't think the Raw Data Editor will see it as a Traverse point when processing unless you ad a PT record.

You can do as many sets/doubles as you like that way.?ÿ As I said above, after I reconfigure, I do a new setup, so that it prompts for a reverse shot on my BS, so I will have D&R on my BS, for the double.

?ÿ

For set collections, I can set to collect multiple sets of reading and I can see the average observations.?ÿ

Also if you have multiple foresights in the case of braced networks, set collections is so much faster to use than storing point, as I would just point to each foresight once and it will turn angles on all of them in a single set.?ÿ

In truth there are many roads that lead to Rome...

That would drive me nuts during the processing of the raw field data, as you would be collecting numerous points for one point. One of my biggest pets peeves.?ÿ

Posted by: Wal1170

That would drive me nuts during the processing of the raw field data, as you would be collecting numerous points for one point. One of my biggest pets peeves.?ÿ

Not sure who you're commenting to with that.?ÿ But there really aren't "numerous points for one point".?ÿ

What we're collecting is a direct and a reverse on the BS and then on each point that needs a double, traverse points, and monuments, usually.?ÿ The D&R is reduced in processing in Carlson or other software, and they're not just simple SS shots, they're BD, BR, FD, FR.

So it's not just as if we're side-shotting the same point using the same point number, multiple times.

I understand that, it is if you are collecting multiple sets, your way you would have something like #1000, #1000A, #1000B, etc. instead of #1000 with 5 sets and the averages already done for you before you reduce in Carlson. ?ÿAt least that is my understanding. Your way is fine for a single set, and it isnƒ??t they way I would do it, but it works for you and gets you what you want which is 100% ok. At the end of the day we end up in the same spot plus or minus a couples hundredths.?ÿ

Not sure why you need to number your points that way.?ÿ You can call them all 1000.?ÿ SurvCE will ask you if you want to overwrite, say, yes, but the rw5 will have all the observations stored.

Also don't see the advantage to turning 5 sets.?ÿ

I donƒ??t really like overwriting points.

And as for the 5 sets, it all depends on what you are doing and the accuracy you need to achieve.

?ÿ

I understand your not wanting to make new point numbers and values for the same point. The only reason one point needs to have more than one point number is when a control point is being use as the closing point of a traverse.

Had an IMan that would sideshot the backsite every time he checked to and result was dozens of point numbers within 0.01 of a control point. Best action is select stake to and check the setup.

It is totally against all reason to overwrite an existing number for a control point. The original value is the control, anything else is a check value.

I began sending crews out with point numbers locked and by the end of day they had reset everything and overwrote point numbers and actually turned off raw data collection. That was their objective, to not have any raw data to track their movements during the day.

Turning sets and repeating angles for reduction is a personal procedure and any of the many ways will achieve the task at hand as long as it is within the tolerance and that everything is logged into raw data.

Got ya. Is there an advantage to this? I do it sometimes to get a D/R on something I'd like a solid Z on but always forgetting in-check it for the next shot.

Posted by: A Harris

I understand your not wanting to make new point numbers and values for the same point. The only reason one point needs to have more than one point number is when a control point is being use as the closing point of a traverse.

Had an IMan that would sideshot the backsite every time he checked to and result was dozens of point numbers within 0.01 of a control point. Best action is select stake to and check the setup.

It is totally against all reason to overwrite an existing number for a control point. The original value is the control, anything else is a check value.

I began sending crews out with point numbers locked and by the end of day they had reset everything and overwrote point numbers and actually turned off raw data collection. That was their objective, to not have any raw data to track their movements during the day.

Turning sets and repeating angles for reduction is a personal procedure and any of the many ways will achieve the task at hand as long as it is within the tolerance and that everything is logged into raw data.

It's not really overwriting points, in the rw5, just storing multiple sets that are going to be used to determine the final A-D for the foresight.?ÿ It's only the data collector that thinks it's overwriting since it's already got coordinates stored for that point number.

I don't really see the point to turning that many sets, but to each his own.

I like the multiple check points on the BS.?ÿ If they're coded correctly in the field, the points come into my dwg small and on the Check_pnts layer.?ÿ It's helped me find busted HI & HR at times.