Mark Mayer, post: 409033, member: 424 wrote: StarNet listing report and plot. It ran with only a little trouble.
Why is 778 and 779 control?
Bow Tie Surveyor, post: 409038, member: 6939 wrote: Why is 778 and 779 control?
They don't have to be. I just made 'em because their coordinates transferred over with the raw data, so I presumed they had been input.
Bow Tie,
It looked that way in my software also. I emailed back and forth with the OP, and it looks like he might have to return to the field to turn at least one more angle. I think the raw data is missing the closing angle to "close out".
I did not try to run it through SurvNet. I need to make the time to do some more trial runs through it and get more comfortable with it.
Jimmy
Jimmy Cleveland, post: 409626, member: 91 wrote: I think the raw data is missing the closing angle to "close out"
Check out the StarNet raw data. The closing angle is there.
Mark Mayer, post: 409630, member: 424 wrote: Check out the StarNet raw data. The closing angle is there.
Interesting. When exchanging emails, he mentioned not occupying 425 with the instrument.
Jimmy Cleveland, post: 409631, member: 91 wrote: Interesting. When exchanging emails, he mentioned not occupying 425 with the instrument.
425 and 829 are the same point. He didn't occupy 425 (His initial BS point). But he did occupy 829 (the number he used to tie 425 when he came around to it).
The StarNet data, as posted, is not exactly as it came out of the converter. It has about 5 minutes worth of cleanup applied.