"Will do Traverse, Compass and/or Crandall methods"
Will do Transit, Compass and/or Crandall methods.
A Traverse Adjustment Requires The Traverse Elements?
Really?
OC 2
BS 1
FS 3 - AR 90 HD 100
OC 3
BS 2
FS 4 - AR 90 HD 100
OC 4
BS 3
FS 11 - AR 90 HD 100
OC 11
BS 4
FS 12 - AR 90 HD 100
Add some error into the mix. Create a real fieldbook. Dump out the RAW coordinate values knowing that 11 = 1 and 12 = 2.
Now close your traverse.
A Traverse Adjustment Requires The Traverse Elements
As I read the original post, there was a closing point at the original backsight and the original foresight, with which to adjust the angles.
> I am wanting to see if anyone has a method, or knows of a simple piece of software to process traverses using raw coordinates only.
>
> If I have a coordinate file only with just unadjusted points, knowing the direction of the traverse through the points, the sideshot points and also a scale factor where necessary....is there a program that simplifies handling this without having to manually calculate the raw angles/distances??
One method that came to mind uses Star*Net. On the first pass, you'd enter all the provisional coordinates as fixed, error-free values and then enter the measurement lines either 2D:
M From-At-To Angle HDist
or 3D:
M From-At-To Angle SDist ZAngle HI/HT
or
M From-At-To Angle HDist DeltaH HI/HT
but with all of the angle and distance quantities (including ZAngle or DeltaH) unweighted. Just approximate values of angles and distances would work fine. These would show the connections between points on the survey for which the measured angles and distances were to be calculated by inversing between the provisional coordinates.
Then, run the adjustment to snap all of the measurements to values consistent with the coordinates and update the input file to reflect the values that the program inversed between the provisional coordinates used as input. Should be a simple cut-and-paste job.
Give the traverse and sideshow measurements appropriate weights and free all but the coordinates that you think should be held fixed and run the adjustment.
A Traverse Adjustment Requires The Traverse Elements
I have no idea where i got the "no closing angle" from.
> I am wanting to see if anyone has a method, or knows of a simple piece of software to process traverses using raw coordinates only.
>
> If I have a coordinate file only with just unadjusted points, knowing the direction of the traverse through the points, the sideshot points and also a scale factor where necessary....is there a program that simplifies handling this without having to manually calculate the raw angles/distances??
Simple
1. use the coordinate file to inverse and thereby derive the measured angles and distances that you forgot tostore.
2. hand enter those measured elements into a proper adjustment package such as Stat*Net.
3. never forget to store/record your measurements
been there, done that... ONCE!
> Simple
> 1. use the coordinate file to inverse and thereby derive the measured angles and distances that you forgot tostore.
> 2. hand enter those measured elements into a proper adjustment package such as Stat*Net.
If you have Star*Net, it would be even easier to use an "M" data type with "?" for the Angle, and HDist values.
M From-At-To ? ?
If the provisional coordinates are entered as "C" data types with their values fixed, Star*net will then list the angles and distances calculated from them in a form that can be easily cut-and/or-pasted into a Star*net input format.
Simple...
Treat the northing and easting separately as if they were two misclosed benchruns.
Pro-rate out the misclosure over the number of stations minus 1.
For example;
Pt 1 100.00 100.00
Pt 2 200.04 99.98
Pt 3 200.08 199.96
Pt 4 100.12 199.94
Pt 5 100.16 99.92
Assuming pt5 = pt 1, the misclosure is N 0.16/4 = -0.04 and E -0.08/4 = +0.02.
Prorate the station as if they were turns.
Then inverse from the adjusted coordinates to get bearings/azimuths and distances.
I would say the method has less to do with elevation and more to do with the desired results. Least squares analysis and adjustment is much more robust (and realistic) than compass rule. That is true regardless of elevation or location.
Measuring Both Ways Gets You Closer To The Truth
Given than, then adjusting it may get even closer.
Paul in PA
Creating Angles For Field Positions Not Shot
Is fraud.
Paul in PA
Prorating That Way Can Get You Farther From The Truth
Not adjusting can be more truthful than bogus adjusting.
Paul in PA
Prorating That Way Can Get You Farther From The Truth
The method Scott describes gives exactly the same result as a compass rule adjustment.
Measuring Both Ways Gets You Closer To The Truth
> Given than, then adjusting it may get even closer.
The mean of two measurements should have an uncertainty about 70% of that of a single measurement. That's about all that one can say. The McGrathian quest for "truth" in measurements always struck me as out of touch with reality. The proper focus is simply the estimation of uncertainty, not whether some measurement is "true" or not.
Creating Angles For Field Positions Not Shot
> Is fraud.
Not really. The angles and distances were simply stored in the form of provisional coordinates. Having to reconstitute the angles and distances measured from the provisional coordinates generated from the measured angles and distances may be dumb or inefficient, but it certainly doesn't qualify as fraud.
:good:
good trick!
Creating Angles For Field Positions Not Shot
> Is fraud.
>
> Paul in PA
not at all
the angles and distances _were_ Measured, but not recorded. Nothing I know of "measures" coordinates, the TS or DC grinds the numbers and throws the raw measurement data away.
You Can Sit At One Spot And Push The Button 100 Times
That is still not measuring back from a different spot, then you can mean the two measurements. Face one/face two is essentially one measurement.
Anti McGrath is the excuse of too many alleged surveyors.
BTW, I learned what a measurement was as an engineering student with a tape 30 years before I met McGrath.
Paul in PA
You Are Only Assuming Everything Was Shot
If it was shot and only the result was recorded, we have no way to test scrivening errors.
I take the original words to imply shots not taken are being created from other data.
Paul in PA
You Can Sit At One Spot And ...
> That is still not measuring back from a different spot, then you can mean the two measurements. Face one/face two is essentially one measurement.
>
> Anti McGrath is the excuse of too many alleged surveyors.
>
> BTW, I learned what a measurement was as an engineering student with a tape 30 years before I met McGrath.
I'm not sure what your point is. A measurement is a measurement is a measurement. All are estimates with uncertainties, whether a weight, a volume, a distance, an interval of time, an angle, or a whatever that requires the comparison of the physical world to some physical object to estimate its magnitude.
The professional surveyor chooses methods to efficiently keep the uncertainties in the results computed from measurements within acceptable limits. There simply is no question of ever knowing what the "true" value of a distance or an angle really is. Estimates with very small uncertainties are as good as it is every going to get. Did your engineering course take some alternate view of the measured universe?
