Mike,
As well as snapping to the ends of DXF lines, you can snap the intersections
Its really handy if your building has gridlines, but the office have not given you the points
While you can geo-locate a DXF in the field, its better done in the office - It is a good check that the dxf numbers matches the control file you got given
I will rotate and/or translate in the field if I have to, but I really hate doing so. It is really hard to check your calcs, and the liabilities are huge
Damn, I really hate to say this but it really sounds like your office is trying their best to make it tougher to do your job.
To be fair, they are not trying to do it. We're all struggling through this. I'm only talking about the problems, the things that make my job harder, not the good things. It really is a good company to work for, we do have a lot of great people and I've never had a job that wasn't extremely stressful at times. It's just that our city was in a huge residential housing boom and I was under a lot of pressure (from myself) to keep up.
You can link and de-link to your heart’s content, as long as you remember that there are search rules when duplicate points exist:
When points of the same name exist in a single CSV file, the software uses the first point.
When points of the same name exist in multiple CSV files, the software uses the point in the first CSV file. The first CSV file is the first one in the file selection list. To change the order of the CSV files, tap the tabs at the top of the file selection screen. If you change the order of the CSV files, this may change the order in which files are selected.
When you accept a CSV file selection, and you then go back and select more CSV files, all subsequent files are appended to the initial selection, using the rules. This assumes that the original selection is not altered.
Trimble recommends that you do not use multiple CSV files that contain points of the same name.
I wouldn't want to link multiple CSV's if I didn't know for sure that the points weren't duplicated. I would want to do like Olemanriver and have everything organized into different types, but with the way our current workflow goes, it would be a lot of extra hours to get to that point.
I’ve never had a DXF mismatch with a point, if the point and the DXF were in the same location in the drawing file. This could perhaps be the CAD software being used and/or a feet units problem.
This was not a software glitch, it was just a few specific subdivisions we've worked in. I think it might have had to do with the CAD file coming from the client and not being shifted to fit or something. I'm not sure the reason, I just know that even when checking offsets I project point to line and change the line to the 2 point method because I know that calcs for the corners should be right. I only use the DXF if I need to check offsets to a curve which is not most of the time.
You can indeed stake to vertices of a DXF, not just offsets. I used to get the plot plan, then translate/rotate into my master boundary basemap, check that the foundation/building is within the setbacks (and that they did not screw with the lot dimensions…and that I have the right lot number!), then spit out that properly oriented building polyline to a DXF and go stake it.
I understand the idea behind this, but until I was to actually try it I don't yet understand the advantages. I actually forgot to mention that the biggest DXF issue we had is that we have had a lot of trouble with them just not working at all in Access. There was a lot of experimentation in the office, one job with a ton of complicated gridlines, we really needed it and we got 6 different DXF's and finally got one to work. I think there was a couple causes, but one was probably Fieldgenius and Trimble access compatibility. I had the same issue way back with Magnet Field actually, but the DXF will always work in Fieldgenius. It's just bound to crash when you zoom into points too frequently.
Access does translate/rotate just fine (it better, considering it’s such a simple routine). It also lets you translate/rotate DXFs and other map files too. I get that they don’t want things getting too whacked out, or have a bad translate/rotate, but it sounds like you have enough checks built into your workflow that it shouldn’t be a problem.
The issue wasn't on the field side, it was something to do with processing on the office side once again. I think maybe some extensive TBC training would be very helpful.
I will try out snapping tomorrow just so that I know how to do it if needed. I have had a warning/prompt about geo-locating in the past, when adding a DXF through the layer manager. It is rare, and I wish I had investigated the cause further at the time, but things like this usually happen when I'm under a time crunch. I believe it has happened even when the DXF seemed to work perfectly fine, but like I said we rarely ever stake from it, we just use it as a visual aid, so we're not just looking at a sea of points. It's like having the plan and sketches all in front of you at the same time, instead of carrying a bunch of paper around and trying not to let the wind blow it away. LOL. <div>
Yes liabilities are huge. When we would rotate and translate for layout, it would just be the point range of the house only. Then I would check all the tightest corners to the boundary and make sure it met the minimums with some wiggle room for error.
BTW, as you can see I'm also learning how to use this site better through trial and error.
Mike,
As well as snapping to the ends of DXF lines, you can snap the intersections
Its really handy if your building has gridlines, but the office have not given you the points
While you can geo-locate a DXF in the field, its better done in the office – It is a good check that the dxf numbers matches the control file you got given
I will rotate and/or translate in the field if I have to, but I really hate doing so. It is really hard to check your calcs, and the liabilities are huge
</div>
Man I have come to love the description field. It is absolutely right there for a crew chief to add a little extra information that I might need to see. In staking or Topo or boundary. Just a neat little addition. They crews now have become use to it and like it more than yanking the field book out for a quick note or hey this water valve is missing lid or man hole lid is busted in half etc.
If you play around with the snaps. Also think of it this way corner to corner you can Cj that distance. You can create a point at whatever distance along that line a few ways. Coho or stake to the line go distance then you can coho points say for an added bay window from that line and points. I mean you can lay out the bedroom or kitchen if you would like. It’s all math and you seem to have a handle on that so you are going to be fine. Never be afraid to fail. Just have a back up plan until you get it down aka your pm pre comped points etc. Once you use it a while if you have not already you can add favorites program hot keys all sorts of stuff that make not having to navigate all the menus for your favorite tools. And functions. I am sure every brand has. This sorta thing. I don’t get to do that fun stuff as I am usually if in the field using someone else’s equipment and don’t want to mess there little world up. I actually got my crew chief back and so he helped me today or I helped him. He is a great young buck and works hard . I was purposely moving his hammer around today so he kept coming behind me and putting it back to where he keeps it. I finally told him look. This is your truck and your equipment. If I am not doing something right let me know. So tell me to put things back where I got them. He was like your the boss I said not today you are. He will be a great addition to the profession he is going to be an all star. I just wish I was his age again lol.
I use make notes that way or take pictures and add to the point in question, quite regularly. Very valuable tool.
I use hot keys all the time. Only thing lately is I'm switching between my DC and the other PC DC and he has a different set of hot keys. I set them up for the stuff I use constantly in a way that made sense for me. Our inverse key was the only one that was on the same hot key, so the rest I have to remember which DC in using. Lol.
What’s the reason for traversing with rounds, RTK, and static? Are you over killing your observations? More observations, if they are done correctly, are good but are you spending too much time for your required confidence for the type of project?
I combine total station, RTK, and static too but only,y to complete measurement tie-ins but never rounds.
No sir. I can’t gps every where so I will do conventional in those areas. It depends on job. How and what I do. I am setting control now on several different sites that will be used long term for many different things etc. so I try and get as much and as good control established for the sites in the beginning so we are not chasing our tails when a different project pops up. We have a 5” and a 3” gun. So 4 rounds kinda takes care of everything unless requirements change. Gets me to the sweet spot. Is all. And crews just are consistent
What’s the reason for traversing with rounds, RTK, and static? Are you over killing your observations?
Control work. Always always always measure in both faces for control work, and as soon as traverses get more than a half dozen or so points, RTK and/or static to both connect the traverse to the real world, and to tighten things up.
I combine total station, RTK, and static too but only,y to complete measurement tie-ins but never rounds.
Wait, are you saying that you never turn rounds to anything? When's the last time you checked your instrument collimation?
I always turn rounds. To control and property corners. I also will do direct and reverse when tagging a Finish Floor I know a lot of people do not. Some say it’s overkill. But I also don’t have crews saying hey this control is out what shall we do. The number of rounds is dependent on project scope and requirements. But I set the bare minimum to 4. I also always request even number of rounds. 2 4 6 8 10 etc. some do 3 at our shop. But I like even numbers and is stuck in my head from doing geodetic work of 16 a lot. Of course these were all manually done.
"as traverses get more than a half dozen or so points, RTK and/or static to both connect the traverse to the real world, and to tighten things up."
Agree on the first do not on the second assuming you are talking about a closed traverse. The day RTK tightens up my 6 station traverse is the day I retire.
a six station traverse that doesnt close back on itself yes, 30 stations over 400 acres maybe
If you play around with the snaps. Also think of it this way corner to corner you can Cj that distance. You can create a point at whatever distance along that line a few ways. Coho or stake to the line go distance then you can coho points say for an added bay window from that line and points. I mean you can lay out the bedroom or kitchen if you would like. It’s all math and you seem to have a handle on that so you are going to be fine. Never be afraid to fail. Just have a back up plan until you get it down aka your pm pre comped points etc. Once you use it a while if you have not already you can add favorites program hot keys all sorts of stuff that make not having to navigate all the menus for your favorite tools. And functions. I am sure every brand has. This sorta thing. I don’t get to do that fun stuff as I am usually if in the field using someone else’s equipment and don’t want to mess there little world up. I actually got my crew chief back and so he helped me today or I helped him. He is a great young buck and works hard . I was purposely moving his hammer around today so he kept coming behind me and putting it back to where he keeps it. I finally told him look. This is your truck and your equipment. If I am not doing something right let me know. So tell me to put things back where I got them. He was like your the boss I said not today you are. He will be a great addition to the profession he is going to be an all star. I just wish I was his age again lol.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/C1AyLFfDHmmzMeyTA
Today I had a perfect example of a DXF not matching, so I looked a little closer. This one was off more than usual, often they're just slightly shifted, but still the same shape. This one some jogs were even missing. It turns out the boundary matches the points just perfectly, it's just the houses that aren't the same. I can tell by looking at it, this is what the builder sent us in their CAD file. It was likely a preliminary drawing and then the house layout and positioning obviously changed after that, but was never updated in the drawing. We only layout outside corner of wall, and wouldn't have calcs for the inside of the foundation wall, like their DXF shows. One exception to the outside corner layout, (for this builder only) we also layout a 45 degree angle on the inside of the garage, which you can see in the one picture, I have calcs and set spikes there, but they weren't in the DXF at all.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/fndkpTNp4Uxw3AX38
It also looks like they have multiple lines stacked on top of each other. Why, I don't know. But I'm sure it's part of the reason that our DXF's end up slowing down the data collector and creating a lot of lag in the interface. I will usually go through and deselect a bunch of the layers in that DXF, at least the obvious ones that I know aren't relevant. There are something like 50 of them in there usually and if I go to far, my boundary or building lines will disappear and then I have to go back in and toggle some back on, even though I didn't turn off any that sounded like boundary or buildings.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/6jZroAvaTPMWRhoe8
This is my set of hot keys which I use all the time. It drives me nuts when I use the other guys DC and I have to go through all the menus on the screen to get to something, especially the joystick or point manager.
As far as layout random points for clients on the fly, I would get a spanking if I did that. Sometimes clients send foundation plans that don't even close, and my PM catches it when he calcs and checks everything, then he sends an email back to them to fix it. I would have to be 100% confident in what I was laying out before going ahead. Other than the pre calced stuff that my PM has given me (which I am also checking in the field), I could layout extra points on line, for example a walk out basement, with large steps in the foundation, the concrete guys will often ask me for extra points on line when doing nails on footings. Or I will just do it without being asked if I feel like making their life easier.
Or if a corner wasn't excavated far enough, I can give an offset if I trust the client not to mess it up. Grades I can give out, once again only to clients we trust. With liability worries though, I can't do much more than these things without checking with the office.
Agree on the first do not on the second assuming you are talking about a closed traverse. The day RTK tightens up my 6 station traverse is the day I retire.
a six station traverse that doesnt close back on itself yes, 30 stations over 400 acres maybe
I mean, I can count on one hand the number of traverses that close on themselves, or have no cross-ties, that I have seen in the past 5 years.
Just for kicks I looked at a couple of jobs I've processed in the past week or two. A six-station link traverse with four 2-3 minute RTK observations scattered throughout improves the average horizontal error ellipse (95% confidence) by about 0.015' and had no appreciable improvement in the vertical. Not much better, but certainly doesn't make it worse, and ties it to the NSRS, which is an additional benefit for not much effort.
Now, I also have a ~3500' traverse with about a dozen points. When I include about eight to ten 2-3 minute RTK observations throughout those points, the average horizontal ellipse goes from 0.19' to 0.07', and the vertical goes from 0.06' to 0.04'. A pretty nice improvement for only another hour's work with a rover - brings those relative positional precision values down to within statutorily mandated tolerances for boundary work.
Using the RTK data and holding the base station fixed, as opposed to hard-holding the beginning and ending point pairs, brings my reference factor from 1.32 down to 0.96, and now passes the chi-squared test at 95%.
I should note that this is only network RTK, not base-rover, observations out on the edge of the subnet.
Mixing and matching observations is rarely a bad thing when properly weighted.
