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.
The RTK doesn't tighten up the traverse. Just the opposite. I hit the points with RTK to connect to the datum, then traverse to tighten things up - the elevations, principally - then simultaneously adjust.
When I check collimating I might change a second or two, a 1 second instrument. On new control points and property corners on parcel take projects I make sure 0 is good on the backsight, observe both faces and 2 RTK observations using integrated surveying while turning my rod 180 between each observation. I’m an engineering road/utility surveyor, so little need to run traverses
Yes yes yes. The difference between accuracy and precision is also in this scenario. Accuracy to the datum. If you set two points in the same scenario with rtk network vrs. And close on yourself very well. A loop. That doesn’t mean your outer points from that initial start point pair are tied to bars as accurately as your beginning. They could actually be off more than the uncertainty in your closed loop precision. Why because of a rotation. I am seeing even better results like you described using base rover . I did a test this past week as I will be teaching someone least squares. So way over kill but I did vrs. To a small site 4 points. Then set base up shot all 4 points again twice as same with vrs. Then traversed through all points and had two extra points within that traverse. I also did some cross ties and also some closed the horizon on those as well so bs my fs etc. anyway I purposely on rtk shots only I know which ones leaned the rod out or moved the Tribrach off the point. Now I have and know the good set ups because I need to introduce error to teach how to trouble shoot. Don’t worry I had two days to do a 1 day project for the bean counters. Yes I actually gave some wrong HI and target heights. Again on purpose. The good data shows exactly what you are seeing. Reducing the error eclipses through redundancy. Base on two different points multiple observations different times of day and all . All the training I see from manufacturers are so canned that it doesn’t help someone solve realistic problems. So I invented my own issues. Hopefully this will help me teach better to someone so they don’t just learn what buttons to push or click. But to analyze and remove blunders and perform a better quality survey adjustment. Also how to spot sloppy work or a tribrach or rod out of adjustment as well. What I am amazed at is that the level of precision relative and the accuracy by incorporating multiple measurements and tools and just how good rtk has actually become if good field practice or procedures are done. I honestly think if done correctly from some of my experiments are better than manufacturers specs. I do need a few more scenarios for good level data running through all control but I think I could be confident in .03 ft vertical differences in height with rtk alone on sites under a certain size from my results so far. Now I do not have enough samples yet but am working on it when the budget allows. But it takes discipline and a good field person to pay attention and think when doing observations. I have about 8 so far with very good digital levels and rtk alone base rover holding one leveled vertical point appropriately placed under a maximum .04. Ft was the worst outlier. Most were better but it takes a lot of samples to know for sure. Of course in different areas. Then I would have the issue of size area this could be achieved to see. Now same data sets with some robotic work gets even better when incorporated into a final adjustment. I think you are spot on. For sure
