This is B 511.
The picture is basically from due south. The mark is in front of the witness post and slightly to the right of the small evergreen-
if you were to submit a recovery on this point, would you classify it as "Suitable for GPS"?
...possibly after an ecological holocaust..
that's not selection available on the NGS web page.... good idea though.
I have done 2hr static on points like that with a 12ft or 16ft pole and a southern exposure with good results.
James Fleming, post: 425512, member: 136 wrote:
Speaking of Javad, I haven't seen Nate on here lately. Every time he takes time off from the computer his family gets bigger.....;)
Well, you can probably get a solution, but it doesn't meet the 15 degree horizon criterion by a long shot. The accuracy of any solution may be seriously affected by lack of signals from a large sector of the compass and possible multipath off the trees and hillside. The sign would be a minor issue but probably wouldn't add a lot of multipath since the mark is almost in line with it. It might be possible to get the antenna above it.
I'd check "don't know", which usually does not add a suitability line or change any prior one on the data sheet, and comment that "GPS observation possible but sky to north largely obscured by trees and hill." The proximity to the sign is already mentioned in the description.
https://www.ngs.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/ds_mark.prl?PidBox=su0823
If your experience is that you've had problems with similar situations, then check "No."
gschrock, post: 425522, member: 556 wrote: ...think fix height rod with extensions- up high, more sky, multipath go bye-bye....
Think D7 and Stihl...
gschrock, post: 425522, member: 556 wrote: Perhaps "suitable for GNSS" but maybe not GPS-only.
Good field practices (mask, evaluation of prelim results) could make this a viable GNSS spot.
Might not want to do it with little tiny pole - think fix height rod with extensions- up high, more sky, multipath go bye-bye....
I don't ever put up more than 12 for long burns- hardly do that.
Bill93 gave you a good answer. I wouldn't consider it to be "suitable for GPS". I don't really think of "suitability" as whether an operator can get a solution on a point. I'd expect it to be something I might set a tripod on and use for a control network.
paden cash, post: 425515, member: 20 wrote: Speaking of Javad, I haven't seen Nate on here lately. Every time he takes time off from the computer his family gets bigger.....;)
I guess we'll know in 8 1/2~9 months
What do you call those big green weeds and why hasn't someone eliminated them?
Why can't we broadcast our own GPS signals from a bunch of units in line of sight and in the wide open?
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
For the purposes of the NGS recovery note NO!!!!!! (if I could figure out how to make the font bigger I would). A rod, let alone a 12' rod, in not a stable platform for geodetic type work. Besides clear cutting, you need a chop saw to get rid of the big bad multi-path radiator to the south.
The trees look to be around 30 years old. The location might have been suitable for GPS c.1990. Not so much now.
I go with No.
Sign and trees are a definitely factors even though you can't see their height.
But they do grow, y'know.
Set an eccentric pair and tie into the mark conventionally. If anyone does that anymore.
There were some marks on bridge abutments here that were designated suitable for gps . Yes, they did have clear sky but the set-up difficulty and safety concern were too much.
Well, thanks for thinking of me. I have been falling down on the job, in the human resources dpt. Nothing happening there, but thanks for the thoughts!
Now, on the JAVAD unit, it has the slickest mechanism to TEST if it has the right shot. If I told you what it does, with 100% confidence, you'd accuse me of lying. Many folks, who wandered over, and saw it, fell in, and now are irretrievable, to other devices. Never fear. Somebody may try to catch up. That's good for the overall industry.
Here is my Javad Chariot. I like it.
I like the Javad that good.
N