I have just began mixing gps with convential methods. I have never used LSA, only compass rule. I really like the idea of getting more out of an adjustment program while being able to mix grid and ground distances. Where does one learn to begin using this? Just jump in head first? Surv net or star net? I've been thinking about going through some tutorials.
JMH4825, post: 432180, member: 10876 wrote: I have just began mixing gps with convential methods. I have never used LSA, only compass rule. I really like the idea of getting more out of an adjustment program while being able to mix grid and ground distances. Where does one learn to begin using this? Just jump in head first? Surv net or star net? I've been thinking about going through some tutorials.
I use Star*Net. The advantage to using LSA software that allows you to import GPS vectors from a number of different manufacturers' formats as well as conventional observations in various standard DC formats is that you aren't tied to any particular manufacturer's format. The Star*Net input format is plain ascii text that can be edited and that, with some annotations and notes makes a very good permanent record of the raw data.
What I particularly like about Star*Net is its simplicity and backwards compatibility. Disclaimer: I'm still running Star*Net Pro V.6 with the separate DC conversion program that translates conventional data in SDR format to Star*Net input format.
Here's a sample of part of the conventional input file:
[PRE]
# Job ID: 17-881
.Units FeetUS
.Units DMS
.Order FromAtTo
.Sep -
.3D
.DELTA OFF
# At Spike 11
DV 11-10 241.8512 87-24-28.75 5.285/4.945 'SPIKE.WASHER
M 10-11-434 0-34-44.00 141.2250 86-48-36.00 5.285/4.945 'SPIKE.BC.CL.PVMT
M 10-11-435 1-48-27.50 119.2900 86-47-34.00 5.285/4.945 'SPIKE.MP.CL.PVMT
M 10-11-436 2-50-19.50 99.9550 86-42-20.50 5.285/4.945 'SPIKE.EC.CL.PVMT
M 10-11-437 10-38-56.50 36.2050 87-42-19.50 5.285/4.945 'SPIKE.BC.CL.PVMT
M 10-11-438 94-27-54.00 19.4050 95-20-32.50 5.285/4.945 'SPIKE.MP.CL.PVMT
M 10-11-439 123-42-18.00 65.3550 94-45-29.50 5.285/4.945 'SPIKE.EC.CL.PVMT
M 10-11-440 123-25-13.50 131.7700 94-12-26.00 5.285/4.945 'SPIKE.AP.CL.PVMT
#DV 11-10 241.8500 87-24-29.75 5.285/4.945 'SPIKE.WASHER
M 10-11-12 122-09-47.50 299.9000 92-34-28.75 5.285/4.945 'SPIKE.WASHER
# At Spike 12
DV 12-11 299.8663 87-33-49.75 5.325/4.945 'SPIKE.WASHER
M 11-12-441 347-32-29.00 20.7300 91-16-12.50 5.325/4.945 'SPIKE.AP.CL.RD
M 11-12-442 268-36-11.50 5.3625 98-56-10.50 5.325/4.945 'SPIKE.AP.CL.RD
M 11-12-443 202-52-28.00 16.4500 93-36-50.00 5.325/4.945 'SPIKE.AP.CL.RD
M 11-12-444 236-12-26.50 26.0675 94-56-49.00 5.325/4.945 'SPIKE.AP.CL.RD
#DV 12-11 299.8663 87-33-50.50 5.325/4.945 'SPIKE.WASHER
M 11-12-13 256-15-38.00 97.4750 90-10-59.00 5.325/4.945 'SPIKE.WASHER
# At Spike 13
DV 13-12 97.4850 90-24-27.00 5.565/4.945 'SPIKE.WASHER
M 12-13-445 0-53-26.50 44.5975 95-37-02.00 5.565/4.945 'SPIKE.AP.CL.RD
M 12-13-446 233-22-43.50 6.4350 91-55-36.00 5.565/4.945 'SPIKE.AP.CL.RD
M 12-13-447 198-16-18.00 27.6400 85-02-30.50 5.565/4.945 'SPIKE.MP.CL.RD
M 12-13-448 199-15-23.50 47.6950 84-48-05.00 5.565/4.945 'SPIKE.EC.CL.RD
M 12-13-449 202-44-39.50 85.6450 85-56-37.00 5.565/4.945 'SPIKE.BC.CL.RD
M 12-13-450 202-29-33.50 98.4750 86-14-02.00 5.565/4.945 'SPIKE.MP.CL.RD
M 12-13-451 201-41-21.50 110.6750 86-28-46.00 5.565/4.945 'SPIKE.EC.CL.RD
#DV 13-12 97.4850 90-24-24.25 5.565/4.945 'SPIKE.WASHER
M 12-13-14 204-02-52.00 112.8100 86-29-43.00 5.565/4.945 'SPIKE.WASHER
[/PRE]
The "#" character is for comment lines. The "At Spike 11" comments were added by me just to improve legibility. Likewise, I turned some of the lines (the "DV" lines) into comment lines by adding the "#" just because it was better to remove duplicate measurements from the same instrument setup to the same prism setup than to leave them in as if they were truly independent remeasurements.
As for learning Star*Net, one of its great strengths has been the excellent manual that was supplied with the software.
Rankin_File, post: 432169, member: 101 wrote: actually, thanks for the info- Definitely something to consider in our networks here)
I'll post an example of how the problem of designing an efficient survey, i.e. least uncertainty for least effort, can be tackled using Star*Net's pre-analysis features. On a large project, it would definitely be a feature worth using. Obviously, field work will present variations from the ideal anything, but having a ballpark idea of what should comfortably meet spec for the most moderate effort is usually a good place to start.
JMH4825, post: 432180, member: 10876 wrote: I have just began mixing gps with convential methods. I have never used LSA, only compass rule. I really like the idea of getting more out of an adjustment program while being able to mix grid and ground distances. Where does one learn to begin using this? Just jump in head first? Surv net or star net? I've been thinking about going through some tutorials.
Like Kent I'm a big StarNet proponent. But if you have SurvNet (which is a component of Carlson Survey) I'd go with that. Dive in. Start with a simple block traverse and build up.
Kent McMillan, post: 432200, member: 3 wrote: I'll post an example of how the problem of designing an efficient survey...
Greetings Kent:
Did you ever do this? I'm struggling with learning how to get the most out of the "pre-analysis" feature in Star*net and would love to see a practical example.
rfc, post: 434989, member: 8882 wrote: Greetings Kent:
Did you ever do this? I'm struggling with learning how to get the most out of the "pre-analysis" feature in Star*net and would love to see a practical example.
Yes, I did. It is now well off the stern in the wake of the ship. Conrad posted several times to that thread, so searching his posts should reel it in.
https://surveyorconnect.com/community/threads/a-way-to-plan-survey-accuracy.330996/
Kent McMillan, post: 434991, member: 3 wrote: Yes, I did. It is now well off the stern in the wake of the ship. Conrad posted several times to that thread, so searching his posts should reel it in.
https://surveyorconnect.com/community/threads/a-way-to-plan-survey-accuracy.330996/
Thank you Sir! I missed that one entirely. Must have been in the woods too long.
I'm using GNSS at Mountain Home State Forest. I have 8 receivers running simultaneously which takes all of my tripods and two of the other crew's tripods. That's 3 R4 model 3 receivers, 3 R8s receivers, 2 Topcon GR3 receivers. It's taking 6 hour sessions to get something reasonably accurate (and fixed). The other crew is running the boundary traverse (he volunteered). I get 8 going then we go set more control pairs; the task is to get the positions of controlling monuments (all needed have been found) and avoid having to traverse on roads with logging trucks and taxpayer visitors in their cars. It's working fairly well.
The interesting thing is it looks more open than the Mendocino County (coastal) forest work but it is more difficult getting fixed vectors, maybe something in those huge trees. With 8 receivers and multi-hour sessions I get about 2/3rds of the vectors fixed. To go a mile I need at least 3 hours, to go a mile and a half I need 6+ hours.
StarNet makes putting it all together relatively easy. I could set it up in TBC with a lot more effort but in a hotel room at night it's easier to use StarNet. The statistics are better organized with the 95% error ellipses near the bottom. I'm doing the baseline processing in TBC which mostly consists of playing with processing masks but I'm finding leave it at 15?ø and process everything because it seems to work better processing a pile of baselines at the same time than trying to do them one at a time.
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned it...Another way to improve survey accuracy would be to build a wall, on the Oklahoma side of Texas.... Just sayin!
🙂