Never said anything about NOT taking good notes.?ÿ I said it's stupid to record every rod height change in the field
?ÿ
@jph I just spent three days fixing data that could have been cleaned in an hour with good notes. It takes minutes a day and smooths out the remainder of the job flow...
It is worth discussing just what "good notes", for a topo, are these days. If a field guy can't get the rod changes in the dc they aren't likely to go in any notes, either.?ÿ?ÿ
@jph in this case missing rod changes made it hard to find the errors. Tracking rod heights in the notes is a trivial investment with potentially big payout.?ÿ
@norman-oklahoma I find the crew is unlikely to screw it up both places. I've required it since the GR and SDR days and it continues to save my bacon from time to time.
That's exactly what guys in the field need, more mindless crap to do, just to appease the people with the climate controlled environment.?ÿ Stuff like that leads to more frustration, less production, and kills morale.?ÿ
Wouldn't be surprised if your guys are writing it down in the fbk, by looking at the raw data on the DC, on their ride back to the office.
There are better ways to limit rod errors, and some of them have been mentioned above.
When I was a greenhorn I-man, I worked for a company (company "x") where the surveyor wanted every setup documented in a field book. The PC recorded angles & distances for traverse points and any secondary control, all rod height changes, unusual circumstances, any visit by the land owner or adjacent owners, etc. I was green on the instrument and working the data collector, and missed some rod changes the PC and/or rodman called out. The surveyor was fired because he & the owner had some personality conflicts.?ÿ I departed company "x" and was working for company "y" under another surveyor when a large project from company "x" shows up as a consulting job for us to determine why the contours shown on the design drawings didn't match the actual contours of the site. Company "x" provided all of the raw data files and field books. The surveyor that was fired never made any rod corrections before he imported his points into AutoCAD and created his TIN. It took 4 days to get all of the rod changes verified/corrected and a new TIN created. We spot checked the new contours (18 months after the plans were initially issued) with no discrepancies noted. The plan set was revised by company "x" and the project was completed without added delays and only minor change orders due to quantity revisions.
4 days to get 18 month old data corrected vs. 45 days to re-survey the entire project site... Company "x" was grateful a favorable outcome was reached in such a short period.
The moral of this story is that the more people that is involved with the data, the more likely a mistake will be made in the collection/processing phases. The excessive documentation of each setup for a 3 man crew might seem pointless (or stupid) to some, and it might be for an experienced crew, but in this particular case, it saved thousands of dollars and countless crew hours.
@jph My policies don't come from a textbook or a desire to assign senseless duties to field guys. I have more time in the field than most of them have on earth. They understand the purpose of taking contemporaneous notes and it pays off. When somebody makes a sensible case for a different way I'm all ears.
I find the crew is unlikely to screw it up both places.
In my experience the errors of this type are ones of omission, not of commission.
That's awesome
But I'm not going to do it, or have others do it, just because of a one time event.?ÿ?ÿ
Again, good for you.?ÿ?ÿ
But most of us here have decades of experience too.?ÿ There are repetitive things that I probably do that others wouldn't be bothered with.
Your personal experience doesn't necessarily translate to becoming SOP for the profession as a whole.?ÿ?ÿ
?ÿ
Similar.?ÿ
I always call out my rod height as I'm changing it, so I engage the IP or at the very least give myself a reminder of the thing I'm doing.
I'll master the construction staking and landfill certification process?ÿ then give you a call.
That's awesome
But I'm not going to do it, or have others do it, just because of a one time event.?ÿ?ÿ
I have a different take on that story. It's not awesome.
That company ran a substantial amount of "QA/QC". Sounds like they had one member of the party (PC) pretty well just taking notes. 45 days of field time (so a pretty significant project, presumably covering a significant area), and yet they sent a (very) bad plan out the door.?ÿ
This says to me that their systems aren't working. Possibly that the QA/QC system is too convoluted and not adhered to, or had steps missing. If heights booked in the field were not successfully transferred for correction, that presumably also means that those heights in the field are also not checked during processing and are only really useful as a way to fix things after an error is found.
FWIW, an alternative system to manage these gross errors is to run quality strings across the data collected from another station, or with a different instrument. Takes only a minute or so as you move up the traverse, and allows for simple, even automated, software checks and report generation on the quality of the work.
You are correct with your conclusion that the QA/QC system failed. The surveyor and the owner that was neither a surveyor nor engineer, were butting heads for some time before the plans were issued.?ÿ I can only speculate to the reason the office staff/PLS ignored the field notes. My example of how valuable the redundant field notes were in this particular situation, was almost 30 years ago, before the data collectors (in the hands of a green i-man) could give quality control measures in the field, other than inverse between two shots taken on the same point.
Granted, redundant procedures may seem to be time consuming and useless, and even a moral buster for some. For others, this small, seemingly insignificant note may save hours of time in the future. If a seemingly insignificant procedure is implemented and it becomes a moral issue, I'd have to look at the way it was introduced to crew.
Everyone has their own way of doing things. What works for me may not work for others. It doesn't mean it is stupid to follow, or not to follow that specific procedure, only that it works or doesn't work for you.
Stepping down from the soap box now...
Granted, redundant procedures may seem to be time consuming and useless, and even a moral buster for some. For others, this small, seemingly insignificant note may save hours of time in the future. If a seemingly insignificant procedure is implemented and it becomes a moral issue, I'd have to look at the way it was introduced to crew.
Everyone has their own way of doing things. What works for me may not work for others. It doesn't mean it is stupid to follow, or not to follow that specific procedure, only that it works or doesn't work for you.
Agreed. Sometimes the stakes are high enough that implementing otherwise "pointless" procedures makes sense.
Not all of us do the exact same type of projects all the time, and what might be pointless for one job is critical for another.
I despise assembly-line surveying. Any PLS worth their salt needs to be able to assess a job and make modifications accordingly, as well as explain to crews, techs, etc. the value of those modifications.
@rover83?ÿ
I have yet to find any situation in this profession that has only one way to proceed. There are no hard-fast rules that fit every situation. The mark of a professional is knowing when and why to apply the rule that fits best.
