Bad RTK or Not?

Kris,
Do you suppose Kent stores all of his EDM data and post processes it in the office or do you suppose he has one of those real time EDMs?

> One thing I don't understand, and maybe someone has done it, why not have the DC import local CORS data over wireless and then internally process a static base session or even a rover point right there in the field, seems so easy. The data is all available.

It's not too far into the future I think.

> So, what you're saying is that you really don't have any confidence in your RTK-generated positions until you've checked them by some other means?

I'm curious if you note the backsight distance between the occupied point and backsight point when occupying a pair of points derived by static observations? If so, why?

Shawn,

"Do you suppose Kent stores all of his EDM data and post processes it in the office or do you suppose he has one of those real time EDMs?"

That's funny right there!

Dave

I suppose us smart surveyors should have written a little program long ago, heck, we used to download to a laptop in the truck, export files to the office through a cell phone, get them cooked and sent back, we still can, but usually the field crew doesn't want to waste the time so we take care of it later. That was pre 2000!!!

I've done this many times. Setting up for a static observation but have an RTK base going. So I'd do a 3-5 minute RTK before starting the static. When I'd compare the results later there would be very little difference, maybe a couple of hundredths. So why do the static at all? Anymore I only use static for long distances or not at all because of OPUS. With static you need to have your receivers all running at the same time. With OPUS you don't. With all the CORS out there, running multiple receivers all at the same time to post process static is just not all that productive.

Baaaad RTK or Not? - Check ideas

If I got a hold of one of the new GNSS units, probably wouldn't believe it! Whether I'd want to dedicate a half year's work to have one, dunno. Probably shouldn't risk it!

With static you need to have your receivers all running at the same time. With OPUS you don't. With all the CORS out there, running multiple receivers all at the same time to post process static is just not all that productive.

You don't really need all your receivers running for static. you can process it with CORS. You can also have a base setup somewhere, so run static on your rover if you want, if you are in control of everything you don't need to do the OPUS thing at all. Saves a fortune in time.

> > So, what you're saying is that you really don't have any confidence in your RTK-generated positions until you've checked them by some other means?
>
> I'm curious if you note the backsight distance between the occupied point and backsight point when occupying a pair of points derived by static observations? If so, why?

Okay, that's in the running for the Non Sequitur Prize of the Day, right up there with "Why is a duck?"

Baaaad RTK or Not? - Check ideas

ha, the 4700 is a nice receiver!!! I still use mine all the time. And if you have a Trimmark 3 you are golden;-)

> Okay, that's in the running for the Non Sequitur Prize of the Day, right up there with "Why is a duck?"

Austin sun getting to you, Kent?

The point is obvious. You check your work. You know the distance is good, but you still check it. You have the propensity to be as obtuse as a straight line.

> The point is obvious. You check your work. You know the distance is good, but you still check it.

The failure rate of Rapid Static GPS vector solutions is quite negligible, unlike that for positions from short sessions of RTK that tend to be pushed into locations generally unsuitable for GPS to begin with, as Leon did. The reason to adjust conventional measurements in combination with Rapid Static GPS vectors is not really so much to verify that the obviously good GPS vector solutions aren't blunders as it is to improve them and to validate the weights assigned to both.

Baaaad RTK or Not? - Check ideas

I still use the 4700 as a RTK rover. I ditched the Trimble backpack and also the big radio antenna. I've bought hiking backpacks from Cabelas. Throw away the camel back and there is nice little pouch for the receiver. I bought the small 6 inch "rubber ducky" whip antenna for the radio, just hook it straight to the receiver (doesn't even stick out of the backpack). Made my own power cords and use 5.5 AH sealed lead acid batteries (less than $20 each). I can't brag on packing the weight around, the two cables, or the cool hiker looks, but it works pretty good!

Both my original TSC1's died so I'm upgraded to a used TSC2.

>"Do you suppose Kent stores all of his EDM data and post processes it in the office or do you suppose he has one of those real time EDMs?"

Kind of clueless about the difference between EDM measurements and RTK positioning, really. EDM range solutions are extremely overdetermined and known to be reliable within well determined uncertainties (except possibly in East Texas). RTK is anything but that.

Uncertainty in Grammar

Kent,

"Kind of clueless about the difference between EDM measurements and RTK positioning, really."

Uh, can you diagram that sentence so that we might find out who or what the subject is?

Dave

When things check that well it almost brings a tear to my eye.

Now that is the truth

N

Uncertainty in Grammar

> "Kind of clueless about the difference between EDM measurements and RTK positioning, really."
> Uh, can you diagram that sentence so that we might find out who or what the subject is?

Sure.

That [implied subject]
- is [implied verb]
-- kind of clueless [adjectival phrase]

I'll bet you can take it from there. What did I win?

Conversational Deletion!

> Kent,
>
> "Kind of clueless about the difference between EDM measurements and RTK positioning, really."
>
> Uh, can you diagram that sentence so that we might find out who or what the subject is?
>
> Dave

Hey, I'll come to Kent's defense on this one!

He has demonstrated in that sentence a perfect example of "Conversational Deletion". This is used in (usually intimate) conversational English, but given the warm, cozy, friendly setting we see here on this forum, is perfectly acceptable as written English...

That said, if you really need what you ask for, it would be:

"Really, kind of clueless about the difference..."