Conversational Deletion!
> That said, if you really need what you ask for, it would be:
>
> "Really, kind of clueless about the difference..."
>
> Of course, that assumes he was talking about himself, and not someone else.
The accepted polite form on this forum is to refer to some remark as clueless, not its author. :>
Uncertainty in Grammar
> You've won a brand-spanking-new RTK Rover!
You know, the Texas licensing board had to do away with some accuracy standards to relax things enough to allow the use of RTK. Part of it, I'm sure was the Number Box aspect of typical usage that prevented any rigorous analysis of errors beyond the "Uh-oh", "Uh-huh", and "Maybe!" categories.
The other part was either that RTK wasn't good enough to meet the existing standard or too many users were complaining that the whole subject of error analysis made their heads hurt.
Conversational Deletion!
>
> The accepted polite form on this forum is to refer to some remark as clueless, not its author. :>
I hope it's realized by all that that WAS an attempt at humor. I probably need to hit the books on the appropriate use of moticons in addition to RTK.
Conversational Deletion!
> >
> > The accepted polite form on this forum is to refer to some remark as clueless, not its author. :>
>
> I hope it's realized by all that that WAS an attempt at humor. I probably need to hit the books on the appropriate use of moticons in addition to RTK.
I only mentioned it as a point of technical interest to explain the "That is kind of clueless" construction as opposed to the "You are kind of clueless" version which would otherwise be preferred as more direct and descriptive. :>
Uncertainty in Grammar
>
> The other part was either that RTK wasn't good enough to meet the existing standard or too many users were complaining that the whole subject of error analysis made their heads hurt.
Not true. When used properly, it well exceeded the standards that were in place. Hell, even the NGS wrote a paper on how to use it and obtain excellent positions with it.
Tell the truth, you're just cheap and scared to use some technology from the 21st century, right?
🙂
I you are in or near a questionable environment it is better to have the older units. The newer ones I've used will lock anywhere.
While your results back up the RTK numbers, I can give tons of examples on the opposite end of the spectrum. The question for me would be simple. How repeatable are your results in the environment described?
With a bad init, you can get the wrong answer for an entire "Fixed Session" Which means that IF you could save all the data, during the fixed cycle, (maybe 20" to 4 mins long etc.) ALL of that group will typically be within a certain range... as in generating an error ellipse, that has a varying size. It may have a center line 0.5' long, and bounce around up to half a foot, max. This would be a larger one. I wish the data collection software would allow you to review a series of these ellipses, from say, an hr observation, or more, and let you choose.
When I started playing with this kind of an idea, I was using L-1 receivers. Marginal spot. 36 hrs. I came later, and offset it, and shot it in with a total station. Fit within an hundredth, but the GPS software told me it was not a FIXED solution!
I'd like to be able to use RTK, and set it in a marginal location, and let her cook, while I go to lunch, and come back later, and find 6 fixed groups, and one of them be an outlyer, and all the rest in the reason zone. Software averages those in the reason zone, and throws out the outlyer. But, it saves into raw data, the average of each group, and what the axis of the elipse is, for later review.
O well. I also want my data collector to have ACTIVE menus. Meaning, that it has menus all around the touch screen perimeter. Push one button, and 18 icons appear, around the perimeter of the touch screen. Push another button, and another 18 appear.
So, Yellow shift, turns on 18 icons.
Red Shift, turns on a different 18
Green shift turns on a still different 18
IF while in any of the above, you hit M, then that changes to another 18, which are SUBroutines of the original 18. This allows a short learning curve, and nearly instantaneous access to every function in the computer. This would allow you to leave GPS running, and to access the robot AT THE SAME TIME. As soon as you activate an icon, it goes into that mode, and the icons disappear.
Carlson, hire me for a month, as a Data collector consultant. I make it fly!
Nate
> I'd like to be able to use RTK, and set it in a marginal location, and let her cook, while I go to lunch, and come back later, and find 6 fixed groups, and one of them be an outlyer, and all the rest in the reason zone. Software averages those in the reason zone, and throws out the outlyer. But, it saves into raw data, the average of each group, and what the axis of the elipse is, for later review.
>
That's almost exactly how Javad's new auto verify works, Nate.
> O well. I also want my data collector to have ACTIVE menus. Meaning, that it has menus all around the touch screen perimeter. Push one button, and 18 icons appear, around the perimeter of the touch screen. Push another button, and another 18 appear.
>
I don't know about 18 icons, but this scheme is also almost exactly how Javad's data collection software works. "Smart" buttons all around that display information and also, when pushed, access even more options/information.
Will the Javad dc push any total sta at this time?
N
Uncertainty in Grammar
"Tell the truth, you're just cheap and scared to use some technology from the 21st century, right?"
Ouch! That one HAD to hurt!
Dave
Uncertainty in Grammar
> > The other part was either that RTK wasn't good enough to meet the existing standard or too many users were complaining that the whole subject of error analysis made their heads hurt.
>
> Not true. When used properly, it well exceeded the standards that were in place.
Actually, if you ever bother to do the error analysis, you'll find that RTK as commonly used didn't come close to meeting the standards as the separation distances between points positioned decreased. In that case, the applicable standard approached being that reporting relative positions of monuments with errors larger than 0.10 ft. was incompetent practice of surveying. That is what the abandoned standard amounted to.
That was nearly poetic.