Some old software when doing compass bowditch didn’t like crossing. I don’t use compass anymore and have not in years. Least squares nowadays . When doing things in the 90’s for an infield adjustment and area computations back then we tried not to cross for the reasons stated above n-2*180 along with always starting the adjustment for most westerly point. Lat departure and DMD. Remember academia is academia. The diagonal of 5,5 is 7.07 but that because we can measure that. But in school math it’s the sqroot . Neither is wrong but one is more applicable than the other. Don’t forget what you learned in school but test it and use it to the point in which it makes sense. There is many ways to skin a cat. Learn all the ways so you can choose the best one at the time.
@aliquot I don't know that they are wrong, but I do know they are approximations...
@aliquot I don't know that they are wrong, but I do know they are approximations...
You know they are wrong if the traverse doesn't close to within less of the precision you are reporting results to.
A better method than refusing to report adjusted measurements, which is just lying,.is to be honest with significant figures. This sickness of reporting boundaries to the nearest second and 1/100'th foot has got to stop.
I don't think you can infer that the measurements are wrong. My survey techniques and equipment get me unusually high precision. To adjust the coordinates, or distribute the error by some algorithm is not necessary.
As an example, the perimeter of my latest traverse got a precision of 1:290,000 and contained about 7 acres.
Analysis with the method of least squares assured me the precision of the work exceeds minimum standards. Therefore I did not adjust any coordinates. I do print the analysis for the file.
If the coordinates are adjusted, then I need to go back and see if the adjusted coordinates are wrong, not the other way around.
You don't have to infer that they are wrong. Your data tells you they are wrong if you misclose more than 1/2 the unit you are reporting your results to.
Minimum standards is a poor goal. You would have said Alanis good and walked away if your closure was 1:,15,000, or whatever your minimum standards are?
This sickness of reporting boundaries to the nearest second and 1/100'th foot has got to stop.
I agree, at worst it feels like fraud, at best it hints that we don't understand significant digits. I am required to list acreage to the thousandth of an acre in certain jurisdictions and I've had reviewers ask why my square footage and acreage don't match. To avoid an early stroke, I now calc the acreage, round it (via the banker's method mind you) then recalc the square footage 🤬 .
I ran the numbers after reading one of Ghilani's articles and I think I needed around four to six D&R turns on a given angle to qualify labeling angles to the nearest second with my three second robot. That of course provide no wiggle room for random or systematic error.