It's a semantic distinction rather than a practical one.
Agreed, but in part I'm addressing the segment of users that consider downloaded coordinates to be "raw data". Therefore I believe it important to be very specific about my meanings.
Hey RFC good to see you back!
If you would be willing to post the starnet .DAT files that would be great.
All of what you are asking can be done in starnet -- checking the RTK points vs your terrestrial work, the rotations, etc.
A quick test would be to comment out your local coordinates and add the state plane coordinates given by your surveyor as "C" records, giving each one a std error of 0.1 ft in northing, easting, and elevation. Run it and see where your total station work agrees or disagrees with the RTK points.
Is there a way of "packaging up" an entire Starnet project? I've got about 25 .dat files. I'm not doing so well cleaning up the mess I've created over time lol.
@rfc "Is there a way of "packaging up" an entire Starnet project? I've got about 25 .dat files. I'm not doing so well cleaning up the mess I've created over time lol."
Here is an idea to clean it up. One sheet of paper per setup point. Rough sketch all the points shot from that setup. Start looking for points where you setup shooting other points making a traverse. Or a network of triangles is even better.
After spending quite some time trying to wrap my head around the higher math provided by @landbutcher464mhz and @mathteacher, here's what I did: I assumed my surveyor (PW) base station point to be correct. I translated (not rotated) my four points according to the Delta E and Delta N values. Then did "Square Root of Delta E squared plus Delta N squared" to get the resulting Delta.
You can see that in so doing, it shows a slightly different picture than PW observation of the N corner (his 1:2) being the outlier. If you take the deltas of 3102 and 2, they add up to .3'+/- difference that I measured with a total station, so it could mean the combination of the RTK standard error of .1' and my errors post adjustment, is the real story.
Good news is that my surveyor has promised me all his files soon. I do want to add his Coordinates to Starnet with a .1' std. error as @half-bubble has suggested and see what that does.
Here is an update on my previous "Sketch 04". Your latest Pathways.xlsx file has the coords in East / North. Previously I entered your data as North / East and posted a "Sketch 04" and nobody corrected me. So to get in sync with your latest file I translated my data to match your Excel data. My software uses North / East but the numbers now match your Excel file. The bearings and distances are all different now and I am quite surprised you never corrected me. OR is the data in your latest Excel file reversed? Anyway here is "Sketch 05" based on your latest Excel file and IMHO your traverse data looks very good and should hold over the GPS data.
EDIT: The title on your Survey Deltas indicates you are measuring from PW(GPS) to My Survey(TS). If so then your signs (+/-) are backwards.
EDIT: Your Sqr Rt distances need the bearings with them to show that the first 0.1315' is SE and the other 3 are all opposite at NW. Just another indication that the GPS point 2:2 might be incorrect especially if your tie from #500 to your #2 checks out.
Here is an update on my previous "Sketch 04". Your latest Pathways.xlsx file has the coords in East / North. Previously I entered your data as North / East and posted a "Sketch 04" and nobody corrected me. So to get in sync with your latest file I translated my data to match your Excel data. My software uses North / East but the numbers now match your Excel file. The bearings and distances are all different now and I am quite surprised you never corrected me. OR is the data in your latest Excel file reversed? Anyway here is "Sketch 05" based on your latest Excel file and IMHO your traverse data looks very good and should hold over the GPS data.
EDIT: The title on your Survey Deltas indicates you are measuring from PW(GPS) to My Survey(TS). If so then your signs (+/-) are backwards.
EDIT: Your Sqr Rt distances need the bearings with them to show that the first 0.1315' is SE and the other 3 are all opposite at NW. Just another indication that the GPS point 2:2 might be incorrect especially if your tie from #500 to your #2 checks out.
I am confused about the signs, for sure. And I'll check #500 to #2. But one thing is certain: Your sketch does NOT represent what the property looks like. It's "Mirrored" north to south. the 2042' line is the North boundary of the property, NOT the south. The property looks like the image in my very first post in this thread.
My latest sketch is based on the coordinates in your latest Excel file. Are the eastings and northings reversed in that new file?
My latest sketch is based on the coordinates in your latest Excel file. Are the eastings and northings reversed in that new file?
Argh! Yes..I think so. Northings should be in the 428,xxx realm; Eastings in the 1,618,xxx realm. I've got that mixed up.
Also, I believe I need to translate my survey SOUTH and EAST to match PW's. If I'm not mistaken that means my coordinate numbers for Northing should go down, because I'm moving the survey SOUTH, but the numbers for Easting should go UP because I'm moving the survey EAST.
Back to the drawing board; I'm making a mess of things here, to say the least.
Also check the elevation for point 3102. Back on page 2 of this post you posted a file with #3102 Elev=1003.03'. Your Excel file has Elev=1003.30'?
Also check the elevation for point 3102. Back on page 2 of this post you posted a file with #3102 Elev=1003.03'. Your Excel file has Elev=1003.30'?
Good catch Sir. Changed that. Also, I changed the titles "Northing" and "Easting", but the coordinate numbers are all the same. Not sure how you are making your plots from my data, but as far as I can tell, my Northings go DOWN and the Eastings go UP as they should. I haven't changed any of the numbers (Except 3102 elevation).
Your revised "Pathways v2.xlsx" now plots the same as my original sketch back on page 2 (see attached) so all good. What you saw on my previous sketch "Surveys Combined 05" was your data plotted with the N & E labels switched as shown in your "Pathways v1.xlsx" and I was suprised that the shape stayed similar with all the coordinates switched.
Your revised "Pathways v2.xlsx" now plots the same as my original sketch back on page 2 (see attached) so all good. What you saw on my previous sketch "Surveys Combined 05" was your data plotted with the N & E labels switched as shown in your "Pathways v1.xlsx" and I was suprised that the shape stayed similar with all the coordinates switched.
Point of clarification please:
Way back in the beginning, you presented coordinate points and a plat showing my survey both translated and rotated.
Then around page 3, you presented another version just translated but NOT rotated. My understanding is that the latest sketch would have the translated but not rotated coordinates. But this latest file seems to have the coordinates for the prior translated/rotated survey. (3102 at 428441.4521 for translated and rotated vs. 428441.4592 for translation only) Is that intentional?
I've compared the distances and azimuths of all four sides and three of them are all pretty close...the outlier still being the shortest leg 3102-2 which I'm going to focus on next, but just thought I'd get this clarification.
Thanks again for all your help (and patience lol).