Notifications
Clear all

CORPSCON 6

14 Posts
3 Users
0 Reactions
4 Views
(@retired69)
Posts: 547
Registered
Topic starter
 

I'm attempting to do a batch conversion from Ohio North Nad83 to Geographic Lat/Lon

I'm attempting to see if an old line(running east & west), stayed true to the 41 st parallel.

All my manual conversions come out correctly at near 41 degrees north latitude, but every time I try to do a batch conversion, the latitudes come out about 44 degrees 41 minutes. The relative positions appear to remain the same . . . just about 4 degrees too far north.

Same settings

I can't figure out what I must be doing wrong and I have done batch conversions before with no problems.

Any ideas?

 
Posted : February 12, 2013 10:32 am
(@stephen-ward)
Posts: 2246
Registered
 

I'd double check the format of the input data in the batch file vs. how you input it when you do a single conversion. All other settings being the same that should be the only source for the difference.

 
Posted : February 12, 2013 10:39 am
(@retired69)
Posts: 547
Registered
Topic starter
 

Actually, I used the batch file data manually to check against the batch file output.

 
Posted : February 12, 2013 10:50 am
(@stephen-ward)
Posts: 2246
Registered
 

Post the data for two or three points and I will try to replicate your results.

 
Posted : February 12, 2013 10:54 am
(@retired69)
Posts: 547
Registered
Topic starter
 

let me try two or three points first . . . just in case my 30 points might've somehow overloaded it.

 
Posted : February 12, 2013 11:21 am
(@retired69)
Posts: 547
Registered
Topic starter
 

didn't change anything

70,509870,1965115
71,510010,1958405
72,510195,1951385
73,510340,1944765

I'm pondering and somehow I seem to remember that one version of Corpscon needed a "fix". I wonder if it was version 6?

 
Posted : February 12, 2013 11:26 am
(@stephen-ward)
Posts: 2246
Registered
 

Per page 16 of the pdf that comes up when you select help Corpscon specifies that batch files for state plane coordinate should be in the format point name,easting,northing,elevation. I also assumed that it would be p,n,e but notice that it gives wrong lats and longs when you run as batch conversion. Two ways to fix this. Either change your data file, or use the "convert user defined file" option to specify that the data file is p,n,e and you will get good answers.

 
Posted : February 12, 2013 11:53 am
(@retired69)
Posts: 547
Registered
Topic starter
 

oops

I used the "user defined", format to set it up, then I think I used the Corpscon data input to do the conversion . . . my bad

Thanks

 
Posted : February 12, 2013 12:22 pm
(@doug-crawford)
Posts: 681
 

OK, John

Now , that you have your data processed, how did the old timers do,
as far maintaining the 41th parallel?

 
Posted : February 12, 2013 1:03 pm
(@stephen-ward)
Posts: 2246
Registered
 

oops

I'm more familiar with the older version of Corpscon where it had a routine that allowed you to key the data into a form and then press the add to file button to append it to the file. Then after you had successfully keyed all of the data you could batch convert. I always assumed it was using p,n,e,z but never had a reason to verify. Helping you today will save me from pounding my head on my desk sometime in the future when I need to batch convert a file.

 
Posted : February 12, 2013 1:42 pm
(@retired69)
Posts: 547
Registered
Topic starter
 

oops

THE 41

 
Posted : February 12, 2013 2:55 pm
(@retired69)
Posts: 547
Registered
Topic starter
 

oops

BASELINE/00 THE 41 PARALLEL
RESULTS of various random segments
within the Connecticut Western Reserve of Ohio
5 miles townships

all lines run from east to west for calculations

00 = distance north from south base line
16 = miles distance of line checked
13.0" = extreme of latitude

00 16 miles 00.5" difference Seth Pease

15 16 miles 03.0" diverting south Nathan Redfield

25 31 miles 10.0" diverting north Moses Warren

50 21 miles 13.0" diverting north John Milton Holley

55 25 miles 19.0" diverting north John Milton Holley

These numbers appear to be utterly amazing for 1797

 
Posted : February 12, 2013 3:10 pm
(@doug-crawford)
Posts: 681
 

oops

Thanks.

 
Posted : February 12, 2013 3:43 pm
(@retired69)
Posts: 547
Registered
Topic starter
 

oops

Measurements(miles) between the 41st parallel(baseline), and the next parallel were
calculated using 5312' for a mile, which seems to be the average length of 80 chains throughout the 1797 & 1808 surveys.

 
Posted : February 12, 2013 5:20 pm