All points and lines are sorted and layerized, in accordance with their description. Some layers are used for DTM data, other layers aren't. Benchmarks, for example, aren't.?ÿ
The approach also depends upon accurate data collection.?ÿ When a bad description or bad HR accidentally gets recorded, that has to either be corrected on the spot or appropriate notes made so it can be fixed in the office.?ÿ (I prefer the latter approach.)
Even with that, it's common for me to discover a bad description or two during the processing phase that has to be corrected and the F2F rerun.?ÿ I typically spend about 10 minutes fixing my raw data file at the end of every topo day so that it will process correctly.?ÿ But that time investment is trivial when compared to the time required to draft a topo from unsorted points alone.
None of my mentors ever used F2F, most never used data collectors.
?ÿ
We had a similar approach. 2 phases,?ÿ end of day we took data from DC and ran through ACCESS/TBC?ÿ for first QC pass, which collected the most field blunders etc, then phase 2 upon import to C3D, into which the first pass data was imported to the Survey Base, and that would be the basis for the record drawings and other sheet?ÿ sets for the remainder.?ÿ
A few big days in the field with topo/utilities and scans/point clouds pretty much kept us out of the field with the processing and deliverables for the engineering group for a while.
None of my mentors ever used F2F, most never used data collectors.
?ÿ
Why would you not use a DC if you are using a total station??ÿ Let's face it, hand booking is time consuming and has the added disadvantage of being susceptible to human error.?ÿ Don't get me started on booking GNSS data.?ÿ You need to stop your collection rate down to 60 seconds to allow time to transcribe the raw GPS observations data.
As for field to finish, it is not a new concept.?ÿ It has been around for the 30+ years I've been at this gig.?ÿ Wildsoft did a great job of coding shots and creating linework in the field back in the 80's.?ÿ As time has advanced, so has F2F.?ÿ Now days I figure about 0.5 hours per day in the field to review, adjust, process and export data to CAD (for larger projects the ratio decreases significantly).?ÿ As Jim said, most of my CAD time is spent drafting for presentation.?ÿ While F2F is primarily for mapping, it is also great for control and boundary work.?ÿ A robust coding system allows me to input just about everything I need to know about a monument while I'm setting at the point.?ÿ Hell, I even use the DC to take a picture of the monument that is tied to the point in CAD and by name.
Why would you not use a DC if you are using a total station??ÿ
If your business model is doing forestland boundaries then you need a $5000 Nikon TS, a field book, and the requisite skills. You don't get any ROI out of $30k Leica in that environment.?ÿ
But.... you have no business taking your Nikon into the city and trying to compete in that world.?ÿ
?ÿ
Okay, so I know what "field to finish" is. You can have point data moved to certain layers on import, attach symbols, etc. I even tried once to make an entire map using only the data import process. It was fun.
However, I don't think that process is going to create break lines in a three-dimensional model, especially wall break lines. Is that a correct assumption?
Field to finish will draw breaklines if you code them correctly. You need a good code table and consistent use of codes/descriptions to get much out of it. As an example, my code table is set to draw a 3D breakline along back of curb for use with the surface and a 2D polyline in the curbing layer. Banks, ditches, swales have breaklines. In the attached picture, somebody wasn't paying attention and got the PC and PT backwards. Easy to spot and easy to fix.
?ÿ
At least with Carlson Survey, creating 3D breaklines for walls is exactly what it does.?ÿ Also for curbs, tops and bottoms of slopes, edges of pavement, gravel, etc
As far as excluding BMs and other points, you can either do that by their descriptions, or use a different point number range for those types of features?ÿ
?ÿ
?ÿ
?ÿ
?ÿ
I don't think that process is going to create break lines in a three-dimensional model, especially wall break lines. Is that a correct assumption?
It is not. F2f will create 3d breaklines suitable to be used as DTM data.
I can have a day of topo survey drawn and DTM'd in maybe 15 minutes, and that time allows for a few fixes of bad descriptor coding.
?ÿ
I can have a day of topo survey drawn and DTM'd in maybe 15 minutes
And the beauty of F2F; it can be a day or a week, and will still take 15 minutes (well, maybe 20...)
?ÿ
I have a feature code library setup. Getting the other surveyors to use it is another problem. It helps to think like a draftsman. I even code points on a point cloud instead of just drawing lines.
I have Microsurvey setup to draw lines and symbols. I have TBC setup to draw lines which I think it does better with fewer shots. The Microsurvey system is every code starts with X Y or Z. X is curve, Y is sideshot and Z is line. The curve thing doesn??t work quite right, it tends to end or begin with an uncommanded s turn in there. And trying to make a circle is futile, like following a circular planter.
TBC has this figured out, there are codes and line codes, start, end, smooth curve, etc. They look right. But I haven??t tried to figure out the symbol thing yet.
None of my mentors ever used F2F, most never used data collectors.
?ÿ
My early mentors never used laser scanners, GIS, LDPs, UAS, integrated surveying, digital databases, total stations with cameras in them, PPK, least squares, custom projections, virtual surveying, real-time networks, cloud services, electronic timecards, laser printers and smartphones, to name a few. I use them all and don't feel particularly bad about it.
I'm not going to knock them for picking a path. I hope they don't knock me for keeping up with the times and brushing out new paths as they appear.
Yep, lots of them of different types and scales.?ÿ
Even huge ones where we set out control for aerial mapping.?ÿ
Much of our boundary work will have some topo connected to it, can't even do a subdivision without a topo.?ÿ
?ÿ
I find Topo work enjoyable, but I hate when I get "the curse".?ÿ That is topoing say a rough a 10m by 10 m grid pattern, and counting my steps while I do it to get it close.?ÿ I can not turn that off.
Few years ago, met a buddy after work, and he asked me how many steps was it from my truck to the bar seat.?ÿ "53" I answered with no hesitation.
I have done lots of topos. I used wildsoft F2F in the 80 but haven't used it since. I'm sure it's better now, but I think it would slow me down too much in the field to be worth it. When I'm taking the shots and also drafting, I'm pretty fast.?ÿ
It's a lot different from 2D work. Field work (with a TS) and drafting even more so takes some different skill sets.
One caution - don't think you're liability is less on a topo than anything else. My biggest liability problem was when I missed a simple breakline on a topo. And it's all too easy to miss a changed pole height.?ÿ
