> Obvious mistake?
At this point Kent is just poking fun. As he was from the start.
Obviously very good repeatable work can be done with RTK if it is handled anywhere near properly. If not it also has the potential to be a black box gibberish generator. All too many times it gets used as the latter.
km- if a thing is worth doing
What the old saw.... If ta thing is worth doing it is worth doing right.... Am I alone in thinking that there is not a good correlation between the record and measured?
km- if a thing is worth doing
> Am I alone in thinking that there is not a good correlation between the record and measured?
No, I don't think you are. :> The record distances are systematically in error by about 160ppm with random noise thrown in on top of that. I haven't included any distances with a terminal marked by a fence post because they aren't as good as the courses between rod and cap monuments I compared above.
km- if a thing is worth doing
Maybe I'm missing something, but this appears to me to be more an issue of poor choices in projections (6000 acre local grid projection?) than some fundamental flaw in the methodology behind the use of RTK. In other words, a lack of understanding and poor methodology on the user's part as opposed to a tool and technology fundamentally flawed by design.
km- if a thing is worth doing
> Maybe I'm missing something, but this appears to me to be more an issue of poor choices in projections (6000 acre local grid projection?) than some fundamental flaw in the methodology behind the use of RTK.
I think the point is that the only time I see stuff like this is when RTK is involved. Does that mean that every survey made with RTK is a mess? Of course not. Does that mean that the odds it is are much better than slim to none? I'd say "yes".
Essentially, what happened in the example I posted above is that some surveyor was using RTK without knowing how to use it properly and never apparently suspecting otherwise. It was generating coordinates and staking out coordinates. The guy thought he had made a really tight survey, too. At least that was what I understood from him when we spoke.
Historically, RTK has been a magnet for a certain style of practice of surveying on the run and I have yet to see any evidence that is about to change.
RTK experiences.
>> Conrad, I'm afraid it's obvious what your shortcoming is. You actually understand how to use RTK competently.
OMG!!!
Kent McMinimizer just admitted that RTK is a accurate when used properly!!!
My whole world view has now been compromised.... :-S
RTK experiences.
> >> Conrad, I'm afraid it's obvious what your shortcoming is. You actually understand how to use RTK competently.
>
> OMG!!!
>
> Kent McMinimizer just admitted that RTK is a accurate when used properly!!!
Don't worry, there isn't a chance in the world it's contagious.
RTK experiences.
Tools are tools... they can be used properly or not.
I've driven a nail with a crescent wrench before, but it was definitely not for "finish" work.
Kent, the twentieth century called, they want Star*Net back. Can I borrow your CD of Microsoft Encarta? I have a Gateway 2000 desktop with Windows 95... YES! Of course it's an original Pentium! I use GPSurvey for most of my work with my 4600LS. I sure love me some single frequency vectors; just gotta remember to keep it under 20km!
RTK experiences.
> Tools are tools... they can be used properly or not.
>
> I've driven a nail with a crescent wrench before, but it was definitely not for "finish" work.
The "tools" analogy breaks down a bit, though, when you consider how many users conned themselves into believing that the magic hammer they bought would also drive screws and mortise doors for hinges. :>
> Kent, the twentieth century called, they want Star*Net back. Can I borrow your CD of Microsoft Encarta? I have a Gateway 2000 desktop with Windows 95... YES! Of course it's an original Pentium! I use GPSurvey for most of my work with my 4600LS. I sure love me some single frequency vectors; just gotta remember to keep it under 20km!
LOL! Actually, those GPS vectors were under about 3km (2 miles) average and were surveyed in relation to a base with an NAD83 uncertainty of about +/-3mm in N and E and +/-6mm in Up positioned using a vintage Trimble 4000ssi with L1/L2 Micro-centered Antenna + GP. The ties via L1 observations took five minutes and yielded positions with uncertainties that averaged about +/-6mm in N and E in relation to NAD83. This calculation was done using Star*Net (which you probably would not have access to from the sound of it).:>
The 21st century RTK technology used in surveying the record plat described above was much, much worse. I appreciate that you're interested in newer technology regardless of how much it costs and regardless of whether it actually works any better. Oddly, I have to think you haven't really thought the problem through.
