Field to Finish Question

> Are the descriptions correct for F2F to draw the linework?
What software are you using? It makes a difference.

I would suggest using the code “conc” for all the concrete shots and
Using the code “asph” for all the asphalt shots.
For the line work I would have “conc1” for that linework and “asph1” for that linework.
Then you can use “conc2” and “asph2” for the next areas and so on.
I would save NG for the dirt shots.
My take is to always use the proper code so there is no question when the office
Surveyor prepares the drawing.
That is based on having many crews and many techs to get the work done.
It is also based on having several offices who share resources to get the work done.

> > Are the descriptions correct for F2F to draw the linework?
> What software are you using? It makes a difference.

Carlson Survey 2012 & 2014

> I would suggest using the code “conc” for all the concrete shots and
> Using the code “asph” for all the asphalt shots.
> For the line work I would have “conc1” for that linework and “asph1” for that linework.
> Then you can use “conc2” and “asph2” for the next areas and so on.
> I would save NG for the dirt shots.
> My take is to always use the proper code so there is no question when the office
> Surveyor prepares the drawing.
> That is based on having many crews and many techs to get the work done.
> It is also based on having several offices who share resources to get the work done.

The only problem with that is that if I were to use your methodology the number marking they different areas of pavement would be reduced to the code itself(asph1, asph2 = asph).

If I have 20 areas of asphalt to shot it would become very tedious to remember what number is next in the list of sections.

I was told that if I stuck to one code for each structure, Carlson would know what to do with it if given the correct special codes.

You'll have difficulties with and automated Field-to-Finish for the following reasons:

• You're collecting major end-points of the lines first and then "filling in the gaps" on several of your lines. Because of this, the "Sequential" option of Carlson F2F will generate overlapping lines.
• The "Nearest Found" option in Carlson F2F (designed to handle the above scenario) will not produce the desired results because you have some long lines (e.g. the line between 3 and 4) whose distance is longer than the distance of a "nearest found" point.
• Presuming you want closed figures for Concrete vs. Asphalt, the descriptions at points 3 and 4 will probably want to share the ASPH and EC codes.

>

I'm pressed for time at the moment but I'll try to mock-up one approach that I'd use to code this type of figure with the least amount of effort and will post back here.

I understand that the line work portion has a few problems. I figured that I'd have to manually draw line 3-4 to close my two areas up.

There is a difference in the office about the NG coding. There are those who want to reserve the NG to dirt/grass as posted in the thread, while I'm thinking it is to be used as a place holder for the elevation more than the description. I've got the boundary defined, why go through the process of defining more codes for something that I'm only going to use for elevation and/or surface to contour. Actually, as you view it, either developed or not, it is now the natural ground and as such should be called that.

As Long As You Don't Connect NG Shots

Start thinking way back when on what you want field to finish to do.

If you want to connect certain things then they should all begin with only s few alpha characters, such as: EP, EC, EA, ED, Edge of anything else, TW, BW or TC, BC, Top/Bottom curb or wall.

With top/bottom shots you might want to set the rule, bottom shots at face, top shots at back. If you have a battered wall, you want 3 codes, BW, FW and TW. Face of Wall being the top front, and F will work because you are going to use it to start all your fence shots, FW, FB, FP, FS, FM, FCL. FenceChainLink should work but so will CLF since you will probably link your Centerline shots also.

Sidewalk shots should be FW, Face/Front of Walk on road side and BW, Back of Walk.

As you proceed on street cross sections, your codes should look like BW, FW, TC, BC, BC, TC, FW, BW, Sequentially will connect them correctly.

Building shots run BC, BH, BG, BS, BM or BLDG. If you have one House on your project and start it clockwise, move clockwise to the next setup and continue the clockwise string.

The best way to first set up your F2F is over a company paid pizza lunch, with all field crew and key drafting staff in attendance. I first did that in 1992 and I was a pizza eater, not a pizza payer, but it was easy to convince the boss.

It may have been Jim Carlson that suggested we do that.

Paul in PA

> > I would suggest using the code “conc” for all the concrete shots and
> > Using the code “asph” for all the asphalt shots.
> > For the line work I would have “conc1” for that linework and “asph1” for that linework.
> > Then you can use “conc2” and “asph2” for the next areas and so on.
> > I would save NG for the dirt shots.
> > My take is to always use the proper code so there is no question when the office
> > Surveyor prepares the drawing.
> > That is based on having many crews and many techs to get the work done.
> > It is also based on having several offices who share resources to get the work done.
>
> The only problem with that is that if I were to use your methodology the number marking they different areas of pavement would be reduced to the code itself(asph1, asph2 = asph).
>
> If I have 20 areas of asphalt to shot it would become very tedious to remember what number is next in the list of sections.
>
> I was told that if I stuck to one code for each structure, Carlson would know what to do with it if given the correct special codes.

You'd think that English is not my native language if your really read that. I'd go back and correct it, but it would mean editing the whole post. I need a drink or 7.

> I understand that the line work portion has a few problems. I figured that I'd have to manually draw line 3-4 to close my two areas up.
You won't have to manually draw 3-4. I'll leave it to Ladd to fill in the details, but this will work in C3d, and I think will also work in Carlson.

> There is a difference in the office about the NG coding.
You could just have a "SPOT" code to denote a surface elevation no matter whether that surface is natural ground, graded, or finished asphalt or concrete. Or you can have different codes to distinquish between surface types. Most people I've seen prefer to distinguish. It's up to you and your coworkers.

> There is a difference in the office about the NG coding. There are those who want to reserve the NG to dirt/grass as posted in the thread, while I'm thinking it is to be used as a place holder for the elevation more than the description.

The "natural" part of ground notwithstanding, perhaps your crews could adopt a "G" code (for Grade) in areas that are man-made surfaces and "NG" (for Natural Grade) in areas where there is dirt/grass. Personally, I don't think it makes a huge difference either way as I normally would not plot the descriptions for either of these kinds of codes.

For the linework perspective, I often give the advice of "Think of your prism-pole or GPS rod as a pencil while you're surveying and the approach to an efficient field-to-finish map will often present itself." As an example, here is one approach to solving the aforementioned project site:

The source coordinates (with specialty shots) are as follows:

>1,200.0,200.0,0.0,EC
>2,175.0,200.0,0.0,EC
>3,150.0,200.0,0.0,EC
>4,125.0,200.0,0.0,EC
>5,100.0,200.0,0.0,EC
>6,100.0,175.0,0.0,EC
>7,100.0,150.0,0.0,EC
>8,100.0,140.0,0.0,EC ASPH
>9,125.0,150.0,0.0,G
>10,125.0,175.0,0.0,G
>11,150.0,175.0,0.0,G
>12,150.0,150.0,0.0,G
>13,175.0,150.0,0.0,G
>14,175.0,175.0,0.0,G
>15,200.0,155.0,0.0,EC ASPH
>16,200.0,175.0,0.0,EC CLO
>17,200.0,150.0,0.0,ASPH
>18,200.0,125.0,0.0,ASPH
>19,200.0,100.0,0.0,ASPH
>20,175.0,100.0,0.0,ASPH
>21,175.0,125.0,0.0,G
>22,150.0,125.0,0.0,G
>23,150.0,100.0,0.0,ASPH
>24,125.0,100.0,0.0,ASPH
>25,125.0,125.0,0.0,G
>26,100.0,100.0,0.0,ASPH
>27,100.0,125.0,0.0,ASPH CLO
>28,75.0,100.0,0.0,NG
>29,75.0,125.0,0.0,NG
>30,75.0,150.0,0.0,NG
>31,75.0,175.0,0.0,NG

NOTE: I added points 28 - 31 as NG shots just for the sake of the discussion.

Carlson FTF is a very good tool for topographic. I have done a lot of this.
Ladd Nelson's analogy to drawing with a pencil is good.
It takes a while to get the hang of it but with Carlson it's very easy and flexible to take on what's out there. I'm not sure if you're only drafting or you get out in the field yourself but it would be hard to impose a method on the field crew if you spend most of the time in the office. I did both. I would even tell the crew to make up their own codes and then would work with them to perfect any deficiencies. The one thing you have to get right are the breaklines and to figure out a scheme where you don't pass over any that are out there. You won't get everything right the first time - it is definitely (using the pencil analogy) an "art" that you acquire over time. I think a topo is fun (once in a while.) After a while you'll be able to draw some pretty complicated pictures given all the customization that is inside the program.

G = Ground or Grade

Use it all the time for topo only shots.

Paul in PA

Just remember the coding is for line work. Not all of your topo shots have to be in the sequence. If you were to use "EA" for edge of asphalt and "EC" for edge of concrete it would be easier. IF you also were to cut the number of key strokes to save time and make life easier for the field guys. Got a shot on the concrete, code it simply "C". Same for shots on the asphalt, code them "A". Then you could do the line work as:

1.......EC+7
2.......EC
3.......EC EA+7
4.......EC CLO EA
5........EA
6........EA CLO

All other shots would be "NG", "A" or "C".

I would definitely follow Ladd's advice. He is the Carlson expert. I am playing around with, and trying to tweak my F2F procedures in the field. Luckily, I am a solo surveyor, so I am on both sides of the equation.

Having said that, I personally prefer the NG for natural ground shots, ASPH for asphalt shots, and I use CONCEL for spot shots on the concrete. I use the CONC shots for the edges of concrete.

I use the CONC and CONC1 when running dual lines. For example, if I was running a cross section of a typical road in a city, my coding would be:
SW
SW1
FC
GUT
CONC
CL
CONC1
GUT1
FC1
SW2
SW3

It sounds complicated, but it makes since when I am out there running the sections. Ladd is right, imagine your prism/gps rod as your pencil.

I am a big proponent of running cross-sections perpendicular to the centerline, and one time, unless traffic is a safety concern.

I would highly suggest paying attention to the breaklines. I use the BL code for breaklines, and running them out and using the F2F on them is very, very helpful for the office reduction of the field data.

I am no expert on this, but I am learning by trial and error, and am constantly modifying my procedures to refine them.

I had a huge benefit of the first part of my career sitting behind a computer, cranking out topo surveys, site plans, and subdivision construction plans, so when I am out there in the field, I always have that image of the computer screen in my mind, and thinking about the shots I need to represent the field conditions on the screen.

Good luck, and let us know how things turn out.

Jimmy

Steven you have taken the most important step and that is to get started. I would say just run it and never take for granted that what comes out does not not need to be reviewed and verified. I have used F2F for many years with several different types of software. To this day, my F2F process is being tweaked. Start out simple and always be willing to improve. Many of the replies that you have received are basically people's preferences. If the final product is accurate and meeting your client's specification, your process is correct. You will get faster, as you modify your process and customize it to fit your practice. The basics for this procedure are fairly simple. The mastery is a never ending, on going process. This is a powerful tool that is well worth learning.

Well said!:good:

You are getting very good advice here. I am glad that you are communicating with each other in the office and you are reaching out for guidance. Ladd has helped me many times with my initial learning curve a couple years ago. Now it has been smooth sailing for me.

Getting this stuff setup the way you and your guys want it initially does take some effort. The initial setup effort is worth it.

I just want to encourage you to stick with this, you are close to the a-ha moment!

Measure 3D - Draw 3D - Show 3D
https://www.dropbox.com/s/dv8obeum2opeguv/MEASURE%203D-SHOW%203D.wmv

> .. To this day, my F2F process is being tweaked. Start out simple and always be willing to improve. Many of the replies that you have received are basically people's preferences....
I wonder why someone hasn't written an article outlining a CAD and F2F standard. Why do we keep reinventing the wheel? Why doesn't the software come preloaded with a standardized setup?