For Rankin

Precision passed purpose and never looked back.....

Is that like splitting the pavement with a stretched out cloth tape, blowing a 0.2' paint spot, setting up the instrument there and proceeding with three point accuracy....then noting that the pins you've found are a tenth or so off?

paden cash, post: 332819, member: 20 wrote: Is that like splitting the pavement with a stretched out cloth tape, blowing a 0.2' paint spot, setting up the instrument there and proceeding with three point accuracy....then noting that the pins you've found are a tenth or so off?

It is like that,,,,,,,,,, getting so involved in the minutia and process that you forget what the math is really telling you.

Putting out standards that have no meaning.

Back in the bad, bad old days of metric conversion an edict was issued that all coordinates would be expressed to 4 decimal places in US survey feet and 3 decimal places in meters. Of course, it made no sense, but hey at least there was a guideline...........

The only problem with it was each time I did a list I had to go back and dig it up to be sure I remembered it correctly.........

And there were the bearings that were to be shown to 0.1",,,,,,, cause you don't want "error" to creep into your calculations:-S

I survived the "metrification" days at the highway dept...it was pure insanity. I'm glad those days are gone (and forgotten).

I remember several bridge jobs we raced like hell to resurvey as metric. One day I ran into my cousin (who worked in the Bridge Div.) he secretly told me they couldn't get their hydraulic software to work in metric...so he was converting them all back to empirical for the hydro-calcs....:pinch:

MightyMoe, post: 332781, member: 700 wrote: It's also flat but at a high elevation, so my guy gets on Google and picks a lat, long near the middle of the site and an elevation, checks the elevation against a Quad with 40 foot contour intervals.

Did he add/subtract the geoid difference to get to ellipsoid height? 😉

http://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/9909/30/mars.metric.02/index.html?_s=PM:TECH

Tom Adams, post: 332866, member: 7285 wrote: Did he add/subtract the geoid difference to get to ellipsoid height? 😉

To input the lat long quickly into the program you need to do it as lat long height, so he guessed at the Geoid and hit within a foot (not like the scale factor will be affected anyway), we have some geoid heights nearby but they are changing quickly up there.

Lee D, post: 332868, member: 7971 wrote: http://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/9909/30/mars.metric.02/index.html?_s=PM:TECH

The "president of the U.S. Metric Association", oh my,,,,,,,,,,, they needed a surveyor on the team, one who had been through the DOT metric wars and understands US survey feet vs. international feet,,,,,,,,:-)

MightyMoe, post: 332876, member: 700 wrote: The "president of the U.S. Metric Association", oh my,,,,,,,,,,, they needed a surveyor on the team, one who had been through the DOT metric wars and understands US survey feet vs. international feet,,,,,,,,:-)

They need a surveyor period. A guy who understand the basic foul-ups and has to make some concept actually work on the ground. Some genius designer, who doesn't pay attention to whether he's in NGVD'29 or NAVD'88 and doesn't really care, will get awfully upset when his design doesn't match existing by over 3 feet, when he has numbers down to the 0.001 precision. Same with this high-powered math and science all being able to put a spaceship on Mars....(if they're in the right units).

paden cash, post: 332863, member: 20 wrote: I survived the "metrification" days at the highway dept...it was pure insanity. I'm glad those days are gone (and forgotten).

I remember several bridge jobs we raced like hell to resurvey as metric. One day I ran into my cousin (who worked in the Bridge Div.) he secretly told me they couldn't get their hydraulic software to work in metric...so he was converting them all back to empirical for the hydro-calcs....:pinch:

I was all for it in the beginning, but the reality was different than we all thought, more complicated than just 3.2808333,,,,,,,,
It seemed simple,,,,,,,,

Thanks for dredging up old nightmares... If anyone needs me, I'll be at the bar...

Rankin_File, post: 332906, member: 101 wrote: Thanks for dredging up old nightmares... If anyone needs me, I'll be at the bar...

Kinda funny wasn't it?

We all were probably doing lots of metric work anyway, converting from NGS data and such, I used to always shoot points in feet and meters for a check, we would measure HI's in feet and meters to catch any mismeasurements, so I figured it'd be no problemlo.

HaHa, was I ever wrong!!!!

Finally they came to their senses............

MightyMoe, post: 332895, member: 700 wrote: I was all for it in the beginning, but the reality was different than we all thought, more complicated than just 3.2808333,,,,,,,,
It seemed simple,,,,,,,,

It did. We are always converting numbers when retracing historical deeds. The surveyor has it down. But it did turn into a nightmare.

Hey, Paden

"empirical "

Thanks for the chuckle. I'm sure that was one of those 'autocorrect' things I hear about.

"Imperial" would be a better choice.

Holy Cow, post: 332975, member: 50 wrote: Hey, Paden

"empirical "

Thanks for the chuckle. I'm sure that was one of those 'autocorrect' things I hear about.

"Imperial" would be a better choice.

No autocorrect at all. That's an inside joke from the past that has stuck with me over the years. Something I picked up from an Ashtech sales/ training class from the early nineties. The same fellow also used the terms " horizontical and vertical "...And although it was actually someone else's embarrassing faux pas, I have absotively posolutely gleefully perpetuated others' rape of the engrish language...just a hobby of mine. 😛

Very good. Carry on. This world needs all the humor possible.

[MEDIA=youtube]n79I7VOYwWY[/MEDIA]

Holy Cow, post: 332994, member: 50 wrote: Very good. Carry on. This world needs all the humor possible.

And don't forget to slop your dripper...!