You haven't convinced me that they're doing anything wrong.?ÿ Good luck convincing your crews.
I'm less worried about expert measuring, more concerned with missed evidence, possible encroachments, and conflicts.
@dmyhill I think I misunderstood your question. I understood it as the precision of the datum (the center of mass of the Earth).
It was, and I admit that was a bit of mixing and matching.?ÿ
?ÿ
The local precision appears to be within the specs, which I think we have all found, but as we move into placing coordinates on our plats (which is demanded more and more), the question of absolute accuracy to the datum becomes more important.
But, every calibration, localization, LDP, or any other framework will introduce a certain amount of uncertainty into our measurements.?ÿ
I believe that if we are chasing accuracies less than 0.1' in boundary, then we are on a fools errand.
?ÿ
In the end it doesn't matter if they understand you. For this all to work, they need to be able to follow your instructions or get their own license. If they need to spin clockwise 3 times before each measurement for you to sleep at night, why do they care?
As a party chief I did many things that were a waste of time in my eyes, but it let the PLS be confident in my work. After a bit of that, trust builds. But until you can do what you are told for procedure, trust is a difficult commodity to find. After a while, you can start to discuss things.
@dmyhill I think the new 2022 datums will begin to allow for some real improvements in datum precision. The datum itself now models things that previously could not be accounted for, particularly with respect to variations in mass/gravity and with velocities (horizontal and vertical). I think perhaps one of the next big questions will be with dynamics in mass. It's already been observed that satellite orbits can be affected by water accumulation like snow. Who knows what subterranean events may be occurring that affect the distribution of mass.
NAD83/NAVD88 were great stepping stones but they were unable to account for these sorts of things. The problem is that NAD83/NAVD88 were still squarely grounded in conventional geodesy which we sort of understand as surveyors. NATRF2022 will be much, much more complex to account for all of these dynamics. It will be like surveying on a waterbed, but if you follow all of the rules it should result in very precise relationships between objects in the datum.
@jph?ÿ
?ÿI'm not convinced they were doing anything wrong either and I told them as much..?ÿ I know we were doing something wrong as a team because nobody was verifying accuracy.?ÿ I dug a bit deeper into TBC Network Adjustments and learned a new trick.?ÿ Now I can get back to helping them find boundaries.
Am I the only one scratching their head trying to figure out how one can locate EVERY point needed (boundary and side shot) from a single control point?
@jph Exactly!
@dmyhill?ÿ
Eh, I hear you, but you need to walk a fine line there.?ÿ Give them just the, "because I say so", stuff and you'll lose them fast.?ÿ
Crews need to be invested in what they're doing, at least a little bit.?ÿ And understanding your reasons, even if not necessarily agreeing with the procedure, helps keep them on-board
Every once in a while it happens.?ÿ You have the perfectly flat, open lot, with no trees, cars, houses......and then you wake up...
@jph?ÿ
As a former supervisor told me once, the crews already use robots. I don't want robots running robots.
Been there.?ÿ Done that.
Standard quarter section.?ÿ Set on the northeast corner of the southeast quarter.?ÿ Sighted to the southeast corner.?ÿ Set the midpoint of the east line.?ÿ Created a new tract around a house and some buildings.?ÿ Sighted to the center corner.?ÿ Sighted to the southwest corner of the quarter.?ÿ Set the midpoint of the west line.
It can be done.?ÿ It was not a true traverse and there was no redundancy other than to re-sight the southeast corner.
There is now way to improve precision by adding additional points to a baseline and turning it into a traverse or network.?ÿ As for the monument ties, do you regularly tie monuments (not control) from multiple points??ÿ There are ways to express the precision of points tied from a single instrument setup.?ÿ You just need to follow proper field procedures to eliminate blunders and minimize random setup error.
It sounds like your predecessor had the crews doing it correctly with discrete RTK occupations and everything.?ÿ The RTK gets you into the real world to lets say +/- 8 mm +0.5ppm from the base with good field procedures.?ÿ In your OP that has no real bearing on the relative precision of your monument ties, just the accuracy of their place on the earth.?ÿ Your relative precision is the same as if you plopped a hub in the ground; called it 5,000.000, 10,000.000; held an assumed azimuth to a random radio tower; and started to tie monuments.?ÿ Before I get flamed, remember this is based on the OP stated everything was tied from the same point.?ÿ I would survey from a baseline all day long if I could see everything from one or even both of the control points.?ÿ For the most part that just can not happen in an urban/suburban environment and not even a rural environment is this area so I end up creating a control network.
I'm convinced it was my myopic devotion to a?ÿ closed traverse that prevented me from taking greater advantage of least squares.?ÿ?ÿ
Glad to hear others are using it to its full potential.
I've been fumbling my way through TBC tutorials the last few days but I am starting to understand how to tame the yellow beast.?ÿ I miss StarNet, but TBC positional tolerance reports are nice.
I'm not sure why some PLSs assume verification of accuracy implies a lack of due diligence in boundary investigation.?ÿ?ÿ
?ÿ
?ÿ
As Maxwell Smart used to say, "Missed it by thaaaaaat much."
Try a few thousand miles to the southeast.
myopic devotion to a?ÿ closed traverse
Before computers, a closed figure was the only way to do the math in a reasonable amount of time, using "condition equations," i.e. certain conditions like the number of degrees in a closed polygon could be used to adjust and check for closure.
After computers, what is possible is using "observation equations" that translate all the observations into coordinates and then figure backwards what the weighted mean / least square adjustments would be for the observations.