@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.
