Notifications
Clear all

how long?

10 Posts
8 Users
0 Reactions
53 Views
flyin-solo
(@flyin-solo)
Posts: 1676
Supporter
Topic starter
 

wondering 1. for the sake of comparison and, 2. to learn from possible mistakes, how you might budget (and/or propose) your TIME to get to this point: clinic tract. i'm not interested in dollar amounts, only knowing the following:

-2 acre tract
-3 city control points within a mile, checked into each visit with RTK
-2 TBMs set, checked into each visit with RTK and robot
-3 nails set, checked into each visit, also checked each visit with RTK and robot
-23 boundary monuments recovered for subject tract, 3 adjoiners, and parent subdivision
-35' grid
-60 trees
-636 shots total (approx 70/30 rtk/robot)

what is shown represents 12.5 hours of field time (solo), and 20 minutes of CAD work. at this point i have a fairly good idea of what lies ahead of me, time-wise, in relation to CAD and title.

on the surface, my estimation is that i've saved a full billable day relative to how i would have bid this at my previous place of employment. that said- i was terribly (and embarrassingly) far removed from the mechanics of our field crews' reality.

what i'm looking for is not so much a critique of the work (though you're welcome to- keeping in mind that, basically, CAD work hasn't begun yet), but an idea of whether this appears to be a reasonable amount of TIME spent- or is it obviously glaring in one way or another.

thanks, y'all.

edit- those are 1-foot contours.

 
Posted : December 28, 2013 12:37 pm
(@fattiretom)
Posts: 335
Member
 

I would say this would have been a full day for one of my senior and robot oriented guys. If the monumentation was far away maybe another couple of hours. I would say 8-10 of field is appropriate and the 20min of CAD makes sense.

Tom

 
Posted : December 28, 2013 1:11 pm
holy-cow
(@holy-cow)
Posts: 25369
Supporter
 

Triple it. If they don't like it, tell'em to hire some lowballer scum.

BTW, have I told anyone lately that I absolutely, positively detest computer generated contour lines that bear no semblance to the real world. I also detest standardized tree canopy foolishness. If I were the client, I would reject any plan provided to me with those two items and demand that the final drawing match reality.

I know, I know, I'm a pain in the butt. But, dammit, we are paid to produce the real world on a drawing. We should not get paid for doing anything less.

 
Posted : December 28, 2013 4:57 pm
(@j-t-strickland)
Posts: 494
Member
 

I think that's reasonable. I would have probably estimated it at a couple of days.
In all fairness, it's really hard to estimate the time (without prejudice) since I know how much time you have in it already.

 
Posted : December 28, 2013 5:10 pm
paden-cash
(@paden-cash)
Posts: 11088
Supporter
 

Here, here!

I agree your Bullship. A surface graphically represented by lines of constant elevation should be as accurate horizontally as the vertical separation (i.e. 1' contours should be accurate within 1' horizontally..generally). If you can't show a surface accurately, just giv'em the pointfile and breaklines.

And whomever created the linestyle "treeline" should be hung from a yardarm...

We have a drafting "standard" (I cringe at the word) that a deciduous tree is shown with a fancy-pants shade line that is 3 times the diameter of the trunk (given in inches) and transposed to feet. Like a 10" oak would be shown with a 30' diameter shade ring. It seems to work. Coniferous (coneys, as we call them) have a slightly smaller shade ring...but there's not many down here except for junipers and western red cedars.

 
Posted : December 28, 2013 6:45 pm

(@kent-mcmillan)
Posts: 11419
Member
 

> what i'm looking for is not so much a critique of the work (though you're welcome to- keeping in mind that, basically, CAD work hasn't begun yet), but an idea of whether this appears to be a reasonable amount of TIME spent- or is it obviously glaring in one way or another.

Obviously, the time that surveying tasks require depends considerably upon the actual site. I think you're asking the wrong question, though, to be frank. Surveys as a rule take as long as they take. The proper question is regarding the quality of the work since if the survey product is defective it really doesn't matter whether you worked quickly or slowly.

So, in that vein, the topo mapping and the boundary survey need to be considered as separate items of work. It doesn't really matter how many survey markers were tied in per day. What matters is whether the boundaries were actually located. That is, were the markers that were found actually correct or were they just some surveyor's marker found somewhere in the vicinity of the corner? How many discrepancies were found? How many connections were surveyed to demonstrate the correctness of the markers recovered? How many of the markers were found to have been disturbed? Most importantly, what were the uncertainties of the coordinates of the markers and how did you derive those uncertainties?

As to the topo, the number one question is what the accuracy of the final mapping is to be. To me that means if you were to sample the model of your mapping at random, what would the errors be? In the best quality topo mapping, you would actually measure the crowns of the trees, particularly those that are significantly asymmetrical. Just using a rule of thumb based on caliper and assuming symmetry may turn out to be unacceptably low quality as a solution for many sites and intended uses. Ask the architect whether it really matters where the tree canopies are.

In other words, the better questions to ask are quality questions, not bean-counter-manager questions that amount to: "How many shots did you get today?", particularly if the survey isn't complete. The first 90% of most projects are easy and the last 10% are where things get real.

 
Posted : December 28, 2013 7:39 pm
holy-cow
(@holy-cow)
Posts: 25369
Supporter
 

Here, here!

Nature is not uniform. I have a tree row in mind where, for some crazy reason, two of the trees make a huge bend to the north in an east-west tree row such that their entire drip line is from 15 to 35 feet north from where the trunk enters the ground. They would be the first two trees to interfer with building construction despite the location of the base of their trunks. What the designer needs to know is where will the trees interfer with the building design or other plans. Putting a driveway parallel to this tree row, for example, may be a significant factor in locating the building. Yet instructions are to harm no trees. Thirty minutes with a chain saw and a dump truck would eliminate the problem, but, that's not allowed in this case.

We need to provide the information so that when construction hits reality there are a minimum number of surprises.

Just for fun sometime, actually shoot in the exact contour lines on a tract. That is, only save shots taken on the exact contour line. Find out how objects will actually influence that line and then show that. Then do the topo a second time using the standard grid process. Compare the results.

 
Posted : December 28, 2013 7:44 pm
(@duane-frymire)
Posts: 1924
Member
 

Seems blazing fast to me. Different areas, but might take me that long just to find that many monuments. The topo needs work though. Roads and ditchs need each side and the middle at regular intervals in my view. On a site this flat and contours running as shown, I doubt the roadways are superelevated as you show, and for 1' contours I would like to see more shots in general, but you were there and maybe they aren't needed.

 
Posted : December 29, 2013 6:19 am
(@kent-mcmillan)
Posts: 11419
Member
 

> The topo needs work though. Roads and ditchs need each side and the middle at regular intervals in my view. On a site this flat and contours running as shown, I doubt the roadways are superelevated as you show, and for 1' contours I would like to see more shots in general.

When I glanced at the manuscript version of the map posted, I assumed that the ground shots weren't plotted, but if all of the ground shots are in fact shown, yes, the topo is drastically undersurveyed for 1-foot contours.

 
Posted : December 29, 2013 9:15 am
(@peter-ehlert)
Posts: 2953
Member
 

> > The topo needs work though. Roads and ditchs need each side and the middle at regular intervals in my view. On a site this flat and contours running as shown, I doubt the roadways are superelevated as you show, and for 1' contours I would like to see more shots in general.
>
> When I glanced at the manuscript version of the map posted, I assumed that the ground shots weren't plotted, but if all of the ground shots are in fact shown, yes, the topo is drastically undersurveyed for 1-foot contours.

Agreed Kent, 2 foot contours with that many ground shots would be sketchy. 1 footers? nope, especially in the areas with ditches and banks.
If this is mapping for landscaping, no big deal... but someone will probably expect it is OK for a higher use.

 
Posted : December 30, 2013 8:13 am