I do my traverses with traditional traverse kit usually getting levels from known elevations and setting arbitrary co-ordinates. Works fine for the work I do. Most of the time I close my traverse back to the start. Occasionally where I can't, I'll pick out a remote RO such as a church spire or use a common point of detail as a check.
A few people have mentioned to me recently though that you don't need traverse kit and that its being replaced by GPS control. Can someone explain gently what this mean as I wonder if I'm missing out on something.
?ÿThe right tool for the right project. Me personally, I utilize GPS(GNSS) more often than conventional traverses. Is popularity has increased because you can measure all of those points indirectly, repeatably, and accurately. Why traverse over the river and through the woods, when you can just drive around and shoot it with a GPS??ÿ
Although GPS has diminished the need for running traverses (especially long ones), for someone to say that a traverse kit is no longer needed is short-sighted in my opinion. GPS doesn't work everywhere for every project. We still run traverses and use the TS for precise topo work (roadways, structures, etc.) and boundary work; GPS data complements the TS stuff when we can use it. We tried using GPS for roadway topos but the vertical accuracy wasn't sufficient.
There are also places we survey where the massive number of trees prohibit GPS use, so the TS and conventional traversing it is.
As for setting primary or secondary control, we do use GPS whenever possible and our error budget permits it but for truly precise work... I think the gun still has its place.
In sum, we use both tools for maximum efficiency and quality of work.
You can certainly hit corner monuments with GPS without traversing.?ÿ My concern is that we'll start getting less accurate surveys/plans that don't show enough intermediate detail, along with bends or jogs in stone walls, fences, etc.
You can certainly hit corner monuments with GPS without traversing.?ÿ My concern is that we'll start getting less accurate surveys/plans that don't show enough intermediate detail, along with bends or jogs in stone walls, fences, etc.
This.?ÿ Especially here in the Mid-Atlantic (and probably a lot of other places in the east).
You don't want to save yourself footsteps at the expense of missing those of the previous surveyor.
?ÿThe right tool for the right project. Me personally, I utilize GPS(GNSS) more often than conventional traverses. Is popularity has increased because you can measure all of those points indirectly, repeatably, and accurately. Why traverse over the river and through the woods, when you can just drive around and shoot it with a GPS??ÿ
This has been something or a pet peeve of mine for some time.
Conventional traversing typically meant traveling with or near a boundary line thusly, discovering things along the way. If you run smack into a fence while travelling along a 2000' line,?ÿ you know you have something to look into.
So now you have a gps setup and can take a reading on one "corner", drive over hill and dale (no need to follow with the line) and hit the other end of that 2000' line and bam, boundary. Anything going on between those points? "Dunno" is the only answer you can offer.
So now you have a gps setup and can take a reading on one "corner", drive over hill and dale (no need to follow with the line) and hit the other end of that 2000' line and bam, boundary. Anything going on between those points? "Dunno" is the only answer you can offer.
That would not cut it in North Carolina...
Ditto
E. Field Procedures.
(2) Observable physical evidence, including boundary, possession, visible encroachments, and visible indications of rights, including evidence of recorded servitudes or those that may be acquired by prescription or adverse possession, shall be located.
?ÿThe satellites will give you an actual position of a point in world coordinates and an absolute bearing of a line.?ÿ
GNSS with open skies will be more accurate than a typical traverse over longer distances of perhaps a mile or a big fraction thereof depending on the care used.
GNSS doesn't require line of sight, just sky at the individual points.?ÿ Sometimes sufficient sky may be more difficult than line of sight.
A traditional traverse follows the footsteps.
A traverse with reasonable care is more accurate for small and medium parcels.
A traverse avoids the expense of the receivers, radio, etc for base-rover or receiver, radio/data plan, and VRS subscription for RTK.?ÿ You probably don't want to spend the time to do it with static sessions.
Someone with both capabilities can get the best of both by combining measurements in a least squares solutulion.
In the urban areas of the PNW probably 95% of all work is still done with the total station.?ÿ There are plenty of outfits that don't even have GPS.?ÿ The situation in Oklahoma was the reverse. But even in OK there were plenty of places where the TS was the right tool for the job.?ÿ?ÿ
I utilize both GNSS and a Total Station. I also deploy a level where more precise elevations are required. I could not operate without a Total Station and multiple tripods for traversing given the type of work and terrain I encounter.?ÿ I would think it would take a very specialized niche in an open desert/prarie environment to work completely without what you might call a "Traverese Kit".
Gues it depends on where you're working and the mission. There's just no possible way that I could handle the volume of work I do without GPS, but with that said combining them together is a significant force multiplier. Example. When I first started out surveying, we did everything?ÿconventionally, running?ÿan open?ÿended traverse was?ÿsomething of a no-no. No way to determine the closure without looping back and closing the traverse. For much of what I do I can do GPS observations on the beginning and end of the traverse and have a completely independent check on that work. It also facilitates getting?ÿmy work into real world coordinates that can then be related to other work in?ÿthe?ÿarea that might not be directly tied together, making it much faster and easier to get started on new projects. For me the real value is in combining the two. The caveat to that is not leaning too much?ÿon one or the other and selecting the right tool for the task at hand even if it's not necessarily the most convenient or expeditious choice.
Just because I'm paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get me.
?ÿThe right tool for the right project. Me personally, I utilize GPS(GNSS) more often than conventional traverses. Is popularity has increased because you can measure all of those points indirectly, repeatably, and accurately. Why traverse over the river and through the woods, when you can just drive around and shoot it with a GPS??ÿ
This has been something or a pet peeve of mine for some time.
Conventional traversing typically meant traveling with or near a boundary line thusly, discovering things along the way. If you run smack into a fence while travelling along a 2000' line,?ÿ you know you have something to look into.
So now you have a gps setup and can take a reading on one "corner", drive over hill and dale (no need to follow with the line) and hit the other end of that 2000' line and bam, boundary. Anything going on between those points? "Dunno" is the only answer you can offer.
That would not cut it in North Carolina...
?ÿ
We use GPS to run the lines, locating everything along them, of course we are in wide open country not the jungles of NC.
I was discussing GPS with a BLM guy before they started using it, his complaint was that you need to run the lines, a few years later they got GPS and he was so happy, he could run the lines himself and look at everything, I said I told you so. The Powder River Basin is a bit different than Boone, NC ??ÿ
Its another tool in the toolkit. A well rounded surveyor should be like a mechanic with not just one spanner in his toolbox. Precise works busts out the total station and levels. This kind of precision we can't get on RTK yet.?ÿ
