Re: A suggestion on metadata
> > You can't be serious. You description was 29 pages, what is another couple of lines going to do? 🙂
> >
> > FWIW, I agree but only because I've tested several picking different stations just to see what happens. But space, on your part is a particularly weak argument. 🙂
>
> Well, the material that fills those 29 pages was necessary. Mentioning which reference stations were used in the OPUS solution contributes nothing, so it's just empty junk. Two or ten years from now, what is a surveyor going to do with the fact that three (or six) certain reference stations were used to connect to NAD83 (CORS96)? Nothing?
>
> What a future resurveyor will do is determine the NAD83 positions of at least a couple of monuments to which the centerline is tied and see whether there is a significant difference between the coordinates listed in the description or not. That seems pretty basic to me. Alternately, the resurveyor will just adopt my coordinates for those monuments and map the road meanders in that system by differential GPS techniques. It works either way.
Or they will use 5k,5k and roll on that most would do. 🙂
I've actually seen other surveyors use me data and not translate their data, using my monuments, to SPC. They work in their little world. I'm not sure one of them actually realized that I was working on SPC. The reason for this was one day he asked me a question about if I had checked the declination in my compass. I asked why, and he said because he retraced a line and found I was like 2 1/2° off of the deed bearing and just thought I should know.
Needless to say, I laughed.
Re: A suggestion on metadata
> > What a future resurveyor will do is determine the NAD83 positions of at least a couple of monuments to which the centerline is tied and see whether there is a significant difference between the coordinates listed in the description or not. That seems pretty basic to me. Alternately, the resurveyor will just adopt my coordinates for those monuments and map the road meanders in that system by differential GPS techniques. It works either way.
>
> Or they will use 5k,5k and roll on that most would do. 🙂
Well, in that case, they won't be able to use the digitized coordinate list, but will have to punch in all 340 or so courses and the various connections to monuments. My scheme gives a surveyor using modern techniques a jolly good head start.
Re: A suggestion on metadata
> > >
> Well, in that case, they won't be able to use the digitized coordinate list, but will have to punch in all 340 or so courses and the various connections to monuments. My scheme gives a surveyor using modern techniques a jolly good head start.
Well, I suppose, but isn't it better if the crew locates the corners the "old fashioned way" so that it drags the job out longer? 😛
Re: A suggestion on metadata
> Well, I suppose, but isn't it better if the crew locates the corners the "old fashioned way" so that it drags the job out longer? 😛
Yeah, it suits me that surveyors using modern techniques would have such a large advantage that the folks who want to survey like it's 1975 will be left with nothing to do.
The actual centerline description
That is an outstanding description and I am not in the least ashamed to admit that I adopted your description style with coordinate information in the body of the description itself several years ago. Except for a few exceptions, I have kept with that format. I can't think of a better way to keep an eye to the future than to include that information in a description.
A lot of the existing cell sites I survey are sort of floating in space, many times not where they "should be". For purposes of as-builting, I always include coordinates at my ground control stations, parent parcel boundary corners and at the the POB of the lease site itself. It is so easy and sensible to generate descriptions in this manner that I can't imagine doing it otherwise.
-CC