Starnet is showing a big blunder with the angle (At 1100, From 1000, To 14A).
So I went back to the .RW5 and found these two sets, that I took back to back.
Both appear to be At 1100, From 1000 To 14A, but one shows a horizontal angle of 227.4811 (wrong); the other, 301.3653 (right).
Here's the picture:
And Here are the two suspect set collections:
--Set Collection with Obs Order 123...321...
OC,OP1100,N 427615.77076,E 1618168.02320,EL1119.912,--
LS,HI5.0000,HR5.0000
BK,OP1100,BP1000,BS269.2007,BC0.0000
LS,HI5.0000,HR5.0000
BD,OP1100,FP1000,AR0.0000,ZE96.0241,SD,--
LS,HI5.0000,HR6.0000
FD,OP1100,FP14A,AR227.4810,ZE79.3717,SD252.364000,--
FR,OP1100,FP14A,AR47.4809,ZE280.2216,SD252.364000,--
LS,HI5.0000,HR5.0000
BR,OP1100,FP1000,AR179.5957,ZE263.5706,SD,--
--SS,OP1100,FP1000,AR0.0000,ZE96.0247,SD0.000000,--
--LS,HI5.000000,HR6.000000
--SS,OP1100,FP14A,AR227.4811,ZE79.3730,SD252.364000,--
--LS,HI5.000000,HR5.000000
--Set Collection with Obs Order 123...321...
OC,OP1100,N 427615.77076,E 1618168.02320,EL1119.912,--
LS,HI5.0000,HR5.0000
BK,OP1100,BP1000,BS269.2007,BC0.0000
LS,HI5.0000,HR5.0000
BD,OP1100,FP1000,AR0.0000,ZE82.1235,SD202.140000,--
LS,HI5.0000,HR6.0000
FD,OP1100,FP14A,AR301.3652,ZE79.3724,SD252.365000,--
FR,OP1100,FP14A,AR121.3658,ZE280.2204,SD252.363000,--
LS,HI5.0000,HR5.0000
BR,OP1100,FP1000,AR180.0004,ZE277.4720,SD202.141000,--
--Warning: Vertical Angles to foresight differ by 0å¡00'32".
--SS,OP1100,FP1000,AR0.0000,ZE82.1238,SD202.140500,--
--LS,HI5.000000,HR6.000000
--SS,OP1100,FP14A,AR301.3653,ZE79.3740,SD252.364000,--
--LS,HI5.000000,HR5.000000
I think the problem has to do with "set collection" in SurvCE. Rather than do the backsight and then multiple foresights (you can make a list), I think I previously back sighted 1000, then fore sighted 800 as a separate set collection. There's a Side Shot record in the .rw5. But then I re-did the back sight from 1000 but I think because 800 was the last foresight record, it assumed it was the new back sight record (or something like that.)
The angle from 800 is 227 and change; the angle from 1000 is 301 and change. I'm very confused. Any thoughts most welcome.
Here's the whole sequence:
ServCE is screwy. The first set from 1100 is to 800. 73-48-39.
The second is from 1100 to 14A. 227-48-11.
The third is from 1100 to 14A. 301-36-53.
All three have 1000 as the back sight. WTF?
First thing I notice is no backsight slope distance. It appears it picked up something other than the desired backsight prism.
I agree with Scott- That is why recording all three components of the measurement are vital- it helps resolve any issues that come up later. If we had the SD on the BS then we could definitively identify the issue.
There's a 74 degree difference between the two sets and a 74 degree difference between 800-1000 from station 1100, so you miss set the backsight.
The zenith angles could confirm based on delta elevation - as we lack the missing backsight SD check.
Change the first set BP to 800 and re-run.
Scott Zelenak, post: 346479, member: 327 wrote: There's a 74 degree difference between the two sets and a 74 degree difference between 800-1000 from station 1100, so you miss set the backsight.
The zenith angles could confirm based on delta elevation - as we lack the missing backsight SD check.Change the first set BP to 800 and re-run.
Scott:
Yes, that's exactly right. The first of the two, supposedly back sighting to 1000 makes sense because 1000 is higher in elevation than 1100. and that zenith angle is 82 and change. That horizontal angle IS 301 and change, so that round is probably correct.
: 
But the next one, (supposedly back sighting to 1000 again), has the Zenith angle of 96, which means it's lower than the OP of 1100:
I think you're telling me that even though I was back sighting to 800, I failed to edit the backsight screen in the data collector.
So it's the second one I need to change. In any case, I think it's becoming clear I screwed up. I'll edit the file and try running it again.
Thanks!
The "no slope distance" issue is between the first OP (800) and the BS (700). All I needed was azimuth and since I had already adjusted and fixed both 700 and 800 I didn't want that back sight to create a new position for 800.
But I've learned my lesson. It just makes for confusion. I had a prism on the back sight. I should have just used the known locations for both points and "Set and Store" the back sight. If nothing else I could add the distance measurement as yet another redundant piece of data.
But this is unrelated to the real problem that Scott has been identified below (I screwed up). Why I continue to believe any of my problems are driven by anything other than myself is getting old.
As Pogo once said: "We have discovered the enemy...And He is Us!"
I re-ran the traverse from 800 to 1000, twice (two sets, both faces). I've included the results below.
The math (ZE 78.2302, SD 300.421 for example), shows that the HD is 294.27.
But then I just used the instrument at 1000, back to 800, and measured the distance...six times, each one of which is an average of 3 EDM readings in the instrument. HD averages 294.877, a difference of .61'. I don't get it.
Could this be related somehow to the fact that I'm holding the position of 800 when the DC calculates the HD going forward to 1000, but measuring backwards with the instrument only, it doesn't care where 800 is? I did get an alert, when measuring the BS to 700: "Measured: 352.976, Calculated: 353.35". 700-800-1000 aren't exactly in line (AR 194), but that would explain at least .38' of the .61' difference.
I'm stumped.
Here's the abbreviated .rw5:
SP,PN700,N 428231.3230,E 1618143.1840,EL1040.4600,--
SP,PN800,N 427882.5150,E 1618086.7140,EL1086.8100,--
--Set Collection with Obs Order 123...321...
OC,OP800,N 427882.51500,E 1618086.71400,EL1086.810,--
LS,HI5.1000,HR4.6500
BK,OP800,BP700,BS9.1146,BC0.0000
LS,HI5.1000,HR4.6500
BD,OP800,FP700,AR0.0000,ZE98.0300,SD356.489000,--
LS,HI5.1000,HR5.2900
FD,OP800,FP1000,AR194.3618,ZE78.2359,SD300.420000,--
FR,OP800,FP1000,AR14.3602,ZE281.3626,SD300.421000,--
LS,HI5.1000,HR4.6500
BR,OP800,FP700,AR179.5934,ZE261.5424,SD356.488000,--
--SS,OP800,FP700,AR0.0000,ZE98.0418,SD356.488500,--
--LS,HI5.100000,HR5.290000
--SS,OP800,FP1000,AR194.3623,ZE78.2347,SD300.420500,--
--LS,HI5.100000,HR4.650000
--Set Collection with Obs Order 123...321...
OC,OP800,N 427882.51500,E 1618086.71400,EL1086.810,--
LS,HI5.1000,HR4.6500
BK,OP800,BP700,BS9.1146,BC0.0000
LS,HI5.1000,HR4.6500
BD,OP800,FP700,AR0.0000,ZE98.0452,SD356.492000,--
LS,HI5.1000,HR5.2900
FD,OP800,FP1000,AR194.3602,ZE78.2247,SD300.421000,--
FR,OP800,FP1000,AR14.3538,ZE281.3642,SD300.422000,--
LS,HI5.1000,HR4.6500
BR,OP800,FP700,AR179.5954,ZE261.5521,SD356.490000,--
--SS,OP800,FP700,AR0.0000,ZE98.0446,SD356.491000,--
--LS,HI5.100000,HR5.290000
--SS,OP800,FP1000,AR194.3553,ZE78.2302,SD300.421500,--
--LS,HI5.100000,HR4.650000
Robert,
I have not uswd starnet in 20 years, so I may not be much help. But from following your threads it appears you are holding two points, the coordinates of 800 and 1000. I suggest you fix only your starting point 1000 then fix the azimuth to 800.
I am stuck at an airport heading to a job in Covington, KY
When I get a chance I will try to run your data through Magnet Tools.
leegreen, post: 347635, member: 2332 wrote: Robert,
I have not uswd starnet in 20 years, so I may not be much help. But from following your threads it appears you are holding two points, the coordinates of 800 and 1000. I suggest you fix only your starting point 1000 then fix the azimuth to 800.
I am stuck at an airport heading to a job in Covington, KY
When I get a chance I will try to run your data through Magnet Tools.
Thanks. I'm not even putting this latest data into Starnet. If someone can suggest a way to edit the .rw5, to use the azimuth data only for 700, while holding 800 fixed, I can then produce a revised .dat file.
btw, sorry you're stuck at an airport. There's like nothing going on weather wise unless you're flying from Seattle, Chicago or Miami. Travel safe.
Best to just average the angle sets manually, then you can check angle closure and input a single line in your StarNet dat file. You have a small traverse. Not much work.
Flight delayed in Syracuse. Mechanical problems. Now I'm at O'Hare.for a couple hours.
rfc, post: 347632, member: 8882 wrote: I re-ran the traverse from 800 to 1000, twice (two sets, both faces). I've included the results below.
The math (ZE 78.2302, SD 300.421 for example), shows that the HD is 294.27.But then I just used the instrument at 1000, back to 800, and measured the distance...six times, each one of which is an average of 3 EDM readings in the instrument. HD averages 294.877, a difference of .61'. I don't get it.
Could this be related somehow to the fact that I'm holding the position of 800 when the DC calculates the HD going forward to 1000, but measuring backwards with the instrument only, it doesn't care where 800 is? I did get an alert, when measuring the BS to 700: "Measured: 352.976, Calculated: 353.35". 700-800-1000 aren't exactly in line (AR 194), but that would explain at least .38' of the .61' difference.
I'm stumped.
Here's the abbreviated .rw5:
SP,PN700,N 428231.3230,E 1618143.1840,EL1040.4600,--
SP,PN800,N 427882.5150,E 1618086.7140,EL1086.8100,--
--Set Collection with Obs Order 123...321...
OC,OP800,N 427882.51500,E 1618086.71400,EL1086.810,--
LS,HI5.1000,HR4.6500
BK,OP800,BP700,BS9.1146,BC0.0000
LS,HI5.1000,HR4.6500
BD,OP800,FP700,AR0.0000,ZE98.0300,SD356.489000,--
LS,HI5.1000,HR5.2900
FD,OP800,FP1000,AR194.3618,ZE78.2359,SD300.420000,--
FR,OP800,FP1000,AR14.3602,ZE281.3626,SD300.421000,--
LS,HI5.1000,HR4.6500
BR,OP800,FP700,AR179.5934,ZE261.5424,SD356.488000,--
--SS,OP800,FP700,AR0.0000,ZE98.0418,SD356.488500,--
--LS,HI5.100000,HR5.290000
--SS,OP800,FP1000,AR194.3623,ZE78.2347,SD300.420500,--
--LS,HI5.100000,HR4.650000
--Set Collection with Obs Order 123...321...
OC,OP800,N 427882.51500,E 1618086.71400,EL1086.810,--
LS,HI5.1000,HR4.6500
BK,OP800,BP700,BS9.1146,BC0.0000
LS,HI5.1000,HR4.6500
BD,OP800,FP700,AR0.0000,ZE98.0452,SD356.492000,--
LS,HI5.1000,HR5.2900
FD,OP800,FP1000,AR194.3602,ZE78.2247,SD300.421000,--
FR,OP800,FP1000,AR14.3538,ZE281.3642,SD300.422000,--
LS,HI5.1000,HR4.6500
BR,OP800,FP700,AR179.5954,ZE261.5521,SD356.490000,--
--SS,OP800,FP700,AR0.0000,ZE98.0446,SD356.491000,--
--LS,HI5.100000,HR5.290000
--SS,OP800,FP1000,AR194.3553,ZE78.2302,SD300.421500,--
--LS,HI5.100000,HR4.650000
Just an update here...
I thought perhaps the discrepancy between what my software was telling me was the horizontal distance and what my instrument was telling me, was because I had adjusted the location of either the backlight point (700), the starting point (800), or both.
But I just re-ran from 800 to 1000 using a control file pre-dating the Star*net adjustment, and the difference is less than .05', no where near the .61' I'm looking for. Haven't figured anything out yet, but one thing's for sure: the idea of running a portion of a network in Star*net; adjusting it, then moving on, adding to it; then attempting to adjust the additions, etc. is crazy. Might be fine for someone who knows completely what they're doing, but that's not this grasshopper.
I'm going to re-put together all my observations, sans any adjustments whatsoever; weed out outliers, then go from there. As Williwaw says: "once you run out of potential mistakes and potential lessons, the party is over"...
Party on!:party:
