> However, what happens when you have a call for 100.00 feet to replace a missing monument. With LDP, I compute using 100.00 feet. With SPCS, you'll have to apply some project wide combined scale factor.
Duh! Once you have determined the project CSF (as can be done very early on in the project) that's a given. It's a parameter in the data collector for stakeout. Essentially, you're complaining about a problem with your software if using a CSF is such major heartburn for you. It hasn't been for me for over twenty-five years and I work in areas where it isn't flat like East Texas.
> So no, I don't consider [...] practices of the previous 25 years to be anything more than recent.
Yeah, so you're still trying to wrap your head around that there Electrical Distance Machine, thing, then and them Theaddylites with no compass needle on them whatsoever? We're here to help.
What Are We Measuring Here?
I love this thread. The most interesting thing about it, and the most illuminating, has less to do with map projections than with the exercise of judgement; less to do with measuring land than with comparing the lengths of, well, you know.
Dave
I wasn't referring to stake out. I agree, data collectors handle that pretty well, in the same way as collected measurements. I'm referring to the deed call for 100.00 feet that you use to calculate that missing point. Perhaps some data collectors automatically scale COGO entry distances, but I'm not aware of any, outside of the new Javad data collection software. So if you want to enter that deed call, you'll have to reduce it to grid. It's certainly possible, but generally not very user friendly. I like being able to enter the distance directly as LDP allows me to do.
We're here to help.
No. You're here to chastise who think differently than you do.
You once said "The only thing I can't tolerate is intolerant people."
How do you tolerate yourself? IMWTK.
actually he is here to inflate his own ego by chastising others, even when he knows nothing about the method which he is ridiculing. This page should be for exchanging ideas in a civil manner. There should be no place for calling people idiotic and the like. You can teach without degrading folks.If I had never used an LDP, I certainly wouldn't be telling others it is useless. In fact, since I have used them, I know they are a powerful and useful tool to have in the box. I will be expanding my use of them in the future.
> I wasn't referring to stake out. I agree, data collectors handle that pretty well, in the same way as collected measurements. I'm referring to the deed call for 100.00 feet that you use to calculate that missing point. Perhaps some data collectors automatically scale COGO entry distances, but I'm not aware of any, outside of the new Javad data collection software. So if you want to enter that deed call, you'll have to reduce it to grid.
Well, considering that you need to rotate the bearings to grid in even just a county-size projection (unless you happen to be exactly on the Central Meridian of a Lambert projection), you're going to have to think about entering record data, regardless. If not wanting to convert record distances to grid is the reason you haven't been using the SPCS, that laziness is a sad outlook for the future.
Congratulations!
> You are getting the idea of significant values. As noted here (and Kent just below) the magnitude of difference is small and I'd be willing to bet that 99% of the surveyors (or their crew) can't or don't measure to those tolerances. Until you get to the fringes of a zone or a lot higher heights and larger differences in heights worrying about a CSF is wasted energy. And worrying about grid to ground is also wasted energy.
>
> You need long project distances, high heights, extreme height differences, or fringe zone locations to worry about things that are being discussed here.
Worrying about "grid to ground" is wasted energy where you live I assume, but as someone points out at some elevations it starts to show. (maybe above 2 or 3 thousand feet?) Worrying about grid to ellipsoid (grid factor) is possibly wasted energy as you say.
Still, with the ease and use of having a software calculate the mean elevation factor, almost instantaneously give you a grid scale factor, etc. The way I see it, you just use the actual factors you need for any given project. It takes no more energy for the mostpart. Also you don't want to keep doing everything you do sloppily or your precision can get worse with one factor piled onto another.
> actually he is here to inflate his own ego by chastising others, even when he knows nothing about the method which he is ridiculing. This page should be for exchanging ideas in a civil manner. There should be no place for calling people idiotic and the like. You can teach without degrading folks.If I had never used an LDP, I certainly wouldn't be telling others it is useless.
I made several points about county-wide projections not actually delivering as accurate a result as accurate as a rigorous application of the SPCS does unless you apply a CSF to them to correct for both changes in scale from map projection and from height changes. Those points are true even if you don't want them to be. Sorry 'bout that.
The rest of the BS about the SPCS just being such a head buster to use is just that: BS. What you guys are mostly complaining about is having crappy software. I can't help you with that.
> Well, considering that you need to rotate the bearings to grid in even just a county-size projection (unless you happen to be exactly on the Central Meridian of a Lambert projection), you're going to have to think about entering record data, regardless. If not wanting to convert record distances to grid is the reason you haven't been using the SPCS, that laziness is a sad outlook for the future.
Most surveys I retrace are not based on a reproducible basis of bearings, so rotation is a given. The issue of converting distances to SPCS is just one more chink in the very old armor of State Plane. Look, I get it. You did it like that in the olden days and you aren't going to change now.
> > Well, considering that you need to rotate the bearings to grid in even just a county-size projection (unless you happen to be exactly on the Central Meridian of a Lambert projection), you're going to have to think about entering record data, regardless. If not wanting to convert record distances to grid is the reason you haven't been using the SPCS, that laziness is a sad outlook for the future.
>
> Most surveys I retrace are not based on a reproducible basis of bearings, so rotation is a given. The issue of converting distances to SPCS is just one more chink in the very old armor of State Plane. Look, I get it. You did it like that in the olden days and you aren't going to change now.
No, fairly obviously you don't have a clue if you think you can just enter some record survey data and stake'er out. Any experienced surveyor should recognize that is very seldom going to be the case. I think you're confusing new technology for competent practice.
I'll grant you that where in East Texas you're basically just surveying fences and fence posts, RTK is probably a fairly good solution.
As an experienced surveyor I evaluate evidence in the field and make determinations on boundaries as often as possible to reduce return visits. Sometimes it is not possible. This is an advantage of a professional surveyor being on the ground during a survey. I can generally do this because of extensive study and research before hitting the ground.
To get back on point regarding scale factors, I don't want to deal with some Picassoesque distortion while I'm in the field negotiating boundary evidence and dignity of calls.
What does RTK have to do with any of this?
Just so you know, Shawn, Kent's going to get the last word no matter how long it takes.
Some of us have learned that there's no point to struggle.
Let it go and let him have it.
In the long run, after all, it's only the Internet and he may well be a Golden Retriever.
Don
It's largely a matter of opinion, but I mostly agree with Kent. Keep it simple stupid, divide by the combined factor and rotate by the mapping angle.
The LDP thing just requires too much thinking and messing with software for me.
> It's largely a matter of opinion, but I mostly agree with Kent. Keep it simple stupid, divide by the combined factor and rotate by the mapping angle.
>
> The LDP thing just requires too much thinking and messing with software for me.
Absolutely right, Dave. If it's simpler and it works, why not use it? The LDP is a solution in search of a problem (outside of East Texas, of course).
