Getting ready to give my client the monument reset report.
The OPUS/CORS numbers are of course really simple-except for the height.
A bench loop was run between the destroyed monument(1st order bench mark), the new monument and another 1st order bench mark nearby, the resulting number was basically a flat closure.
Also the new monument was checked to a nearby HARN station which is a first order bench mark, using static and holding the HARN elevation the elevation checked within 0.01'. The elevation also checked within 0.02' using the HARN station and RTK with GEOID03 applied.
However, the given OPUS elevation is 0.13' low (GEOID2012a), not too bad really, a much better result than I'm used to from OPUS. But should that number even be reported?
Clearly the NAVD88 number is not in dispute so would it confuse most users reporting both numbers?
> However, the given OPUS elevation is 0.13' low (GEOID2012a), not too bad really, a much better result than I'm used to from OPUS. But should that number even be reported?
Why not report the ellipsoid height (and its uncertainty) instead and report only the more reliable NAVD88 elevation obtained by levelling?
Yes, that's what I'm thinking also, of course when you apply the new geoid you will be .13' low.
Anyone used to dealing with this will understand why the resulting elevation is not in sync with the NAVD88 elevation, but many users will be confused.
