> How is a found property corner less accurate than a set control point? I don't see a problem with occupying a found point. Am I missing something or is this just some weird OCD surveyor thing?
Neither. I generally get more bang for my buck from a control point than occupying the corner.
It's very true. I've seen lots of birds sit on fences I've built and voila, there are trees where there once was field. Now I spray Eraser to kill the trees.
> The idea was that "radial surveys" were illegal because you had no positional tolerance calculation on the corner.
Positional tolerance for a sideshot is calculated by propagating the standard errors of the sideshot measurements from the error ellipse of the control point.
If I can't set up on it
> i don't set an instrument up on something that isn't control quality
I don't either, but my definition of "control quality" varies with the situation. Sometimes it's an A-Order mark, and sometimes it's an X made with a red pencil on a sidewalk. And sometimes it's nothing at all, as when I resect my position.
>Positional tolerance for a sideshot is calculated by propagating the standard errors of the sideshot measurements from the error ellipse of the control point.
Correct. You can calculate it on the assumption that the standard errors are a true representation of the actual statistics. It is really good to have redundant data as evidence the measurement wasn't blown.
> > The idea was that "radial surveys" were illegal because you had no positional tolerance calculation on the corner.
>
> Positional tolerance for a sideshot is calculated by propagating the standard errors of the sideshot measurements from the error ellipse of the control point.
Like I said, the "idea" was that. Not that it couldn't be overcome. 🙂
Ultimately, I agree (in part) with their rational, so long as one has a closed figure or a "check". The setting two points and surveying a tract left a lot to be desired. Not enough degrees of freedom.