If inputing a traverse done direct and reverse face, is there a code for the reverse face input or is it easier to just do a new backsite and forsight with the reverse angles?
Thanks for the help.
> If inputting a traverse done direct and reverse face, is there a code for the reverse face input or is it easier to just do a new backsite and forsight with the reverse angles?
What you should input into Star*Net is the *reduced* angle taken as the mean of face left and face right. Ordinarily, one wouldn't treat a measurement on each face as a separate observation.
Thanks Ken. I was hoping you would be online to help.
Terminology? Kent
We observe and recohat you should input into Star*Net is the *reduced* angle taken as the mean of face left and face right. Ordinarily, one wouldn't treat a measurement on each face as a separate observation. -- - See more at: https://surveyorconnect.com/index.php?mode=thread&id=307276#sthash.6dQ5SGj3.dpuf
Terminology? Kent
> See more at: https://surveyorconnect.com/index.php?mode=thread&id=307276#sthash.6dQ5SGj3.dpufbr >
Link doesn't work.
What The Heck Happened?
I copied Kent's comments for further comment never intending a link. When I posted my final reply it must have gone to never never land.
Paul in PA
Get the conversion utility. It is sweet, and it works.
It will automatically reduce your rW data into M lines.
I love it.
Hi Kent,
use the *reduced* observation of F1 and F2 simply because when taken as a pair, they cancel out any systematic error. correct?
taken individually, the systematic error needs to be considered, correct?
If you put them in as an average the error in that pair of readings is cancelled out on input. If you put the two sightings in as data and allow the adjustment to do the cancelling, the end result will be the same. So it's merely a convenience, a convention.
> If you put the two sightings in as data and allow the adjustment to do the cancelling, the end result will be the same.
That would be true if the instrument had dual-axis compensation and the collimation and index corrections were perfectly applied, but as a matter of practice it seems better not to rely upon that and to treat the mean of face left and face right as a single observation in which collimation errors are known to be canceled.
The key to best use of least squares adjustments is to have measurements of some uniform, well characterized quality. Angles as the mean of two faces seems more dependable as a method than using single face angles and relying upon the collimation and index corrections being perfect.