Gotcha James. And I agree. And that "standard of care" is where our decision making professional status stems from, so perhaps I mis-read the intent.
Me, I've done lots of 5', 2', 1' even 0.1' contour maps. You tighten up your shots and hit more breaklines - accordingly. If I fly it, they tell me the panel locations and I give them the data, let them seal the contour map based on my sealed coordinate data. Often provide the engineer with additional data for building locations, some MH elevs, maybe some curbing. Never had much problem.
I've also been on the receiving end of some overly anal engineer wanting was not in my scope. I try to work with them, to a point. At the end of the day, it goes back to scope and who is paying you.
cheers
w
(Welcome to the Big 10 BTW, or is it the Big 14 now - good luck 😉 )
> The issue here IMHO is that the project was scoped for one thing (2 ft contours, and 0.1 vert) and the engineer decides he wants more. Ok fine, now it's a business decision between the client and whoever he hired.
Wayne, interesting how people digest the same information differently.
I read the original message to mean that the scope was to provide a 2' contour map and associated CAD/TIN files. That the contract did not specify the required accuracy and reporting precision other than the contour interval.
Interesting notion you bring up about interpretation of things, just as James mentions national "standards of care". All valid! My point is scope of services.
Per original post: Per the scope, I generated 2’ contours and submitted the CAD file including the contours and tin. I wrote out a separate points file with PNEZD to 0.1’. That was almost a freebie it seems, and doubt he'll do it again.
The engineer had the survey data requested, and then some. It just seems he's pushing some kind of liability bubble back uphill. I first mentioned to send him a file to 0.05'. Now after you pointed out my mis-interpretation, I'm not so sure I'd even do that.
I can get 2' contours on my quad all day long. One footers, and I'm getting a little tighter and will pick up more break lines. I still go back to scope and wouldn't do anything until paid in full and the client knows more is coming.
Well, I have been known more than once to read more into things than I should.
Seems like we got a heck of a lot more done in a much shorter time period when all there was to work with was a contour map on mylar and a light table.
There are a lot of software packages out there. These days most have interdependent functions. It's not that you need to shoot dirt to the hundredth, it's that the surface and figures are dependent on the points. Once you edit the points the surface and figures want to update. In some versions that creates an unstable drawing or forces you to perform edits over again.
The problem is that you're supplying data to the engineer's software. That software doesn't know which points are on hard surfaces and which are dirt shots. What it does see is a variation between the coordinates of the point and the line which is supposed to be in the same location. The software will either report an error or create two surface points right next to each other. This leads to all sorts of errors and confusion.
When you're doing calculations you don't truncate the values before multiplying or dividing etc. You carry them through to the end of the calc and then remove the extra decimal places. The same logic applies here.
Why didn't you generate your topo with rounded coordinates?
I think you are being unreasonable. JMHO