> Well, so far we haven't actually seen any posts from an unsophisticated user of least squares adjustments and error propagation software. Be sure to flag it if it ever shows up. :>
I have seen posts on the forum from folks learning to use their LSA packages. I don't believe it would be courteous to call out specific threads.
Also, just because folks aren't posting doesn't mean they aren't reading and learning from the discussions.
> > Well, so far we haven't actually seen any posts from an unsophisticated user of least squares adjustments and error propagation software. Be sure to flag it if it ever shows up. :>
>
> I have seen posts on the forum from folks learning to use their LSA packages.
You mean rookies? Yes, I'm sure there are plenty out there; but, is there any reason to think that they actually *read* any of the posts?
Kent McMillan, post: 281204, member: 3 wrote: You mean rookies? Yes, I'm sure there are plenty out there; but, is there any reason to think that they actually *read* any of the posts?
Kent, I'd like to point out, in sincere appreciation, that there is at least one person (me) out there with no Star*Net experience that has read an extensive number of posts over the last week or two, learning about the data presented in a Star*Net report. I'm not a PLS but instead I'm the engineer on the receiving end of deformation survey reports which include 100+ pages from Star*Net. After spending countless hours on this forum with the Star*Net manual open on the opposite screen, I'd like to say thanks to all who've posted over the past few years. It has been very beneficial and played a large part in my understanding of the end results.
In summary, including the "for beginners" portion of the conversation may in fact be reaching more people than you would think. Surely there are some others out there like me that have no valuable input of our own but we are reading it and we thank all of you.
Kent McMillan, post: 281204, member: 3 wrote: > > Well, so far we haven't actually seen any posts from an unsophisticated user of least squares adjustments and error propagation software. Be sure to flag it if it ever shows up. :>
>
> I have seen posts on the forum from folks learning to use their LSA packages.You mean rookies? Yes, I'm sure there are plenty out there; but, is there any reason to think that they actually *read* any of the posts?
Rookies...
Hehe. The young ones learn least squares in college. Seems to me, the older surveyors would more than likely be the rookies. Nice role reversal there...
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Don't poke the bears
Kent McMillan, post: 281204, member: 3 wrote: > > Well, so far we haven't actually seen any posts from an unsophisticated user of least squares adjustments and error propagation software. Be sure to flag it if it ever shows up. :>
>
> I have seen posts on the forum from folks learning to use their LSA packages.You mean rookies? Yes, I'm sure there are plenty out there; but, is there any reason to think that they actually *read* any of the posts?
Sir, as the rookie of all rookies in these parts, especially one who has engaged and learned a great deal from you yourself, I feel qualified to ??call you out? on that statement! LSA????s not just for Rocket Scientists you know.
Memory lapse forgiven.;)
I've been doing some rookie reading and the debate has been interesting. 😎
Peter Ehlert, post: 455012, member: 60 wrote: Don't poke the bears
I know. I avoid Provincetown for that week.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Kent McMillan, post: 280979, member: 3 wrote: > So why can't the RTK processor that produced the data use the data for uncertainty? What Kent seems to imply is that the RTK manufacturers lie about the results and StarNet doesn't.
Actually, what Star*Net and (one would think) any other decent least squares survey adjustment/error analysis program does is allow the input of realistic standard errors for observations. In the case of GPS vectors, that means inputing a factor to be applied to the processor estimates of the covariances. That factor is derived from experience with overdetermined GPS networks using similar methods and procedures.
> If I can process the one observation RTK data later for uncertainty values (produced by the RTK software), why can't the field software do it?
Probably because your RTK controller software doesn't support correcting the processor estimates by an optimism factor.
> I mean why would one data cranker produce any better results than another?
The answer is that Star*Net's approach allows reality to intrude.
So, another way to do this is to check between points with a total station of known calibration, and reshoot with gnss, over an extended period of time on many differing projects. If the subsequent locations fall within the error ellipse provided by the controller software, then no factor is needed. If they do not, then use lsa to determine a factor to apply.
And then there are posts like this very recent post:
"I don't know why a Surveyor would be Least Squares Adjusting his survey in this day and age. All it does is smear your errors all around mathematically. How would it ever help make a GPS survey more accurate?"
I don't know why a Surveyor would be Least Squares Adjusting his survey in this day and age.
Ignorance makes life so simple.
Jim Frame, post: 455783, member: 10 wrote: Ignorance makes life so simple.
It was easier when the earth was flat and we used NAD27 and there wasn't new coordinates all the time, but then we were just ignoring alot of stuff, so yes ignorance or willfully ingnoring the truth does tend to make life simpler!
SHG