Just curious?
> The first time some guy using GPS to plant his corn (that guy being my client) asks me why he doens't line up with my plat's bearings, I will for sure change my ways.
Be proactive with it and ask your clients if they want the data referenced in a particular coordinate system.
You might be surprised at the farming operations that are keeping data on their fields in a GIS. If you are the local guy providing them with the survey information properly referenced for them to easily use your CADD file in their GIS = even happier than before customer.
I have a couple of farmers that asked for the shape file when I complete a survey.
Dollars to Donuts
> and people wonder why pincushions happen...
Pincushions are the result of arrogance, lack of education regarding the science of measurement, and/or lack of courage.
Just curious?
Cept I'm not Eddie, a different Moe:-O
YOU HAVE TO BE KIDDING ME
YOU ARE COMPARING APPLES AND ORANGES AND COMPLAINING ABOUT A TWELVE SECOND ERROR BUST IN LESS THAN 200 FEET?
COME ON KENT. YOU AND THE gps ARE NOT THAT GOOD.
Kent
> > In all seriousness; if money was no object, independently reproducible bearings are wonderful. But when they do not benefit the client, requiring them is just another unfunded mandate.
>
> I'll bite. How much does 20 minutes of field time cost your client? Is it in the range of $30 to $60?
Kent,
I'm assuming you've never been to New Hampshire?
> I am from Tasmania and since 2005 here, every survey that goes to the titles office has had to be on grid north datum and coordinated.
>
> I find it amazing that in less than 10 years, the coordinated surveys that are slowly but surely dotting their way across the state help us so much. The benefits to local and state government of an increasingly accurate cadastre cannot be understated.
>
>
OK... can they be stated? I mean, what are they exactly? Defend your statement.
Stephen
Just curious?
Corbin is in freaking Virginia
Dollars to Donuts
I thought in this case it was and act of ignorance more than an arrogance.
but I do know what you mean.
> YOU HAVE TO BE KIDDING ME
>
> YOU ARE COMPARING APPLES AND ORANGES AND COMPLAINING ABOUT A TWELVE SECOND ERROR BUST IN LESS THAN 200 FEET?
Actually, comparing bearings presented as survey results referring to Grid North of the South Central Zones of the Texas Coordinate System of 1927 and the Texas Coordinate System of 1983 is hardly apples and oranges. At the same point in the above example, the direction of Grid North of each differs by 0.501 arc seconds, so that means the two are essentially the identical direction for most land surveying purposes.
So, in other words, the answer from 1993 derived from solar observations was independently found to be essentially exactly the same in 2012 by GPS methods.
The limits of a highway ROW, which the State has previously acquired by filing acquisition maps,
could be determined by one or more of the following techniques, depending on the evidence
available. In the order of their importance, the techniques are described below:
1) The original baseline is used to describe previous acquisitions and represents the highest
order of accuracy in reestablishing the limits of the acquisitions. Every attempt must be
made to find and locate these original baseline points. If the actual points cannot be found,
but the ties still exist, every effort will be made to locate the ties and reestablish the baseline
points from the ties.
2) Permanent survey markers (PSM) set within the project area are second in order of
importance of evidence to be used for locating the ROW=s original baseline. The PSM=s can
be used to recreate the original baseline by transforming the original baseline coordinates or
as-built stations and offsets into the current project coordinates and thus create the existing
ROW limits. The PSM=s have to be field verified to determine their reliability prior to holding
them for control.
3) ROW monuments located in the field are the third most important type of evidence. The
distance and direction between field monuments shall be compared to the theoretical
inverses computed using information provided by the acquisition maps to determine
reliability of the field locations. The best fits would be held for small contiguous areas of
acquisition. Clusters of ROW acquisitions separated by areas with no acquisitions or by
intersecting roadways may be analyzed on separate ROW coordinate bases. It is not an
acceptable NYSDOT practice to attempt to conduct a survey which relies on force fitting the
entire project length into a ROW based on a single set of monuments. In some cases the
existing centerline or physical structures such as, building corners, bridges or walls can be
held to coincide with ROW monuments to substantiate the appropriate hold points.
4) The final, and least recommended, technique to reestablish ROW is to lay the original ROW
maps over the project-based map taken from the field and determine the hold points for the
Abest fit. @ A photogrammetry map, verified in the field, may also be used. These hold
points may include the existing centerline, buildings, stone walls or similar fixed features on
the map.
Putting the R/W monuments third is crazy and contrary to principles of boundary law in my opinion.
The typical argument here is that those were set by the contractor with a low order of accuracy. Well, woop-te-doo I say, who's fault is that? The innocent land owner who relies on them? No, the State could've got them in the right place if it was all that important to them.
I can't believe this is controversial?
We are a weird group of people, for sure.
> ... Well, woop-te-doo I say, who's fault is that? The innocent land owner who relies on them?
:good: :good:
Just curious?
> Corbin is in freaking Virginia
It looked like it was in Maryland from Texas. Those Eastern states are so jammed together, they all look the same at this distance.
Just curious?
> It looked like it was in Maryland from Texas. Those Eastern states are so jammed together, they all look the same at this distance.
Sort of like the view of Russia from the Alaska governors mansion
> I can't believe this is controversial?
>
> We are a weird group of people, for sure.
It think it's mainly just a general failure of education, considering the system of mentorship to be an inferior means of education in the fundamentals.
Just curious?
No, more like this new projection that places Texas at correct scale:
A Map of the US Placing Texas at Proper Scale
Kent
> > I'll bite. How much does 20 minutes of field time cost your client? Is it in the range of $30 to $60?
> I'm assuming you've never been to New Hampshire?
M'kay. So $30 is the end of the world up there? It sure wasn't for the folks from New Hampshire I made a survey for a couple of years ago. They'd bought some property in Texas along a lake to which the United States of America owned the bed and an inundation easement across their property and were engaged in a dispute with the Corps of Engineers about (a) where their property really was and (b) where the inundation easement was upon the property.
Part of the resolution was determining the latitudes and longitudes of various boundary corners so that the COE could see where they really were in their GIS. I didn't hear any complaint at all from the New Hampshirites about actually using semi-modern technology resurvey their land.
Okay Kent, I'll spell it out...
NH is 85% forested.
GPS will add more than $30 to the price a typical survey.
Virtually all the deeds are in magnetic bearings.
There is no PLSS system.
Honk it you think Texans should decide how we should survey in NH!
Okay Kent, I'll spell it out...
> NH is 85% forested.
> GPS will add more than $30 to the price a typical survey.
So, why wouldn't you use solar observations? That was part of the point of this thread, that grid azimuths derived from solar observations can be quite accurate.
> Honk it you think Texans should decide how we should survey in NH!
This isn't a Texas issue, but one of surveyors actually providing a professional service, which an independently reproducible basis of bearings is a part of. I mean, you survey in some standard units of length, don't you? You don't just spin some randomly chosen scale factor into the data collector because presumably your client actually wants to know the area of the tract you're surveying. Standard units means "independently reproducible" also.