Since it's quiet 'round here..

[foxtrot_xray]

Thought it's been a little quiet around here so I thought I'd get everyone's opinion on something.

 

In my program (NGSGPX), at the moment if you select an option, if a station has a reference mark that happens to have it's own PID, you can opt to have the coordinates for the real station updated.

 

For example, say you have station DG1234 which is Scaled, and station DG0123 is Adjusted, and has a reference to station DG1234. Now, if you use the NGS program 'COMPUTE' (or simply project the reference mark) you can get a better general location for DG1234.

 

At the moment, a limitation of my program is that it will update more accurate locations with lesser-accurate ones. (ie. If DG1234 is Adusted, and DG0123 is Scaled, projecting the DG1234 reference mark from DG0123 will provide less accuracy.) I am fixing this in the next version, and ran into a strange and obvious stumbling block.

 

I have no idea how to phrase that nicely and concisely. The best I could come up with is:

 

Update lesser-accurate Stations with higher-accuracy computed Reference Marks.

 

Can anyone think of a better way to put that?

 

And, actually, that leads to a second question. I'm assuming that, in order of accuracy (best to least) for stations at NGS is:

Adjusted,

HD_Held1,

HD_Held2,

Scaled.

 

Is that correct?

 

Cheers all,

-Mike.

[Papa-Bear-NYC]

You might just say "Upgrade location accuracy of scaled station?"

 

In other words skip worrying the user about which is better, which is worse.

[foxtrot_xray]

You might just say "Upgrade location accuracy of scaled station?"

 

In other words skip worrying the user about which is better, which is worse.

 

I was thinking, tho, if there's a HH_HELD2 station which is referenced by a HD_HELD1, it's possible that the HD_HELD2 station could be better placed by projecting the reference mark. (The user wouldn't have any reference on the screen/window about the different types of accuracy, that was just a question from myself.)

[Papa-Bear-NYC]

You might just say "Upgrade location accuracy of scaled station?"

 

In other words skip worrying the user about which is better, which is worse.

 

I was thinking, tho, if there's a HH_HELD2 station which is referenced by a HD_HELD1, it's possible that the HD_HELD2 station could be better placed by projecting the reference mark. (The user wouldn't have any reference on the screen/window about the different types of accuracy, that was just a question from myself.)

 

So if I understand correctly, you're worried about the phrasing of a question that you're asking yourself?

 

And you're only asking because it's quiet around here?

 

Advice: Stop worrying!

[Bill93]

I don't recall seeing any case where a mark with scaled or HH horizontal coordinates had ties to or from a better horizontal point. Do you have an example?

[foxtrot_xray]

So if I understand correctly, you're worried about the phrasing of a question that you're asking yourself?

 

And you're only asking because it's quiet around here?

 

Advice: Stop worrying!

Well, everything else was quiet - little new pictures, not new stories - it's winter - so I figured I'd ask.

 

I don't recall seeing any case where a mark with scaled or HH horizontal coordinates had ties to or from a better horizontal point. Do you have an example?

I have seen it a couple times, will need to modify a few functions in my program and run it on a few states, see if I can find them again. Essentially, an Adjusted mark would have a station listed in the PID Box with a distance and azimuth to a station whose coordinates are marked with a Scaled.

[southpawaz]

Are you talking about something like this, where a triangulation station's reference marks have separate PIDs with scaled coordinates: DB0369 JUNCTION, DB0368 JUNCTION RM 1 and DB0370 JUNCTION RM 2?

[foxtrot_xray]

Are you talking about something like this, where a triangulation station's reference marks have separate PIDs with scaled coordinates: DB0369 JUNCTION, DB0368 JUNCTION RM 1 and DB0370 JUNCTION RM 2?

Exactly. In theory, and assuming your math is correct, you can get a more accurate position for RM1 or RM2 (which are 'scaled') by computing their position based on the adjusted triang station.

 

(I will add that it's not only triangulation stations that could have this happen, but this is a perfect example.)

 

Now, granted, in examples like this, this would kinda be unnecessary, because you know they're going to be darn close to the main station. However, would something like this be helpful where, say you have a HD_HELD2 station giving reference directions to a SCALED station? Technically - depending on the data given - you could narrow the location of the scaled station down by ~hundred feet, yes?

 

-Mike.

[+Black Dog Trackers]

In NGSREAD, I addressed that problem a couple years ago or whenever it was. For what it's worth, I called the option scoreinfo (and the user specifies the value yes or no). Scoreinfo=yes means to use box score information to do two things:

1) generate coordinates from box score information for reference marks that have no regular PID so that those can appear on a map

2) generate coordinates for scaled regular PIDs referenced in the box score.

scoreinfo=no of course means to not bother using box score information to do those things.

The default value is scoreinfo=yes.

NGSREAD never did use box score information to regenerate coordinates for adjusted marks; it made sure to leave those alone.

 

The tricky part is to make sure to also only use one box score for a particular scaled mark, so that you don't get 2 sets of coordinates for the same marker and ghosts on the map.

[AZcachemeister]

Are you talking about something like this, where a triangulation station's reference marks have separate PIDs with scaled coordinates: DB0369 JUNCTION, DB0368 JUNCTION RM 1 and DB0370 JUNCTION RM 2?

Exactly. In theory, and assuming your math is correct, you can get a more accurate position for RM1 or RM2 (which are 'scaled') by computing their position based on the adjusted triang station.

 

(I will add that it's not only triangulation stations that could have this happen, but this is a perfect example.)

 

Now, granted, in examples like this, this would kinda be unnecessary, because you know they're going to be darn close to the main station. However, would something like this be helpful where, say you have a HD_HELD2 station giving reference directions to a SCALED station? Technically - depending on the data given - you could narrow the location of the scaled station down by ~hundred feet, yes?

 

-Mike.

 

If you are suggesting the possibility of modifying the mark's co-ordinates based on someone's GPS co-ordinates posted in a recovery note, then yes, I'm all for it.

As you say, reference marks are close enough to the main station that it won't matter much, but for those who like to look for the azimuth mark it could be invaluable.

[Wintertime]

I'll leave the meaning of the sentence to others and just address it from an editor's point of view. It would be "less accurate" rather than "lesser-accurate." And I don't think you need to capitalize anything. Also, since the reference marks themselves aren't computed, maybe say, "with a more accurate location computed from reference marks."

 

Patty

[Papa-Bear-NYC]

Are you talking about something like this, where a triangulation station's reference marks have separate PIDs with scaled coordinates: DB0369 JUNCTION, DB0368 JUNCTION RM 1 and DB0370 JUNCTION RM 2?

Exactly. In theory, and assuming your math is correct, you can get a more accurate position for RM1 or RM2 (which are 'scaled') by computing their position based on the adjusted triang station.

 

(I will add that it's not only triangulation stations that could have this happen, but this is a perfect example.)

 

Now, granted, in examples like this, this would kinda be unnecessary, because you know they're going to be darn close to the main station. However, would something like this be helpful where, say you have a HD_HELD2 station giving reference directions to a SCALED station? Technically - depending on the data given - you could narrow the location of the scaled station down by ~hundred feet, yes?

 

-Mike.

Actually, there are some egregious examples I've found.

 

Case in point: Palisades

 

This is an old triangulation station (a bolt) set in 1898 and a first order horizontal station. In 1930 two reference marks were set. Today one of those is (probably) buried under some landscaping and the other one is on a rock ledge about 200 feet south of the station. A few years ago Seventhings and myself measured everything and were well satisfied that every thing was where it should be.

 

So far so good.

 

Then in 1956, the C&GS ran a level line in the area and used both of the reference marks as veritcal stations, i.e. true bench marks. However, when the NGS database was established from the paper records sometime later, instead of using the more accurate coordinates from the triangulation station, they just got out the Topo maps and picked some spots for these two scaled stations. Results: they were far away, and one was actually placed on the wrong side of the George Washington Bridge from where it is actually located.

 

I've seen other similar cases.

 

Cases like this are exactly what your corrections are aimed at, and thank you for taking this issue on.

[foxtrot_xray]

I'll leave the meaning of the sentence to others and just address it from an editor's point of view. It would be "less accurate" rather than "lesser-accurate." And I don't think you need to capitalize anything. Also, since the reference marks themselves aren't computed, maybe say, "with a more accurate location computed from reference marks."

Thank you, grammar police! My engrish is bad, I know it. Only 99% of the time I even know what I'm talking about. That other 1%, well.. too much sauce and I'm all over the place.

[foxtrot_xray]

I've seen other similar cases.

 

Cases like this are exactly what your corrections are aimed at, and thank you for taking this issue on.

This would be a perfect case of it. (And I love that station. Now that I'm 680 miles closer to it than before, I may go and check it out sometime.)

 

Like BDT mentioned, his does it already, m v2.0 does it, but v2.0 can potentially replace a station with 'adjusted' coords with computer coords from a 'scaled' reference station. So, since I'll be working on that part of the new program soon, I thought I'd get people's thoughts on it. I plan on modifying it - of course! - so that it will *only* update less accurate coordinates. (And then, only if the user wanted that option..)

 

AZ - Unfortunately, grabbing coordinates from an existing recovery IS possible - however parsing and trying to figure out WHAT those coordinates are referring to (main station? rm1? rm2? az? etc..) would be near impossible without some kind of agreed-upon format for labeling the coords in the recovery.