NGS recovery report unit conversions

[Bill93]

I reported a bunch of recoveries in the last couple months, and as I look at the results I see someone is editing them to provide dual units.  I submitted one that gave an approximate tie from a field drive crossing the RR tracks.  I put it in yards so no one would think I had taped it to the nearest foot.  See what I got:

120 YDS (109.7 M) NORTHEAST OF A FIELD DRIVE

Aarrgg!

Take heed; do the conversions yourself in your recovery reports so the result doesn't look idiotic.

[ArtMan]

I've noticed this annoying false precision — apparently an automated "feature" — for several years now. I've lived and traveled abroad and am pretty comfortable with the metric system. If the U.S. and the handful of other holdouts (democratic powerhouses Liberia and Myanmar) would convert, I would be happy. But in the meantime I can only wonder why NGS didn't render 120 yards more precisely as 109.728 meters.

-Artman-

[Z15]

This has always been the case, the system is programed to make the conversion.  NGS field crews have worked in meters for a very long time, more precise.  Back in the 1970's when we did coop work with NGS all measurements were metric and then converted to feet when published, never yards.  

Edited January 7, 2018 by Z15

[Z15]

I can only wonder why NGS didn't render 120 yards more precisely as 109.728 meters

Because 120 yds is not precise..

[Bill93]

17 minutes ago, Z15 said:

Because 120 yds is not precise

That's what I was complaining about.  If they had converted to whole meters it would be fine, only a slight change in precision from +/-a couple yards to +/-a meter.  But to decimeters??

[Z15]

Yds is not an acceptable survey measurement and I was surprised they had it programmed to convert.   Only uses for yds are football and hunters seem to always speak in yards although I often wonder if they really know what it is.   Never seen anything that measures in yards in my 30 yrs as a Survey Tech at MDOT.  We always measured in meters and feet and compared the results.  

Edited January 7, 2018 by Z15

[Bill93]

I've seen yards many times in BM descriptions.  See QK0329 for instance.  It is almost never used for anything that was measured carefully, but not uncommon for "ballpark" distances to get you in the vicinity of a mark.

The other place yards are used almost exclusively is golf.

[kayakbird]

A six foot tall person can fairly reliable count steps that are a yard (+/-) long.  A bit harder to get that extra 3.37 inches and tally meters.  Being slightly height disadvantaged, my pace stick [as I was trained to use a bunch of years ago by the Forest Service] is now one Smoot (+/-) long.  MEL

[foxtrot_xray]

Huh.

I don't think any of mine has that conversion - HOWEVER, I've never used 'yards', either.

[Bill93]

I see that DSWORLD does some conversions and slight format changes (US-metric, SW becomes SOUTHWEST, etc).

But I'm seeing other edits to my reports, apparently by someone who doesn't understand or like the old terse reporting style, to "improve" the sentences.  Some of the edits aren't completely benign. 

A DSWORLD log on my computer shows I posted the following:

RR BED IS NOW A DRIVEWAY AT ADDRESS 2835. POST IS QUITE

VISIBLE FROM ROAD, 1 FOOT SOUTH OF AN ORANGE POST, AND PROJECTS 8 INCHES.

This came out as:

NK0091'THE RAILROAD BED IS NOW A DRIVEWAY AT ADDRESS 2835. THE POST IS

NK0091'VISIBLE FROM THE ROAD AND THE MARK IS 1 FT (0.3 M) SOUTH OF THE POST.

Now I'll admit there is a bit of ambiguity because I should have said "concrete post is visible", but the prior entry ends by saying the disk is in a concrete post and I would think most who are familiar with these reports would realize I was talking about a (concrete) post south of an orange post.

------------

On another one I reported that local residents remembered a building that "burned decades ago"

That one came out "BURNED DECADES ABOVE THE GROUND"

Say what?

------------

This is the old game of "telephone" where paraphrasing risks significant changes the meaning.  I've seen several other edits lately.  I'm afraid one of them is going to make a report flat out wrong.

Have others seen this sort of thing?

Edited May 3, 2018 by Bill93
clarify

[foxtrot_xray]

And another reason I won't use DSWORLD.. I work my wording out exactly, since it's in a public database.

And I do a FINE job makin' myself look like an idiot. I don't need someone helping me on that.

[Bill93]

I figure the same person will review it whether I use the web form or DSWORLD.  But DSWORLD lets me see the automated part of the changes before I submit by hitting the FORMAT button.

 

DSWORLD also keeps a log file on my computer so I can later see exactly what I did submit.