equate two (or more) fixed stations
Happy New Year! I've just tried to equate some fixed stations that have been defined a bit like this; fix 809 2502023 6021519 594 4 4 12 but I get errors from therion like this; error -- equate of two fixed stations -- 809@NSpots.NgaruaArea and A1@a.Kairuru.NgaruaArea These represent gps fixes taken at the same place on various occasions and part of various overland surveys. At first look it seems like this might be a desired response from Therion. How can two stations with specified and differing co-ordinates be 'equal'? My assumption was that the standard errors give the actual position of the station a degree of uncertainty or 'fuzzyness', and that by equating two such stations they would be 'averaged out' in a similar way to loop closures or two fixed stations connected by a survey network. But it seems I might have assumed wrong. Is it part of therions design to allow equating a number of fixed stations? By using alternative syntax or connecting the stations with a dummy survey leg with large std error perhaps? Bruce
On Jan 01, 2012, at 01:50 AM, Bruce <bruce@tomo.co.nz> wrote:
Is it part of therions design to allow equating a number of fixed stations?
By using alternative syntax or connecting the stations with a dummy survey leg with large std error perhaps?
Bruce
1. what about to morf a bit the Earth? 2. Seriously: may you do the calculation in an other (GPS) software? m.s.
1. what about to morf a bit the Earth? We do that underground in rock piles quite often! But nothing compared to the British I understand.
On Sun, Jan 01, 2012 at 01:50:35PM +1300, Bruce wrote:
At first look it seems like this might be a desired response from Therion. How can two stations with specified and differing co-ordinates be 'equal'?
My assumption was that the standard errors give the actual position of the station a degree of uncertainty or 'fuzzyness', and that by equating two such stations they would be 'averaged out' in a similar way to loop closures or two fixed stations connected by a survey network.
That's how Survex handles this case. It'll only give an error if you omit the standard deviations (the "4 4 12" in this case) from both fixed points and the coordinates aren't the same). Cheers, Olly
That's how Survex handles this case. It'll only give an error if you omit the standard deviations (the "4 4 12" in this case) from both fixed points and the coordinates aren't the same).
Thanks Olly That makes perfect sense. I was hoping Therion would do the same. In my mind there is little conceptual difference between closing a loop on a pair of fixed stations and a pair of stations attached to survey legs. More importantly, if Therion could do this, then from a data organisational point of view I could treat multiple survey trips to a fixed surface station in the same way as I treat multiple survey trips to an underground station. And Xavier,
My solution to this problem is to equates the two fixed stations to a third one which is not fixed.
That is a good tip. Therion can indeed equate fixed points, so with a slightly messy hack as below, I can organise my surface surveys in the same way as I organise underground surveys. I tried; #Connect Surveys #=============== centreline equate 807@NSpots M15@m.Hawkes #a conventional equate, fixed to floating station, it works fine equate 809d 809@NSpots A1@a.Kairuru #equate of dummy THEN two fixed stations #set up dummy third station to trick therion into allowing equate of the above fixed stations flags duplicate mark temporary date 2012.01.01 data normal from to tape compass clino 809d 809d1 0.5 0 -90 endcentreline and it works! Some interesting observations though. 1. The dummy survey station must come before the fixed stations. equate 809@NSpots A1@a.Kairuru 809d still causes error -- equate of two fixed stations -- 809@NSpots.NgaruaArea and A1@a.Kairuru.NgaruaArea 2. I would have expected that therion and survex's cavern (when called from within therion) would report this equate to fixed coordinates as a loop, but they do not, so there are no loop closure statistics reported. Of course the % error would make no sense, but the absolute error would provide the user useful warning that they have equated fixed points (loop length =0), and the absolute error distance between the points. Are there reasons why these are not reported? The lack of loop closure reporting made me wonder what in fact was been done. I changed one of my fixed cords by 500m (with identical standard deviations) and the fixed station and cave attached to it were moved by 250m in the output. Changing the relative standard deviations affects the displacement as I would expect so I am satisfied that the 'loop' is indeed being resolved properly. I really do think that these 'loop' statistics need to be reported however. Incidentally, I have been using the survex loop closure option from within therion for all of these trials. Cheers Bruce
Thanks a lot Bruce for finding this issue. That makes perfect sense. I was hoping Therion would do the same. In my
mind there is little conceptual difference between closing a loop on a pair of fixed stations and a pair of stations attached to survey legs.
I will try to modify therion to behave same way as survex does. It makes sense to me, I was just not thinking about this situation. I also need to chceck, why therion does not report this situation as a loop. I will let you know. Best regards, S.
Hi bruce My solution to this problem is to equates the two fixed stations to a third one which is not fixed Xavier Envoyé de mon iPhone Le 1 janv. 2012 à 01:44, Bruce <bruce@tomo.co.nz> a écrit :
Happy New Year!
I’ve just tried to equate some fixed stations that have been defined a bit like this;
fix 809 2502023 6021519 594 4 4 12
but I get errors from therion like this;
error -- equate of two fixed stations -- 809@NSpots.NgaruaArea and A1@a.Kairuru.NgaruaArea
These represent gps fixes taken at the same place on various occasions and part of various overland surveys.
At first look it seems like this might be a desired response from Therion. How can two stations with specified and differing co-ordinates be ‘equal’? My assumption was that the standard errors give the actual position of the station a degree of uncertainty or ‘fuzzyness’, and that by equating two such stations they would be ‘averaged out’ in a similar way to loop closures or two fixed stations connected by a survey network. But it seems I might have assumed wrong.
Is it part of therions design to allow equating a number of fixed stations? By using alternative syntax or connecting the stations with a dummy survey leg with large std error perhaps?
Bruce
_______________________________________________ Therion mailing list Therion@speleo.sk http://mailman.speleo.sk/mailman/listinfo/therion
participants (5)
-
Bruce -
martinsluka -
Olly Betts -
Stacho Mudrak -
Xavier Pennec