Could some of you experienced users give me a clue on which works better and why?? In the past, when we subbed out our GPS work...the surveyor used 2 bases and 1 rover...and we rarely had any problem with the control he set for us...but now I read where that is not so good...and looking at point/vector plots of that method, I see lots of long skinny non connected triangles...Soooooooo...is using one base and leapfrogging the other two better...the triangles look stronger to me...On what we are callling "station pairs", intervisable points to work the total station off of...is it better if those two are observed at the same time..???

Suggestions and comments are most welcome..Thanks.

Stumbling in the dark...Tom Bryant PLS St Louis MO

Tom

When doing control for boundary I always build a network, I don't really think of it as base/rover, I think interconnected trialngles and always observe the short lines (station pairs) and check the dist with the TS when set up to use the pair. Then you can look at the adj residuals and know how tight you are. Your coords may wind up being the same as the non connected long skinny triangle but you have more confidence in the positions. ... my $.02

Steve G

Tom,

About 40 threads back, more or less,...

"Is this a simpler way to do static control". Good reading and might be of some help.

Jimbo
Modified By James Webb on 8/11/2001 at 11:47 AM