Units
Doug Lewis
Greetings from Eastern North Carolina, USA.
I have been surveying here in North Carolina for about 18 1/2 years and have
only used metric on a few rare occasions. We use feet and 10ths of a foot in
our everyday practice. Our geodetic control is published in feet for NAD 27
and in meters for NAD 83 (which we convert to feet usually).
Have a nice weekend,
Doug Lewis, PLS
surv...@carolina.net
Jon Ras <jon...@amesurveys.com.au> wrote in message
news:3a20...@mega.ultra.net.au...
> I believe the US tried to convert to Metric recently. Is that correct?
> Do all surveyors in the US use imperial (feet and inches)?
> What does everybody else use?
> In Australia we converted to metric in the early 70's, including metres,
> grams, and litres.
> I'm really curious what everyone else uses, who converted to metric
> recently, and who would retire before even contemplating "going over".
>
> regards,
>
> Jon
> (metric for John)
>
>
>
Jon Ras
G. Shimp
to convert to metric, but last I heard, it was a complete failure and they
have gone back to decimal feet.
-Greg
Jon Ras
0.01' is about 3mm
Do you ever bother quoting to less than 0.01'?
With metric, we usually write dimensions to 1mm (1/300th of a foot) which is
quite often indicating a higher accuracy than we have actually achieved.
3-5mm is a more reasonable accuracy to quote, imho.
Thanks for the feedback. Anyone else?
Jon
C.M.German
Jon Ras wrote:
Most clients don't know what accuracy and precision mean. If they did they likely wouldn't be willing to pay for the effort
required to meet 1 mm standard.... some don't even want to pay for the 0.01' standard!! and some 'surveyors' are all to
willing to forego the effort to fulfill that (0.01) requirement for the fast buck.... (though they state it on their
documents).
Most commonly used in this area is the 0.01', though I have seen some maps with 0.001' stated, I doubt their reality.
Charles German
Anguilla, Georgia
Kent McMillan
Jon:
I'm sure you've considered that quoting a distance to the nearest 0.01
ft. means a maximum roundoff error of 0.005 ft. (or 0.0015m). Since
roundoff errors should be randomly distributed, that means that 68% of
the roundoff errors will be less than 0.001m - which is plenty close for
all boundary surveying applications I can think of just now.
The instrument that I presently use - a Zeiss Elta 50 - offers the
option of displaying ranges and height differences to the nearest 0.001
ft. I go ahead and record the measurements with that least count since
it gives a slightly more refined basis for statistical testing in
comparing - for example - the differences between back and forward
measurments on traverses and seeing the spread of repeat measurements.
I survey in Texas where we use principally two units, the U.S. Survey
Foot and the Texas Vara. Back when EDMI were a bit less refined (more
pronounced cyclic error) than they are today, I experimented with making
survey measurements in units of meters since it simplified making some
of the range corrections. I have perhaps two fieldbooks worth of such
surveys that were done before I convinced myself that 0.001m was slicing
the baloney too thinly.
Using GPS equipment for control surveying has made me an occasional user
of the meter. Antenna heights get measured in meters (to the nearest
0.001m) and I think of vector lengths in km. Of course the vector
solutions arrive from the processing software in SI units - before they
get converted into US Survey Feet, of course, for the remainder of the
survey calculations.
I realize as I write this that I think of instrument and target
centering errors in mm, rather than hundredths of a foot. The mm is a
useful unit for that. Naturally, retro-reflecting prism offsets are
expressed in mm also, following the manufacturers.
I'd think that the analysis of survey measurement errors provides a
rational basis for chosing the fineness of expression of survey results
- I almost wrote "precision of expression" but that would stir the
Canadian survey engineers up too much.
Specifically, examining the relative uncertainties of points positioned
by the survey would suggest an appropriate choice. On a typical land
survey that leaves my office - a survey that is usually a hybrid of GPS
and conventional measurements - the local accuracy of coordinates
(standard error of coordinates in relation to some arbitrarily fixed
point on the project network) is usually on the order of +/- 0.01 to
0.02 ft. So distances rounded off to 0.01 ft. are a good choice.
With Feet over the Varas and no Meter running,
Kent McMillan, RPLS
Austin TX
RMM
Here in CT, ConnDOT requires surveys to be measured and
mapped in metric. I've also conducted some surveys for the
Navy where metric was required. Contrary to popular belief,
it's not going away, and it really isn't difficult.
RMM
shu...@my-deja.com
I'm from the UK and I was chuffed (made happy) to hear something on the
radio the other day.
I'm aware that parts of Australia are suffering from bad weather and
flooding and they had some coverage from an Aussie radio station on our
Radio 1 (BBC). And some young chap was saying (adopt australian
accent) "I came downstairs in the morning to find the downstairs area
under 2 foot of water".
Made my day when I think of all those people who say that Australia is
metric and no imperial measure words are ever uttered!
Steve
--
I shop at TESCOS
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Derek G. Graham
1800's.
It is only with the Trudeau 1971 legacy that it is more prominent.
Any practicing surveyor will realize the folly of metric in its
practical application when considering the decimal place.
Two metric places of decimals is chain saw width precision.
Three is not consistently measurable.
With decimals of a foot two places is Skil saw precision. { a challenge
for an engineer ? (:-{)) }.
In my area, the plan work of the foundation lay out persons is converted
from metric to feet and decimals then to straight inches!
It seems there is a rumour that architects, planners and engineers
cannot count past ten as they run out of fingers and toes?
Don't get me wrong.
The metric units are good for complex mathematical gymnastics that few
understand [or care about as they sip their kumquat juice beside the
pool]
Derek
PS
In spite of the prevalence of metrification in many world wide
industries, guess what units are used for safety sake in the airline
industry? Or in ceiling height for weather?
Do I hear " *hit ! Were you using the metric altimeter as the mountain
is 'topped' by a 747 ? "
--
==========================================================================
PEOPLE CAN BE DIVIDED INTO THREE GROUPS,
THOSE WHO MAKE THINGS HAPPEN,
THOSE WHO WATCH THINGS HAPPEN,
AND THOSE WHO WONDER WHAT HAPPENED!
Derek G. Graham OLS OLIP
7669 Colborne Street East
RR #1 Fergus, Ontario
Canada
N1M 2W3
Secure Post Box -- Post Office Box 295 Elora, Ontario, Canada NOB 1SO
Business Tel (519) 846-5533 09:00 - 17:00 Weekdays
Fax (519) 846-9305 09:00 - 17:00 Weekdays
Home Tel (519) 846-9305 17:00 - 22:00 Weeknights,
(519) 846-9305 08:00 - 22:00 Weekends
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
John B
Jon Ras wrote in message <3a20...@mega.ultra.net.au>...
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Diego Berge
<grms...@kw.igs.net> wrote:
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
> --------------1DA1822B0E916DD53AD9DD1F
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> In Canada we have had the option of using both units since the late
> 1800's.
>
> It is only with the Trudeau 1971 legacy that it is more prominent.
>
> Any practicing surveyor will realize the folly of metric in its
> practical application when considering the decimal place.
>
> Two metric places of decimals is chain saw width precision.
>
> Three is not consistently measurable.
In reply to your and C.M.'s posts about the difficulty of attaining
1mm precision, I'd like to point out that it's not what we metric
surveyors try to achieve (under ordinary circumstances, anyway) -- it
just happens to be a particular division of the measuring scale one
may choose to use. Division of scale should always be smaller than
the actual precision of the measurement, to avoid excessive
degradation of the results when doing arithmetic with them -- my
engineering books recommend using a division of scale between 2 and 5
(some say 10) times smaller than estimated precision.
I'm not saying metric units might or might not be either too finely
or to coarsely grained for our particular job, just trying to clarify
a point.
Regards,
Diego Berge.
--
[ dbe...@geocities.com is no longer valid, please use dberge at gmx.net to reply by private e-mail. ]
Guenter Bellach
There are only 2 countries in the world who do not use metric
measurement: The USA and Liberia. Everybody else uses the
International Standard of Measure which is metric. In Canada the
metric system has been mandatory for many years for most applications,
including land surveying, and it works fine, in spite of a few diehard
oldtimers. However, due to the proximity to the USA and the influences
across the border, the conversion process has been difficult. An
interesting point on the side, the metric units compare much more
readily with the earlier system of chains and links. One chain equals
very nearly 20 m, a much rounder figure than 66 feet. Consequently,
many freeway interchanges in Southern Ontario are almost exactly 2 km
apart (=100 chains, the size of the original land division layout).
Much easier to use than 1.25 miles, granted?
Regarding precision quoted for the purposes of the ordinary consumer,
1 cm seems to be a reasonable answer in most cases. Quoting to the
nearest mmm, except for specialised purposes, seems futile. In
Germany, ordinary land owners see precision quoted only to the nearest
10 cm, but then everything is tied to the national grid, and the
underlying dense control network is determined to much greater
precision.
Guenter Bellach OLS.(ret.), CLS., BCLS.(ret.)
Eric Collins
Alberta/Saskatchewan are laid out on the twp (1 mile square) system...or 1.6
km or 1 mile.
Measuring over a distance of 40 m, measuring to the nearest cm will not
ensure legal requirements (closure only 1:4000)
Also in legal, coordinates do not rule, it is the physical pin placement as
originally intended. Would you not wish to re-establish or confirm as best
as possible to meet ethical guidelines?
Derek G. Graham
But, if one can pull a 100 foot chain about 0.10 feet longer under
tension, the precision of 0.001 metre is a humdinger of a waste
particularly if you unholster your plumb bob and measure the width of
the string and then do high powered math [differential calculus 'n
stuff] to get your potential error ellipse (about + or - 0.015 feet
from memory)
Cheers
D.
Gerry
SI based on the precision to be achieved; I would choose it
based on who is going to use the work product. By the way,
as a PE who only uses land survey data for hiking, hunting,
and fishing, I find it easier to by a metric tape measure than
a decimal foot tape measure (although both are not easy to
find).
Gerry
"Derek G. Graham" <grms...@kw.igs.net> wrote in message
news:3A2C22C3...@kw.igs.net...
Kent McMillan
>
> There are only 2 countries in the world who do not use metric
> measurement: The USA and Liberia. Everybody else uses the
> International Standard of Measure which is metric. In Canada the
> metric system has been mandatory for many years for most applications,
> including land surveying, and it works fine, in spite of a few diehard
> ACROSS THE BORDER, the conversion process has been difficult.
Guenter:
I was under the impression that the Canadian system uses degrees,
minutes, and seconds to express angles. Don't real full-monty metric
surveyors use radians, or some decimal unit like the grad or gon? Surely
it is evidence that Canada has been lagging back on the grand march
toward metrication that Mssrs. D.M. et S. are still a house guests at
the northern lodge of Mssr. Metre.
Isn't the real reason for retaining customary units of land measure that
in most countries land is not an export commodity. Does it really
matter whether a town lot has its frontage measured in the same units in
Moose Jaw, Hamburg, and Karachi?
Now on another matter, I for one would be interested to hear the details
of those influences across the border that are somehow holding back
Canadian surveyors from casting off the shackles of customary and
traditional measurement units.
And lastly, as a point of curiosity, how does one pace in meters? Do
all Canadian surveyors have one very tall assistant who paces in whole
meters or do you pace very dainty half-meters?
Inquiring minds want to know,
Eric Collins
"Derek G. Graham" wrote:
> OK
>
> But, if one can pull a 100 foot chain about 0.10 feet longer under
> tension, the precision of 0.001 metre is a humdinger of a waste
> particularly if you unholster your plumb bob and measure the width of
> the string and then do high powered math [differential calculus 'n
> stuff] to get your potential error ellipse (about + or - 0.015 feet
> from memory)
>
> Cheers
>
> D.
>
Brian Proud
wrote:
>And lastly, as a point of curiosity, how does one pace in meters? Do
>all Canadian surveyors have one very tall assistant who paces in whole
>meters or do you pace very dainty half-meters?
1.3 paces to the metre here. Much easier when pacing 10 metres at a
time though.
Brian
Kent McMillan
> 1.3 paces to the metre here. Much easier when pacing 10 metres at a
> time though.
Brian:
So y'all use a 2.5 ft. pace. (I suppose this is once the snow and ice
melts, of course.) All you'd need to do is lengthen your stride to 2.78
ft. and you'd be pacing in Texas Varas. I wonder whether any Canadian
Provinces have considered vara-fication.
Always keen to assist,
Kent McMillan, RPLS
Austin 60degF Texas
Kent McMillan
> We do not lolly gaggle, we just recognise the precision and folly of the
> third place of decimal [millimetre] when the plumb bob string is 1/8 "
> wide to start!
>
> Some are sheep and some are shepherds.
Derek:
Following what from a great distance would appear to be the Canadian
trend toward deciding matters by referenda, why not start gathering
signatures for the petition to place the matter of a new unit, the
Canada Survey Foot, up for a vote. While I understand that Mr. Day might
have preferred the cubit, he didn't win did he? If one were to choose a
natural unit, how about one that fits a normal pace, i.e. 3 Canadian
Survey Feet = 2.78 U.S. Survey Feet.
Those old lots that presently have a frontage of 50 ft. would then be 54
Canada Survey Feet along the front - a great opportunity for hoodwinking
U.S. buyers (a sort of payback for all those terrible cross-border
influences). Naturally, the Canada Acre would need to be adopted as
well. Think of all of those old 10 acre sites that could be now legally
marketed to the unsuspecting U.S. buyers as 11.6 acres!
Always wanting to help,
Derek G. Graham
Thanks.
My note was a bare naked totally supported measurement instance.
The mention of a plumb bob string width was to use something practical
to show how silly some [not you] persons are thinking that if they use
metric, they are so much more precise.
D
Derek G. Graham
We do not lolly gaggle, we just recognise the precision and folly of the
third place of decimal [millimetre] when the plumb bob string is 1/8 "
wide to start!
Some are sheep and some are shepherds.
As to metric pacing, that is a very personal question as it has to do
with the area covered by the bottom half of my monokini bathing costume.
But, just for you, so you are not left hanging, we ratchet up the bottom
selvage of the 'kini' to allow us sufficient space to extend the length
of the inseam which fits into the metric rubber boot per second
measuring device [yet unpatented].
(:-{))
Eric Collins
on every time though...
Kent McMillan wrote:
> Guenter Bellach wrote:
> >
> > There are only 2 countries in the world who do not use metric
> > measurement: The USA and Liberia. Everybody else uses the
> > International Standard of Measure which is metric. In Canada the
> > metric system has been mandatory for many years for most applications,
> > including land surveying, and it works fine, in spite of a few diehard
> > oldtimers. However, due to the proximity to the USA and the INFLUENCES
> > ACROSS THE BORDER, the conversion process has been difficult.
>
> Guenter:
>
> I was under the impression that the Canadian system uses degrees,
> minutes, and seconds to express angles. Don't real full-monty metric
> surveyors use radians, or some decimal unit like the grad or gon? Surely
> it is evidence that Canada has been lagging back on the grand march
> toward metrication that Mssrs. D.M. et S. are still a house guests at
> the northern lodge of Mssr. Metre.
>
> Isn't the real reason for retaining customary units of land measure that
> in most countries land is not an export commodity. Does it really
> matter whether a town lot has its frontage measured in the same units in
> Moose Jaw, Hamburg, and Karachi?
>
> Now on another matter, I for one would be interested to hear the details
> of those influences across the border that are somehow holding back
> Canadian surveyors from casting off the shackles of customary and
> traditional measurement units.
>
> And lastly, as a point of curiosity, how does one pace in meters? Do
> all Canadian surveyors have one very tall assistant who paces in whole
> meters or do you pace very dainty half-meters?
>
> Inquiring minds want to know,
>
Guenter Bellach
wrote:
>I was under the impression that the Canadian system uses degrees,
>minutes, and seconds to express angles. Don't real full-monty metric
>surveyors use radians, or some decimal unit like the grad or gon? Surely
>it is evidence that Canada has been lagging back on the grand march
>toward metrication that Mssrs. D.M. et S. are still a house guests at
>the northern lodge of Mssr. Metre.
SI measurement (the international convention which Canada has adopted)
did adopt the metre as a measurement of length, but not the 400 degree
circle, since 360 degrees had been too firmly imbedded for marine
navigational purposes. However, Germany and France (plus other
European countries?) use the 400 degree circle (grads) for land
surveying. France even uses geographic latitude and longitude in
gons.
In Thailand, where I live, metric measurement is the norm. However
traditional units are also used for different purposes. Surveyors'
field notes show saens (1 saen=40 m), but plans produced for the
public are in metres with 1 decimal and are drawn at natural scale
(1:2000 etc.). Areas are expressed in rai, ngan and square wah (1
rai=1600 sq.m., 1 ngan=400 sq.m, 1 sq. wah= 4 sq. m, all round
figures). Old habits die hard!
>
>Isn't the real reason for retaining customary units of land measure that
>in most countries land is not an export commodity. Does it really
>matter whether a town lot has its frontage measured in the same units in
>Moose Jaw, Hamburg, and Karachi?
This is a frequent argument by the defenders of customary measurement.
However the metric system is easier to use due to its decimal
structure. Ask any American farmer how many square feet in an acre.
Likely he will not know.
>
>Now on another matter, I for one would be interested to hear the details
>of those influences across the border that are somehow holding back
>Canadian surveyors from casting off the shackles of customary and
>traditional measurement units.
Canadian surveyors as a rule have thrown off the shackles of
traditional measurement, in spite of what Derek Graham says. But it is
a fact that the long border and immediate proximity of the much more
powerful US has been an impediment in preserving a distinct Canadian
culture. The problems with Quebec illustrate this.
>And lastly, as a point of curiosity, how does one pace in meters? Do
>all Canadian surveyors have one very tall assistant who paces in whole
>meters or do you pace very dainty half-meters?
I add 25 % to the number of my easy paces to arrive at the figure in
metres. Before, when we working in Imperial measurement (shades of
British colonialism?) I had to multiply the number of paces by 2.5 to
arrive at feet. I am a short person.
Guenter Bellach
Jim Frame
news:3a323737...@news.cis.dfn.de...
> Ask any American farmer how many square feet in an acre.
> Likely he will not know.
Next, ask him if he cares. Since all his land-use calculations are done in
acres, the relationship between the two units is likely of little interest
to him. If some unusual need dictated a quick-and-dirty conversion, he
could remember that a square 200 feet on a side gets him within 10% of the
magic number.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Frame jhf...@dcn.davis.ca.us (530) 756-8584 756-8201 (FAX)
Frame Surveying & Mapping 609 A Street Davis, CA 95616
-----------------------< Davis Community Network >-------------------
Kent McMillan
> Canadian surveyors as a rule have thrown off the shackles of
> traditional measurement, in spite of what Derek Graham says. But it is
> a fact that the long border and immediate proximity of the much more
> powerful US has been an impediment in preserving a distinct Canadian
> culture. The problems with Quebec illustrate this.
Guenter:
I think that you are perhaps overlooking a few matters in maintaining
the cross-border influences to be mainly one way. In the U.S. we are
quite deluged with Canadian influence just now.
I turned on the telly for a quick scan of the weather prospects for next
week's work in the field and what did I see? There on the charts was
what looks very much like a whole lot of Canadian weather heading as far
South as Texas. It fairly blankets the Western U.S. and Midwest. The
first time that Texas Gulf Coast air makes it to Toronto, I'll buy any
surveyors present a large beer!
Now as to the matter of a distinctly Canadian culture, I was under the
impression that Pierre Berton's definition was still operative, namely
"a Canadian is somebody who knows how to make love in a canoe."
On the subject of Quebec, didn't Carl Dubuc have it right when he
observed that "Quebec is one of the ten provinces against which Canada
is defending itself"? Does Dave Broadfoot's the general statement that
"Canada is a colection of ten provinces with strong governments loosely
connected by fear" not still apply?
Isn't the question of Canadian culture ultimate captured by Chief Dan
George in the following. He said, "when the white man came we had the
land and they had the Bibles; now they have the land and we have the
Bibles." In other words, beyond the First Peoples of Canada, isn't
everything imported?
When Paul Anka said "Canada is a good country to be from. It has a
gentler slower pace - it lends perspective" he caught what strikes me as
a uniquely Canadian quality that is surely a good bit more durable than
you might credit.
Best regards from a pro-Canadian Texan,
Larry Zimmerman
"Jim Frame" <jhf...@dcn.davis.ca.us> writes:
> "Guenter Bellach" <bell...@cscoms.com> wrote in message
> news:3a323737...@news.cis.dfn.de...
>> Ask any American farmer how many square feet in an acre.
>> Likely he will not know.
> Next, ask him if he cares. Since all his land-use calculations are done in
> acres, the relationship between the two units is likely of little interest
> to him. If some unusual need dictated a quick-and-dirty conversion, he
He needs to know the relation between acres and some measurement unit
in order to apply the desired quantity of seed or fertilizer per acre.
> could remember that a square 200 feet on a side gets him within 10% of the
> magic number.
Or: an acre is 1 chain by 10 chains or 1 rod by 40 chains
i.e. a strip of land 1/2 mile long (the length of a 1/4 section)
by one rod is an acre.
Approximations using travel speed (miles per hour) and flow rates
are fairly easy if you use these units.
Larry Z.
Scott Partridge
You're really a Canadian under that sun burnt American exterior.
In that case the large mass of frigid Arctic air racing your way should pose
no problem.
Scott
-24 deg C in balmy Calgary
Eric Collins
Scott Partridge
I didn't want to scare Kent... I quoted the temperature from Environment
Canada at the time I posted. You and I know the REAL truth...LOL. -50 deg
C with the wind chill yesterday.
Scott
tecknow
> Eric-
>
> Thanks.
>
> My note was a bare naked totally supported measurement instance.
>
> The mention of a plumb bob string width was to use something practical
> to show how silly some [not you] persons are thinking that if they use
> metric, they are so much more precise.
They may or may not be precise, but the *accuracy* is unchanged.
Derek G. Graham
If your instruments are not to a sufficient precision, your accuracy is
a pipe dream.
To believe measuring to a third place of decimal i.e. millimetre in the
field is gaining something to be appreciated by the public, given the
lengths one must go to to secure such redoubtable accuracy, too is
dreamland.
I don't believe in the cadastral sense we should be securing that level
of accuracy (1/3 of an eighth or one hundredth [more or less] of a foot
) when, as in Ontario, the allowable error is 1:5000 or a foot in a mile
+ -
And some, including engineers doing structural or machine work, only
fool themselves trying to attain such accuracy in the field.
"No matter how many times you cut the board it still is too short"
Eric Collins
went to -56 but our snow plows refused to work...something about blades snapping
off...
Eric Collins
you started out tight at ground level...
SamSurveyr
>From: Eric Collins eric.c...@home.com
>ah, but in building construction, things line up a lot better 40 stories up
>if
>you started out tight at ground level...
>
>"Derek G. Graham" wrote:
>
>> 'Tis with precision one can gauge the accuracy of one's results.
>>
>> If your instruments are not to a sufficient precision, your accuracy is
>> a pipe dream.
>>
>> To believe measuring to a third place of decimal i.e. millimetre in the
>> field is gaining something to be appreciated by the public, given the
>> lengths one must go to to secure such redoubtable accuracy, too is
>> dream
I agree, Eric....he first man setting grades needs to be pretty
tight......'cause if he's a bit sloppy, then the next guy comes off those
grades a bit sloppy, then the next, etc., you end up with slop for finished
product.
We have a metric job in progress (road construction) and we read to the
nearest thousandth when practical.....it's just as easy as reading to the
nearest hundreth.
i know it doesn't make much difference, but if you're gonna do it, do it
right :)
Sam
Gary R. Volmer
to build, a watch......
I hardly think the world is going to tip over because the sideslope was a
thousandth off design.
I am amazed to hear everybody who thinks thier measurement system is so much
better than the other. Metric or Imperial, I can take it or leave it. Hey,
tell you what. Ask the pan operator how close to design grade he's putting
that dirt. I already know his answer.......Hell I can stake all my jobs to
the ten thousandth, but that doesn't mean its going to be built that much
more precise.
--
Gary R. Volmer, PLS
Volmer & Associates, PA
Charlotte, North Carolina
Bus (704) 676-0310
Fax (704) 676-0311
GRVo...@caro.net
"SamSurveyr" <samsu...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20001218141251...@ng-fh1.aol.com...
SamSurveyr
>From: "Gary R. Volmer" GRVo...@caro.net
>
>Come on guys, how much is a hundreth in metric, please, what are we trying
>to build, a watch......
>I hardly think the world is going to tip over because the sideslope was a
>thousandth off design.
>I am amazed to hear everybody who thinks thier measurement system is so much
>better than the other. Metric or Imperial, I can take it or leave it. Hey,
>tell you what. Ask the pan operator how close to design grade he's putting
>that dirt. I already know his answer.......Hell I can stake all my jobs to
>the ten thousandth, but that doesn't mean its going to be built that much
>more precise.
>
>--
>
>Gary R. Volmer, PLS
A hundredth of a meter is almost a half inch.....dirt doesn't necessarily have
to be that close, but construction is not all dirt....i darn well better be
within a half inch when setting inlets and curbs and sidewalks, etc.
I see how some of our plans end up like they do, if surveyors don't give a
hoot about how close they are when they shoot some of this stuff and an
engineer designs from it........
What i was refering to was a hundreth of a foot. 3 thousandth of a meter
= a hundreth of a foot, so if you round your metric to the centimeter, you're
off more than a 1/4 inch.....some inspectors won't give you that on finished
rock, for example.......and some curbs we have to make work will fall less than
a hundreth of a foot in ten feet......so we need precision once in a
while......
Whats a couple of three inches in the woods of Carolina? nothing, but i
bet you survey and do your calcs to at least a hundreth of a foot, right?
I really don't care for the metric system, but we are required to use it on
this job......the problem with it is when you have people converting back and
forth......i have all the tools to stay in metric, but no one else
does.......so there lies the problem.
Sam
RMM
not necessarily. Only buildings require that kind of
precision. Flatwork is more forgiving than you'd think.
> I see how some of our plans end up like they do, if
surveyors don't give a
> hoot about how close they are when they shoot some of this
stuff and an
> engineer designs from it........
We used to conduct our topo surveys using stadia, or
measuring horizontally to the nearest foot; things got built
just fine.
> What i was refering to was a hundreth of a foot. 3
thousandth of a meter
> = a hundreth of a foot, so if you round your metric to the
centimeter, you're
> off more than a 1/4 inch.....some inspectors won't give
you that on finished
> rock, for example.......and some curbs we have to make
work will fall less than
> a hundreth of a foot in ten feet......so we need precision
once in a
> while......
I'd like to meet those inspectors.
> Whats a couple of three inches in the woods of
Carolina? nothing, but i
> bet you survey and do your calcs to at least a hundreth of
a foot, right?
of course.
> I really don't care for the metric system, but we are
required to use it on
> this job......the problem with it is when you have people
converting back and
> forth......i have all the tools to stay in metric, but no
one else
> does.......so there lies the problem.
Yep, good point. A lot of people requiring the use of the
metric system aren't well versed themselves. I like to put
the conversion on my surveys.
>
> Sam
>
C.M.German
Read it to the hundredth, hope it's to the tenth and only trust the nearest foot!
Charles German
Anguilla, Georgia
Guenter Bellach
When you are talking to Americans you must use Fahrenheit. They don't
understand C.
Eric Collins
Eric Collins
(the airplane that ran out of gas because some guy mis-converted gallons-litres..
David Flew
conversions......
Eliminating the need to learn the conversions between from inches to feet to
yards, miles, furlongs, nautical miles, or whatever, let alone ounces,
pounds, barrels, bushells, etc etc is one of the best reasons for going to
a metric system. Kids don't spend much school time on learning conversions.
Hopefully they learn more useful maths instead. ( or physics, chemistry,
machining, or whatever they are studying)
Unfortunately once they get into the real world they will find that there is
still a need to convert between different systems of measurement. But
hopefully by them they will see the conversion as just a bit of arithmetic.
But let's face it, the conversions (in metric the metric system) between
measuring something in kilometers, to meters, to millimeters, even to
microns, have to be easier to get right than converting between miles,
yards, feet, inches, and whatever smaller part of inches your particular
trade decides to use.
And if you wish you can chose to use a "unit" where the numbers relate to
the scale of what is being measured - measure the planet in kilometers, the
parking lot in meters, the machine part in millimeters, and the microbe in
microns. Use as many decimal places in each measurement as you need, want,
or can justify ( hopefully the same for each .....). but I if I need to use
a different "unit", I don't need to do more than shift the decimal place,
and it's not that hard to get it right.
Having said this, there are some things which just don't seem to convert.
Try as we might, 36/24/36 just don't seem the same in metric. But perhaps
the mental conversion to "big/small/big" defines the accuracy and precision
required, and our modern Metric youth doesn't even know they are talking
about measurements in inches - nor do they care!
Regards
David
(not a surveyor, but I measure lots of different things too.)
Eric Collins <eric.c...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3A404AD1...@home.com...
Jon Ras
Jon
ech...@my-deja.com
samsu...@aol.com (SamSurveyr) wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Units
> >From: "Gary R. Volmer" GRVo...@caro.net
>
> >
> >Come on guys, how much is a hundreth in metric, please, what are we
trying
> >to build, a watch......
> >I hardly think the world is going to tip over because the sideslope
was a
> >thousandth off design.
IMO and X, one of the biggest reasons for using "excessive" precision
in an inaccurate world, is that it makes the arithmetic come out
neater, and is thus easier to check. I like to carry one more decimal
place, in calculations, than I use. I will often round off the answer.
Someone once described the process as, "Calculate it with a micrometer,
lay it out with a grease pencil, and cut it with an axe."
> I really don't care for the metric system, but we are required to
use it on
> this job......the problem with it is when you have people converting
back and
> forth......i have all the tools to stay in metric, but no one else
> does.......so there lies the problem.
The conversion is a problem, and the bugaboo of there being multiople
systems. If you can stay all in one unit system, many of the
complexities disappear.
But most of your rules of thumb go out the window.
-Dennis Novak
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
ech...@my-deja.com
l...@gonefishing.sk.ca (Larry Zimmerman) wrote:
> i.e. a strip of land 1/2 mile long (the length of a 1/4 section)
> by one rod is an acre.
Is that a spaghetti farm? Or a snake ranch?
<Grinning, ducking and running>
Jame Guthrie
>Worst I ever surveyed in was -54 (still air). Things move a lot
slower...It
>went to -56 but our snow plows refused to work...something about blades
snapping
>off...
still air. I passed a construction site for a single floor bank, and noticed
that the construction workers putting up steel posts and beams were dressed
in quilted flannel shirts over a thick knit shirt, and wearing lined
(apparent by the shape) jeans or work pants. There were a few with insulated
coveralls, but they were in a minority. No coats were evident. They had hard
hats with toques underneath, and regular construction gloves and steel toed
boots.
I mention this, as a few years ago I visited Los Angeles in summer and saw
people wearing "puffy" coats in late August!
Derek G. Graham
J-
What section of LA were you in ?
The 'Puffs" section ?
TG Edmonton [and North Aboyne] are known for being a place where men are
men and women are chaste {or is it chased?}
Its good of you in "Blue Eyed Sheikland" to favour the North Aboyne
Irregulars with a wiff of recent nippyness.
Today, here, it was sunny and no wind @10F and very few pump handles
were being licked!
A great day for being in the field .................... that's why I'm
in the office !
Cattle were liking it and the horses were rolling in the 2 feet of snow,
happy as can be.
Cheers
D
Eric Collins
expensive ones have the conversion...
Jon Ras wrote:
> Why?
>
> Jon
Eric Collins
Eric Collins
lives, just jobs.
ken...@swbell.net
"Scott Partridge" <sco...@cadastral.org> wrote:
> Just as I suspected...
>
> You're really a Canadian under that sun burnt American exterior.
> In that case the large mass of frigid Arctic air racing your way
should pose
> no problem.
Scott:
I'm thrilled to hear how much y'all enjoy winter up above the 49th. My
own concern about the weather for last week's work in the field turned
out to be unnecessary. I was out in far West Texas surveying a ranch in
a spot where the edge of the Chihuauan Desert rises to about 6000 ft.
(about 1829m for those among us who insist upon such things) where it
strikes the Davis Mountains. On one day the temperature dropped to near
freezing, but otherwise it was mostly sunny and 50 to 60deg F, lovely
Texas winter weather at a site that was thorny and rocky.
One benefit that we did get from our northern neighbors who generously
sent a little extra air down our way was that it cleared out the
coal-fired haze that usually drifts up from northern Mexico. Seeing was
excellent, which was fortunate since at one boundary corner the original
surveyor gave a bearing (a bit like azimuths for those who are
unfamiliar) to a "knob peak" which turned out to be a feature on a range
of mountains in Mexico about 60 miles (about 100km) off. Without that
Canadian air, I'm not sure that the object would have been distinct.
So, thanks for the air, but I don't think we'll be needing any more this
winter. Save it for yourselves.
Best regards,
Kent McMillan, RPLS
Austin TX
Heinrich Hinze (HHz)
whats that 36/24/36 meaning? is it miles/yards/inch ?
MicroStation has such a kind of "wording" for the plot scale, but its just two
numbers ( mu/su main/ sub units).
Heinrich (metric in europic)
--
Heinrich Hinze - HHz, F HS MD SDL
Heinrich Hinze (HHz)
partially, its a form of land used in the Late Medeavean times until
land was given from the local souvereigns to the farmers. before, there
had been stripes, long in one and small in the other direction.
ech...@my-deja.com schrieb:
--
C.M.German
It was a humorous reply with the numbers referencing in inches the desirable proportions of a woman's anatomy! What one might
call an "hourglass" figure.
(This sort of thing has prompted me to add to my signature line "USA" as I realized there are other "Georgia's" in the
world!) I pondering adding the link to the Redneck interpreter.....
Charles German
Anguilla, Georgia, USA
C.M.German
"Heinrich Hinze (HHz)" wrote:
>
> --
> Heinrich Hinze - HHz, F HS MD SDL
Now, we're on the uninformed side of the pond. You'll have to explain all those letters after your signature!
Derek G. Graham
I can understand the confusion with 36/24/36.
Being a bi-measurer............ No Kent not that way Bi !!
Could I express it in metric for you?
91.44/60.96/91.44
or rounded off to 9/6/9, the perfect hourglass figure measurements of a
member of the female species !
We won't get into the male measurement unit.
Surveyors are too polite.
Heinrich Hinze (HHz)
thus giving a beautiful 90/60/90
if we agree to skip the 1.44 cm and the 0.96 cm and if we are allowed to
controll (different attents to get the values adjusted properly and also
several measurement epochs...)
Heinrich
--
Heinrich Hinze - HHz, ST in DE
Heinrich Hinze (HHz)
"C.M.German" schrieb:
FHS is shorter than FachHochSchule, uh?
FH was the previous abbrev. for http://www.fh-magdeburg.de
HS is the new one
MD car licence for the district of Magdeburg
SDL car licence for the district of Stendal
both are locted in ST in DE
ST official abbrev. for the (federal) state of Sachsen-Anhalt
DE abbr. for the Federal Republic of Germany, aka DEutschland in W W W
Scott Partridge
Canuck for the occassion.
Scott
ken...@my-deja.com
"Heinrich Hinze (HHz)" <heinric...@bw.hs-magdeburg.de> wrote:
> is rounded to centimeter not meter and not decimeter values.
> thus giving a beautiful 90/60/90
> if we agree to skip the 1.44 cm and the 0.96 cm and if we are allowed
to
> controll (different attents to get the values adjusted properly and
also
> several measurement epochs...)
Heinrich:
You are on the right track if you are thinking that the basic unit of
measurement should be one with a "natural" derivation, as opposed to the
rather tortured definition of the S.I. metre.
If you throw those metres away, you can switch to the marvellously
simple units of feet which render the fundamental problem of "Frauen
messung" as 3.00 ft./2.00 ft./3.00 ft. This simplicity of expression
should be proof enough of the superiority of English measure. We may
have missed Mars, but not Venus.
Just out of curiosity, what units of measurement were used in land
surveying practice in Germany before the wholesale adoption of the
French metre?
Best regards,
Kent McMillan, RPLS
Austin TX
Heinrich Hinze (HHz)
measuring the human body in "feet" is a bit funny. i would prefer to use
another unit, the "hand unit" or smaller units i.e. a "finger unit".
soweit dazu.
yes, 100 different measurement systems, units,...
in cadastral we still have to deal with them, since old documents (still
valid today) and maps have ... (just as an example):
State Zoll (") Fuß (')
Rute or Meile
(cm)
(cm) Klafter (m)
(m)
Preußen 2,615 x 12 = 31,38 x 12 =
3,766 x 2000 = 7532,5
(Rheinland)
i.e Western Prussia
Hannover
(Calenberg) 2,434 x 12= 29,21 x 16 =
4,673 7419
Sachsen 2,360 x12= 28,32
4,295 7500,0
Bayern
(München) 2,432 x12= 29,18 x10=
2,918 7420,4
Württemberg 2,865 x10= 28,65 x10=
2,865 x2000= 7448,7
plus:
Österreich
Austria 2,634 x10= 31,61 x6=
1,896 x4000 = 7585,9
Schweiz 3,000 x10= 30,00 x10=
3,000 x1600= 4800,0
Switzerland
Inch
Feet ? Mile
Q: HG p.33
sorry for any typos (errors).
Heinrich
Heinrich Hinze (HHz)
similar,....
also a kind of spaghetti farming
in the old times
Xmas
HHz
ken...@swbell.net
question about the units of measurement used in German land surveying
before metrication,
> in cadastral we still have to deal with them, since old documents
> (still
> valid today) and maps have ... (just as an example):
< Various units used in different German states (?) or regions given,
citing a set of values for the inch (Zoll) that averages about 2.54cm >
Heinrich:
Thanks very much for the interesting summary of land measurement units.
With modern software and computing aids, though, surely surveying in any
of the units you cite would not pose the problem that existed in an
earlier era when the labor of units conversion and complication of
maintaining so many different standard measuring tapes would have been
discouraging.
Your post highlights what for me is the real value of S.I. units in land
surveying practice, namely, that the metre is a fine unit for expressing
conversion factors.
For example, even though I've never prepared a land survey map or
description in metric units (and hope I never need to) most of my survey
calculations are done in metres at some point. My total station and GPS
receivers "think" in metres. My coordinate geometry (from Canada, the
land of French Feet, International Feet, Rods, Chains, and Metres)
carries all coordinates in metres and expresses all outputs in the units
specified or defined by the user. There is no problem.
The real problem with S.I. units are that they strike me as
unnecessarily contributing to a homogenizing of world culture and
devaluing of history. I'd expect to have standard bolts and nuts on my
automobile, but land is an entirely different matter.
For roughly the same reason that I wouldn't propose we all learn to
speak or write Esperanto, I decline to see the real value of converting
all of those lovely arcane units of land measurement into some
international standard.
In the case of Germany, I wonder whether the adoption of the metre in
land surveying was perhaps mainly a symbol of the authority of national
government, individual states' and city's customary units being
superceded by those chosen in Bonn or Berlin.
Metrication of land surveying appears to me to have been largely
symbolic in other places as well. In Australia, for example, metrication
of land measurement has been pursued apparently just for the utter joy
of it as a technical exercise, as a symbol of Australian surveyors'
aptitude (except for adopting radians, gons, or grads, of course).
Best regards (und froeliche Weihnacht)
ArtyGuru
<20001218141251...@ng-fh1.aol.com>:
>>Subject: Re: Units
>>From: Eric Collins eric.c...@home.com
>
>>ah, but in building construction, things line up a lot better 40
>>stories up if
>>you started out tight at ground level...
>>
>>"Derek G. Graham" wrote:
>>
>>> 'Tis with precision one can gauge the accuracy of one's
>>> results.
>>>
>>> If your instruments are not to a sufficient precision, your
>>> accuracy is a pipe dream.
>>>
>>> To believe measuring to a third place of decimal i.e.
>>> millimetre in the field is gaining something to be appreciated
>>> by the public, given the lengths one must go to to secure such
>>> redoubtable accuracy, too is dream
>
>I agree, Eric....he first man setting grades needs to be pretty
>tight......'cause if he's a bit sloppy, then the next guy comes
>off those grades a bit sloppy, then the next, etc., you end up
>with slop for finished product.
> We have a metric job in progress (road construction) and we
> read to the
>nearest thousandth when practical.....it's just as easy as reading
>to the nearest hundreth.
Especially if you do survey for an artillery unit that lobs 8inch
shells 30 miles away!
> i know it doesn't make much difference, but if you're gonna
> do it, do it
>right :)
>
>Sam
>
--
The Thomas Family of Kentucky
http://members.tripod.com/~theodolite/new.html