Nate;
This looks to be an informative and enjoyable time and I wish I could attend.
Some of the comments on the RPLS thread about comparison criteria seemed to get way off "point'"
Please correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this about using 2 (or more) different makes of GPS receivers to survey known points and judge how they perform
under the same conditions?
The concerns about exact constellations and exact conditions seemed to be getting a little too scientific.
I was waiting to read that someone wanted the moon in the Seventh House and Jupiter to align with Mars for the test.
How about incorporating some of this criteria testing in addition to the field survey of the points.
1. Test the ease of setup (both RTN and base - rover) to get up and running, start with the equipment in the truck shotgun start. (time the field survey start to finish)
(how many pieces of equipment are required to perform the survey).
2. Ability to add additional info (or lack of) for the surveyed points with photos, reports, screenshots etc. etc.
3. Test the ease of processing the data at the end of the survey (timed) how many solutions were obtained for each point, RTK and PPK. (redundancy)?
4. Test the stakeout capability, stake points in open, woods and stake line here.
5. Maybe even test localization in some manner.
5. Compare generated documentation of the survey when finished. (how points compare to traversed values, relative error report)
In my opinion (as a proud JAVAD owner) the whole notion about an apples to apples comparison between manufacturers is not really possible
and I tend to view this as a test of THEIR equipment, not ours.