How Would You Prefer Height Labeled in J-Field

[Matt Johnson]

There has been some discussion about how the height should be labeled in J-Field. Please vote for you choice.

WIth the 2nd option, J-Field would determine which height is being displayed and display the correct label of "Orthometric Height" or "Ellipsoid Height".

 

[Nate The Surveyor]

In trying to think ahead...
U or Up sounds good.

But as more and more folks use this equipment, the more stuff is plain, the better.
OH for Orthometric Height
EH for Elipsoidal
But I don't know if there is room for 2 letters, in the location you are thinking.
When there is a choice, pick simple, in nomenclature.

N

 

[Joe Paulin]

Thanks for asking! I have voted above and from a strictly surveying viewpoint, up is not very clear - up from where? Altitude is mostly an avionics term in my opinion and also doesn't imply what baseline the height is being measures from. Orthometric and ellipsis height are what I would like to see, but I agree with Nate, better abbreviations would be helpful to make it more intuitive.

 

[Matt Johnson]

The screen it would need to be abbreviated in is the new Processed Point Info Screen:

Current

I think we have room for "Ortho H" and "Ellip H" abbreviations there:

Proposed

 

[Joe Paulin]

Looks good to me!

 

[Wes Cole]

I can't think of the last time I cared or even wanted to know the ellipsoid height. (I do realize however some do want to know it). Orthometric Height or just plain old Z is better in my opinion.

 

[Matt Johnson]

I can't think of the last time I cared or even wanted to know the ellipsoid height. (I do realize however some do want to know it). Orthometric Height or just plain old Z is better in my opinion.

Ellipsoid heights would only ever be displayed if the coordinate system for the page of that point is a coordinate system without a geoid model. Z is reserved for ECEF (Earth-Centered, Earth-Fixed) coordinates.

 

[Jim Frame]

I vote for EH and OH, or Ellip H and Ortho H where there's room.

 

[Nate The Surveyor]

"z" is common nomenclature, in USA, in probably most of the Engineering/Science books.
so, "x" is the Easting. y is the northing, and z is the 3rd dimension, in a 3d solid.

So, common in surveying application is y,x,z, I think Autocad even uses this....

so, not too many would get lost with:
E-z for Elipsoidal Height,
O-z for Orthometric Height.

Matt, thanks for asking, (as Joe Paulin above said!)

N

 

[Sean Joyce]

"z" is common nomenclature, in USA, in probably most of the Engineering/Science books.
so, "x" is the Easting. y is the northing, and z is the 3rd dimension, in a 3d solid.
So, common in surveying application is y,x,z, I think Autocad even uses this....
so, not too many would get lost with:
E-z for Elipsoidal Height,
O-z for Orthometric Height.

I vote for this, we have Z which we are all familiar with and using,which is common to math, engineering and surveying nomenclature, and we have what type of Z it is. good solution.

 

[Matt Johnson]

Like I mentioned, in geodesy X,Y,Z are for ECEF coordinate systems with 0,0,0 being the center of the earth.

If you change the coordinate system of a page to ITRF2008 you will see X,Y,Z ECEF coordinates in J-Field. NGS datasheets, OPUS and DPOS also follow this convention. For this reason Z is a bad choice for height.

X,Y,Z coordinates in ITRF2008

 

[Joe Paulin]

I agree Matt, we shouldn't use Z. I personally am accustomed to calling heights "z", but one of the things that using this Javad equipment has done is made me much more aware of geodetic surveying and geodesy in general. It is a good thing for us "plane surveyors"! GNSS positioning is geodetic in it's raw form, not plane.

 

[Nate The Surveyor]

Love the feedback. Glad to see "Geodesy and Surveying coming together, in a piece of surveying equipment".

N

 

[Bob Farley]

I agree with Nate and others. EH and OH seem to be good choices. The more simple the nomenclature, the less possibility for confusion.

 

[Jim Frame]

Please don't use z for height!