Option to Store PPK/RTK Separately

Clay Davidson

Active Member
I think it would be super handy if you could store your ppk/rtk points separately.

Maybe something in cogo the would go through the points and store the ppk solution for each point as a new point number.

There is a work around but it's annoying, especially since technically the two solutions are 2 different points anyway.

Would this be possible to do?

It would also help in the relative accuracy tool to make a much more accurate solution. I think everyone likes to be more accurate.
 

Nate The Surveyor

Well-Known Member
Or, could/would just add a prefix, or suffix, and uses the same number.
It would be handy. We sometimes compare against previous record, and one fits reasonably well, and the other is an outlier.
 

T.Guisewhite

Active Member
Can anyone explain why this would not be good redundancy on your locations?

Technically it’s doing the math with the same data in two different ways right?

It makes me curious...
 

Matt Johnson

Well-Known Member
5PLS
Can anyone explain why this would not be good redundancy on your locations?

Technically it’s doing the math with the same data in two different ways right?

It makes me curious...

In theory the post processed results should always be better and there would be no reason to average solutions. I can tell you this is definitely the case when the receivers are in the open and both are aligned to north. The PPK solutions are very accurate even with short observations. I see no reason to average the solutions until someone can prove that this yields better results.
 

Clay Davidson

Active Member
In theory the post processed results should always be better and there would be no reason to average solutions. I can tell you this is definitely the case when the receivers are in the open and both are aligned to north. The PPK solutions are very accurate even with short observations. I see no reason to average the solutions until someone can prove that this yields better results.
Maybe in the woods we need multiple observations to meet our minimum standards here in Kentucky. I see nothing wrong with averaging multiple observations under the canopy. Why are you so argumentative about everything? If you can't see why we need multiple observations under canopy maybe you need to be in my shoes for a while.
 

Matt Johnson

Well-Known Member
5PLS
I see nothing wrong with averaging multiple observations under the canopy.

I was responding to the comment about averaging the PPK and RTK solutions together, not about averaging multiple observations. The experiments I have done appear to validate the process that is currently implemented of choosing the best solution based upon the RMS values and I suspect you will find that the accuracy and precision will decrease if you average the solutions compared to choosing the one with with lower RMS. This is why I would not support implimenting a new feature that has not been proven to have value.
 

Nistorescu Sorin

Active Member
It would be nice if DPOS/Justin could internally convert PPK vectors in standardized GVX file format. Then, J-Field could export RTK GVX vectors separately. GVX file format will include all the necessary GNSS vector data/metadata (static or RTK-derived) for any survey network evaluation, quality assessment, and least squares adjustment.

Just run/compare a OPUS or DPOS-like adjustment platform to make a final PPK/RTK decision (iclude/exclude vector) for a difficult (canopy) situation, chose PPK, RTK or both, etc.
 
Top