I ran into an issue in the field yesterday that turned out to be a conflict with a surveyed point and a design point. This was my second visit to the site. I set the base on the original base point (1) for this survey and started the survey, storing the second occupation at the base as point (30). Then proceeded to the 1/4 corner and made the tie. I was not paying close attention to the point number thinking it would increment to point (31) when I accepted the solution, it didn't, it numbered the 1/4 corner shot as point (15). Point (15) already existed in the file as a design point. I did not catch this at the time of the shot nor was it flagged when I accepted the solution. I then attempted to stake to a line beginning from the surveyed point (15) and extending East to point (2), also a surveyed point. The offset to line was being reported at very near 2200.0 ft., not the 2 to 3 ft. I expected. It appears that the software was using design point (15), not surveyed point (15). Both points (15) appeared on the LS map in their correct locations. I could point stake to the surveyed point (15) and all was well, but when I put Point (15) in the stake to line routine the error occurred. I now know the work around would have been to tie the 1/4 corner again with an incremented survey point, but I didn't figure out the point conflict until this morning. Anyone else seen this? Is there something I am missing? Setup is Triumph 2 Base, Triumph LS Rover, 401BT Radio and current JField software.
Point conflict
- Thread starter Steve Hankins
- Start date
Hi Steve, J-Field checks for point name conflicts when a new point name is entered or when incrementing from the last point. You may have had the point name set to 15 and then imported a point 15. This is the only way I can figure out that you would be able to create the point with a duplicate name.
Mikhail Drakin
Developer
Steve, import also should not allow duplicate names. We need to know the exact sequence of actions, and the project archive, if possible, to find the cause. To create an archive, go to Home, Files, Archive Current Project, select output file in removeable media or cloud folder, and in "Compress to file" screen select Full and uncheck all "Include" checkboxes. Either post the created ZIP file here or send to screens@javad.com. Thank you.
Mikhail, I was able to replicate creating points with the same names as described:
To resolve this I think you need to check for naming conflicts when Start is pressed and when Create is pressed in the CoGo screens.
- set point name to 15 in the survey prepare screen
- import point 15
- survey a point without opening the keyboard for the point name, it will create a duplicate 15
Mikhail Drakin
Developer
Matt, yes, but it's still unclear: 1. why point 15 was surveyed after point 30, not auto-incremented to 31; 2. what kind of error occurred staking to line. Points with the same name should cause confusion for user, but not for the program: you should still able to explicitly select either design or surveyed point 15 for staking line without any errors. That's why I need the project archive and actions sequence to clarify (did Steve explicitly set point name to 15 in any of the survey screens?).
Nate The Surveyor
Well-Known Member
I have an idea. MAYBE the software took the assumption that DESIGN pt 15, and FIELD shot 15 were in fact the SAME point. And, that it simply HELD design 15, not STAKED 15. In reality, these points were thousands of feet apart. But, in the computer, it assumed that they were the same point, with one simply being the staked one? This is coming from my attempts to sort in my mind, HOW to address the idea of having 2 coords for the same point, under the same name. I spoke w steve, and that's how I know that the 2 points were some great distance apart.
Mikhail Drakin
Developer
Nate, the software does not (in general) identify a point by its name, for historical reasons, that's why there can co-exist any number of points with the same name (thought we try to eliminate that possibility as confusing). Still it is possible to get into situation you described by e.g. incorrect import options, or accidental staking instead of surveying, etc.