Statement of positional accuracy on topographic map

Post Reply
User avatar
sako
Posts: 323
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2005 9:40 am
Location: Bay Area

Statement of positional accuracy on topographic map

Post by sako »

Recently I was asked to add a statement of positional accuracy and error of closure limits on my topographic map. I would like to know your opinion and what would you include on the statement.
Thanks
User avatar
land butcher
Posts: 1615
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 7:26 pm
Location: calif

Post by land butcher »

Did you traverse the boundary? If so what was your closure.

As for locations of topographic features
XY +/- 0.1 ft or greater - your call

z dirt +/- 0.1 or greater

z concrete +/- 0.01

Do the requestees have any clue as to what positional tolerance is?
Paul Goebel
Posts: 105
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 1:47 pm

Post by Paul Goebel »

Could you just cite the National Map Accuracy Standards? I have done this in the past. The standards are mostly intended for aerial mapping and should be easy to meet with modern equipment.
Paul E. Goebel, PLS
Anthony Maffia
Posts: 530
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2003 4:52 pm
Location: Contra Costa County, CA

Post by Anthony Maffia »

LB:

My comment would be that elevations on hard surfaces, concrete & ac, are +/- 0.03 feet, unless you can show that all of the control points hold together better than that.

I try to avoid such statements, but I'll save DWoolley's note for reference.
- Anthony Maffia, LSIT
User avatar
Jim Frame
Posts: 1599
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:52 pm
Location: Davis, CA
Contact:

Post by Jim Frame »

"THE COORDINATES SHOWN ARE THE RESULT OF A LEAST SQUARE ADJUSTMENT"

You might want to consider changing "least square" to "least squares," which is shorthand for the method of estimating values by minimizing the sum of the squares of the residuals.


"THE LARGEST STANDARD ERROR BASED ON THE ADJUSTMENT WAS 0.028 NORTHING, 0.025 EASTING AND 0.016 ELEVATION AT ONE SIGMA."

You also might want to consider dropping "at one sigma" as redundant, since the standard error is an estimate of the standard deviation (one sigma by convention). Another thought would be to state the range of the 2-sigma (a.k.a. 95%) errors, since about 1/3 of your points are likely to exceed the 1-sigma value.

.
Jim Frame
Frame Surveying & Mapping
609 A Street
Davis, CA 95616
framesurveying.com
TTaylor
Posts: 261
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 2:17 pm

NSSDA

Post by TTaylor »

You may want to state your accuracy according to the Geospatial Positioning Accuracy Standards published by the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) (http://www.fgdc.gov/standards/projects/ ... /accuracy/).

These standards replace the FGCC 1984 and FGCC 1988 standards and are a circular postional accuracy standard. Chpt. 2 deals with standards for Geodetic Networks, Chpt. 3 is the National Standard for Spatial Data Accuracy (NSSDA), Chpt 4. Architecture, Engineering, Construction, and Facilities Management, and Chpt. 5 deals with hydrographic surveys.
Tom Taylor
7512
User avatar
land butcher
Posts: 1615
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 7:26 pm
Location: calif

Post by land butcher »

Actually what I meant to say is read to the nearest 0.01ft but 1/2 way thru the typing realized most don't use or have a level rod anymore.

I always put third order level runs on my stuff. dirt read to +/- 0.1 concrete read to +/- 0.01 With trig elevs its a different story.

The biggest problem we have is dealing with those who have no clue. One place I worked the drafter had a plowed dirt field spot elevs on the map to 3 decimal places and could not understand why a water vault was 0.15 below the adjacent sidewalk.
Anthony Maffia
Posts: 530
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2003 4:52 pm
Location: Contra Costa County, CA

Post by Anthony Maffia »

Dave - if listing the stations, how about the N & E as published?
And, for grid to ground I prefer multiplication over division, because for some reason people always seem to botch the latter.

I like it. Can we use it?
- Anthony Maffia, LSIT
RAM
Posts: 770
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2005 8:16 am
Location: Central Cal Mountains

Post by RAM »

Do you have redunancy in your measurements?
RAM
Posts: 770
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2005 8:16 am
Location: Central Cal Mountains

Post by RAM »

Good discussion, do I get CE's?
User avatar
rmaher
Posts: 175
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: Lake Forest, CA

CF Elevation

Post by rmaher »

Dave,

Should you include the elevation used to determine the CF?

I give the NEZ of the point that I used to determine the CF.

8815.5. When CCS83 coordinates are shown on any map, corner record,
or record of survey, a mapping angle, combined grid factor, and the
elevation used to determine the combined grid factor shall be shown
on the map, corner record, or record of survey for at least one
representative point.

Rich
User avatar
rmaher
Posts: 175
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: Lake Forest, CA

Post by rmaher »

Also from Post # 10:

ALL COORDINATES SHOWN HEREIN ARE GRID. ALL MEASURED DISTANCES SHOWN HEREIN ARE GRID DISTANCES. TO OBTAIN GROUND DISTANCES, DIVIDE GRID DISTANCES BY 0.99968465


So I wondered: What is the elevation used to calculate "that" CF?

Maybe that is shown on your map. I only had the statement to review.
Take care,

Rich
User avatar
rmaher
Posts: 175
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: Lake Forest, CA

Post by rmaher »

I hear you loud and clear. Speaking strictly of my own work, I can't look at the PRC without starting to wonder what else I'm doing wrong.

When I decided to start adding the elevation of the CF to my datum statements I did away with averages and selected a specific point, preferably a monument and gave all information of that.
Take care,

Rich
User avatar
sako
Posts: 323
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2005 9:40 am
Location: Bay Area

Post by sako »

I just want to thank you all for your useful comments.
Too bad we don't have "Thank you" button on this forum.
Post Reply