Bandwagon's Drones Thread
- Thread starter hodj
- Start date
-
Have you always wanted to be an FoH Aristocrat but didn't want the hassle of all of the press events? Well Guest, want no longer!
Go here and buy your Aristocrat For a Day item for the low price of 10 Latinum!Enjoy the rarified air of high Status for a day, but try not to get hooked!
Bandwagon
Kolohe
- 24,984
- 68,541
Bandwagon
Kolohe
- 24,984
- 68,541
Working on my first ALTA by myself (still going to the surveyor for red lines). Holy hell, there's a lot that goes into these things. It's barely inside the city limits, but there isn't shit else in the area as far as surveys go. I have one topo of a nearby parcel from 2016 that I'm referencing, but everything else is from 1897-1981.
I'm glad that I'm learning from surveyors that are insanely anal and demanding, but writing justifications for every line and point and following the line back through 100 years of surveys that don't match gives me a headache by 2pm.
I'm glad that I'm learning from surveyors that are insanely anal and demanding, but writing justifications for every line and point and following the line back through 100 years of surveys that don't match gives me a headache by 2pm.
welcome to my world.
now imagine doing this on a NON GRID style surveying setup. Where you live, pretty much everything is on the land grid system.
Massachusetts does not HAVE one, Mass has actually 2 styles of land recording, one registered land court where the plans- HAVE to be right by law, and one recorded land where it is similar to everywhere else, just nothing is "grid".
So you have one plan with north going "this way" then one plan north it rotated 45 degrees. one plan with bearings & distances, one plan with angles and distances one plan with distances only.
And a piece of land that if you come - facing the land parcel from the street
- from the RIGHT with your control survey- nice tight control(all markers bounds buildings to the RIGHT of the parcel) that is checking to 0.01'.
The neighbor on the right's building is 0.83' onto the land parcel you are doing the alta for-and you have plans showing that....and the building on the left side is 0.83' from the property line(and the same plans show this)
BUT if you come from the LEFT of the parcel- with - again nice tight control survey(all markers bounds buildings to the LEFT of the parcel are checking to 0.01') that same neighbors building is 0.00' to the property line AND the building on the other side of the parcel(left side) is also 0.00' to the property line(and you have plans showing that side of the block showing the building 0.00' to the street lines and property lines). common sense would say,,, use the left side control -your parcel falls EXACTLY between the two buildings with zero encroachments.
but 3 of the plans of record use the RIGHT side...and 2 plans of record use the LEFT side...now try explaining that to the lawyer for the neighbor that the plan they had done is wrong, and the LAWSUIT that was adjudicated and settled was based on..plans that ultimately were incorrect...
Physically measuring the block intersection to block intersection(and the adjacent ones left and right to "check"- each block is SUPPOSED to be 500' long), the block was constructed 0.83' too wide (500.83') the neighboring blocks were 500'
we held the left side btw...
now imagine doing this on a NON GRID style surveying setup. Where you live, pretty much everything is on the land grid system.
Massachusetts does not HAVE one, Mass has actually 2 styles of land recording, one registered land court where the plans- HAVE to be right by law, and one recorded land where it is similar to everywhere else, just nothing is "grid".
So you have one plan with north going "this way" then one plan north it rotated 45 degrees. one plan with bearings & distances, one plan with angles and distances one plan with distances only.
And a piece of land that if you come - facing the land parcel from the street
- from the RIGHT with your control survey- nice tight control(all markers bounds buildings to the RIGHT of the parcel) that is checking to 0.01'.
The neighbor on the right's building is 0.83' onto the land parcel you are doing the alta for-and you have plans showing that....and the building on the left side is 0.83' from the property line(and the same plans show this)
BUT if you come from the LEFT of the parcel- with - again nice tight control survey(all markers bounds buildings to the LEFT of the parcel are checking to 0.01') that same neighbors building is 0.00' to the property line AND the building on the other side of the parcel(left side) is also 0.00' to the property line(and you have plans showing that side of the block showing the building 0.00' to the street lines and property lines). common sense would say,,, use the left side control -your parcel falls EXACTLY between the two buildings with zero encroachments.
but 3 of the plans of record use the RIGHT side...and 2 plans of record use the LEFT side...now try explaining that to the lawyer for the neighbor that the plan they had done is wrong, and the LAWSUIT that was adjudicated and settled was based on..plans that ultimately were incorrect...
Physically measuring the block intersection to block intersection(and the adjacent ones left and right to "check"- each block is SUPPOSED to be 500' long), the block was constructed 0.83' too wide (500.83') the neighboring blocks were 500'
we held the left side btw...
Bandwagon
Kolohe
- 24,984
- 68,541
I mainly posted that because I was curious what's different in dense urban areas compared to where I'm at. I figured you'd jump in.
We have issues all the time like what you're describing above, but the majority is in rural areas and it's only just recently that I'm actually trying to resolve them, instead of eavesdropping on the conversations. 0.83' is less of an issue when you're talking about two adjacent ~200 acre wheat fields compared to 500' developed city blocks. I imagine the liability risk is different, too...[edit] - I think that after all of the remote sensing, surveying & GIS stuff that I've worked on over the last few years, I've come to realize that what I really like is the cartography aspect, which I interpret as the aesthetics/story telling aspect of all three. Kind of funny, since I hate the jobs that are purely aesthetic otherwise. It's mainly because my work on those is judged purely subjectively.
With surveying, I have a clearly defined budget, objectives and accuracy requirements, and I can measure all of those and know how well I'm doing. The aesthetic (cartography, imo) portion is the icing on the cake that I get to decorate however I want. I just think it's the right ratio of boundaries vs freedom for me.
Thought I would post these too. They're fun to dig through most of the time.
Last edited:
Vepil
Gamja
- 5,883
- 24,730
This is why I do engineering now, I hated boundary work. Really like everything else about surveying except boundary. Looking good though, people never appreciate surveyors till they try to do the work and realize it's a hard profession to do correctly.
I would bring to the front those 2 metes and bounds calls that have lines running through them. Also the 2 metes and bounds between both POBs could use leaders.
I will have to post a plat from our survey department so you all can laugh. It looks like a clown puked on it the amount of color they use, just disgusting.
I would bring to the front those 2 metes and bounds calls that have lines running through them. Also the 2 metes and bounds between both POBs could use leaders.
I will have to post a plat from our survey department so you all can laugh. It looks like a clown puked on it the amount of color they use, just disgusting.
- 1
heh PRICES are a bit different - the empty lot 130' wide by 100' deep was -i think- 2 million parcel on the left is about 10 million and the one on right is about 6....
oo i hate that top note there..
another ick
bottom plan record 200.00 measured 199.99 and you located fucking iron rods that are what, 0.08' wide(an inch) ... its 200' the 200' mark is still on the damn rods.
ooh ick on the measured angles and record angles..-again bottom plan
1 minute is 0.03' per 100' distance.. so a difference in bearing over 635' is 0.16' difference in position angularly (that 89d44'31" compared to 89d45'22" (51")
0.03/60=.0005' per 100' per second .0005x51=.0255' error per 100' x6.35(distance)=0.1619' distance error
then the lot at the corner has a 26 minute (looks like 32' to me) in 99.97' so 0.03x0.9997=0.02999x26 minute difference= 0.7797' angular difference in position, just for that corner, god that sucks..
plus that same line is supposed to be 89d44'31" or 89d45'22")(basically the middle between those two minute only bearings)
and you post more as i am typing this..
half & 5/8" inch rebar sucks for stability in places that freeze
that line going 0d59'34" is it 80.14 to the point on line or to the rebar w/cap found at the corner? Personally, i'd label that line on both sides, one side showing the overall bearing & distance, the other side showing the distance from the corner to the pol then pol to other corner, so left side would be distance corner to pol, & pol to corner, right side would have bearing and overall distance corner to corner)
i do both engineering and surveying,,, personally i like the history and research of finding and reading the old deeds. i had a property once where the HOUSE got deeded out to different people with rights of passage for corridors and stairs...
oo i hate that top note there..
another ick
bottom plan record 200.00 measured 199.99 and you located fucking iron rods that are what, 0.08' wide(an inch) ... its 200' the 200' mark is still on the damn rods.
ooh ick on the measured angles and record angles..-again bottom plan
1 minute is 0.03' per 100' distance.. so a difference in bearing over 635' is 0.16' difference in position angularly (that 89d44'31" compared to 89d45'22" (51")
0.03/60=.0005' per 100' per second .0005x51=.0255' error per 100' x6.35(distance)=0.1619' distance error
then the lot at the corner has a 26 minute (looks like 32' to me) in 99.97' so 0.03x0.9997=0.02999x26 minute difference= 0.7797' angular difference in position, just for that corner, god that sucks..
plus that same line is supposed to be 89d44'31" or 89d45'22")(basically the middle between those two minute only bearings)
and you post more as i am typing this..
half & 5/8" inch rebar sucks for stability in places that freeze
that line going 0d59'34" is it 80.14 to the point on line or to the rebar w/cap found at the corner? Personally, i'd label that line on both sides, one side showing the overall bearing & distance, the other side showing the distance from the corner to the pol then pol to other corner, so left side would be distance corner to pol, & pol to corner, right side would have bearing and overall distance corner to corner)
i do both engineering and surveying,,, personally i like the history and research of finding and reading the old deeds. i had a property once where the HOUSE got deeded out to different people with rights of passage for corridors and stairs...
- 1
Vepil
Gamja
- 5,883
- 24,730
Every set of plans or plat I have done you can find something to fix even years later. It is amazing the amount of eyes that look at them before going out the door and boom something else pops out at you.
- 1
EXACTLY!
PLAN ALL SET... person number 2,..where is this distance... person 3 where is the north arrow...FUCK!!!
PLAN ALL SET... person number 2,..where is this distance... person 3 where is the north arrow...FUCK!!!
- 1
Bandwagon
Kolohe
- 24,984
- 68,541
Out for mark-ups again. Perfect timing, too. They're always happy before a 3 day weekend starts.
edit - Son of a bitch, I just noticed that the catch basin icon disappeared from my legend. It never ends!
Last edited:
Bandwagon
Kolohe
- 24,984
- 68,541
@a_skeleton_03 halp. I'm too dumb to remember how to do this every 4 months.
http://pbs-env.maps.arcgis.com/apps...451&lon=-121.70946&zoom=21&tilt=60&heading=40
<iframe width='500' height='400' frameborder='0' scrolling='no' marginheight='0' marginwidth='0' title='My Map' src='http://pbs-env.maps.arcgis.com/apps...451&lon=-121.70946&zoom=21&tilt=60&heading=40'></iframe>
http://pbs-env.maps.arcgis.com/apps...451&lon=-121.70946&zoom=21&tilt=60&heading=40
<iframe width='500' height='400' frameborder='0' scrolling='no' marginheight='0' marginwidth='0' title='My Map' src='http://pbs-env.maps.arcgis.com/apps...451&lon=-121.70946&zoom=21&tilt=60&heading=40'></iframe>
BANDWAGON, you see the prototype for GET(russian company) charging system? they are testing a wireless -inflight- charging Station, that once it is all set, weather proof (except for wind conditions) you can have a charging station setup (looks like about a 15' circle of wires set about 10' high) where the test SUPPOSEDLY had a 6 minute rapid charge induction setup which gets you a 25 minute flight time all wireless and WHILE flying(hovering)..and it can do 3-4 drones at the same time.
if this tech pans out it would be good for setting up a permanent drone security system...with 24/7 coverage(except for really bad weather) along the perimeter of ANY size area... have these stations setup ~15 minute flight times apart, could cover an immense area with drones.
say a loop 100 miles long... 40 miles an hr for a good drone (inspire does 58). a charging station every 10 miles. (figure about 24 min from station depart to station depart)
initial deployment 82 drones(get 100 and have 18 for maintenance replacements).. 6 minutes apart going in each direction @a 3 minute stagger with the direction of each drone time 0 drone 1 going "south.. minute 3 drone 42 going north minute 6 drone 2 south etc.
minute 24 first station drone 1 has descended and finished charging. drone 2 arrives as drone 1 departs. repeat (10 stations per 100 mile loop (start and end at station 1
so drones 1 2 3 4 5( and drones 42 43 44 45) have departed in the first 24 minutes W/drone 1 has just finished charging@station 2. drone 2 has just arrived drone 3 is @mile 6.67 drone 4 is at mile 3.33 drone 5 is at mile 0 having just departed(roughly)
drones 6-9 will depart in the next 24 minutes- drone 1@station 3
10-13 next 24 minutes - drone 1@station 4
14-17 - drone 1@station 5 drone 38 leaving station 5 3 minutes later - we now have complete coverage @ 3 minute stagger
18-21 drone 1@ station 6
22-25 drone 1@station 7
26-29 drone 1@station 8
30-33 drone 1@station 9
34-37 drone 1 @station 10
38-41 drone 1 is 3 minutes from finishing its charge @station 1, drone 41 left 3 minutes prior, drone 82 is departing going north & drone 42 has just arrived from the south.
if i did my math right complete coverage of the 100 mile loop with a pass by at any one point every 3 minutes w/ no more than 3 drones @ a charging station at the same time- one will be just departing, one will be just arriving, and one will be in the middle of charging.
now we just have to have drones sturdy enough to do this 24/7/365 @a system to gather all the video data with no conflicting signals..
if this tech pans out it would be good for setting up a permanent drone security system...with 24/7 coverage(except for really bad weather) along the perimeter of ANY size area... have these stations setup ~15 minute flight times apart, could cover an immense area with drones.
say a loop 100 miles long... 40 miles an hr for a good drone (inspire does 58). a charging station every 10 miles. (figure about 24 min from station depart to station depart)
initial deployment 82 drones(get 100 and have 18 for maintenance replacements).. 6 minutes apart going in each direction @a 3 minute stagger with the direction of each drone time 0 drone 1 going "south.. minute 3 drone 42 going north minute 6 drone 2 south etc.
minute 24 first station drone 1 has descended and finished charging. drone 2 arrives as drone 1 departs. repeat (10 stations per 100 mile loop (start and end at station 1
so drones 1 2 3 4 5( and drones 42 43 44 45) have departed in the first 24 minutes W/drone 1 has just finished charging@station 2. drone 2 has just arrived drone 3 is @mile 6.67 drone 4 is at mile 3.33 drone 5 is at mile 0 having just departed(roughly)
drones 6-9 will depart in the next 24 minutes- drone 1@station 3
10-13 next 24 minutes - drone 1@station 4
14-17 - drone 1@station 5 drone 38 leaving station 5 3 minutes later - we now have complete coverage @ 3 minute stagger
18-21 drone 1@ station 6
22-25 drone 1@station 7
26-29 drone 1@station 8
30-33 drone 1@station 9
34-37 drone 1 @station 10
38-41 drone 1 is 3 minutes from finishing its charge @station 1, drone 41 left 3 minutes prior, drone 82 is departing going north & drone 42 has just arrived from the south.
if i did my math right complete coverage of the 100 mile loop with a pass by at any one point every 3 minutes w/ no more than 3 drones @ a charging station at the same time- one will be just departing, one will be just arriving, and one will be in the middle of charging.
now we just have to have drones sturdy enough to do this 24/7/365 @a system to gather all the video data with no conflicting signals..
Last edited:
Bandwagon
Kolohe
- 24,984
- 68,541
Yea, I saw that briefly last week when they were talking about using it on power line inspections, where it makes perfect sense. Reminds me of the BNSF deployment that's utilizing existing data networks for control BVLOS. Cool stuff, but I don't see it being applicable to what I do right now. Once-and-done jobs don't really benefit from it, imo.
I think the "dronebox" stuff will make sense for precision ag, though. H3dynamics
I think the "dronebox" stuff will make sense for precision ag, though. H3dynamics