Hi Bruce,

I have hundreds of fixed points with different accuarcy and never 
noticed the effect you are describing. However, I am not fixing directly 
the coordinates of stations of my survey. I always create independant 
fixed points and then equate them to the survey stations. In your case, 
this would give something like:

    fix GPS_12   1562372 5439558 992    20 20 20  # entrance
    equate GPS_12 12 at 01
    fix GPS_0      1562117 5440239 1080  5  5   20  # another entrance
    equate GPS_0 0 at 10
    fix GPS_120  1562124 5439500 1020  10 10 10  #entrance three
    equate GPS_120 120 at 05

An advantage of this strategy is that I can comment all the equates but 
one to start with and verify with Aven on the 3d file where are the GPS 
points located with respect to the cave survey. That way, I can spot the 
outliers in the GPS points (or the errors in their retranscription) and 
iteratively validate the equates.

Xavier

PS: between us, I would not qualify your gps stddev below as very rough. 
A stddev of 5 meters about the smallest I use when I get long GPS 
averages (more than 30 minutes) with one of the a differential satellites.





Le 22/12/2013 01:35, Bruce a écrit :
>
> I got some unexpected results recently when I added some very rough 
> gps coordinates to my survey for a cave that has three entrances. 
> Because they are approximate I added some estimates of standard errors 
> as below, so that I could get Therion to factor the relative accuracy 
> into the loop closure.
>
>    fix 12 at 01  1562372 5439558 992    20 20 20  # entrance
>
>    fix 0 at 10      1562117 5440239 1080  5  5   20  # another entrance
>
>    fix 120 at 05  1562124 5439500 1020  10 10 10  #entrance three
>
> With any ONE of the entrances fixed as above, the cave plots 
> accurately -- I can verify this in Google Earth.
>
> As soon as I have any two or more entrances fixed, then the cave 
> distorts significantly, and the entrances are stretched some hundreds 
> of metres away from the centroid of the cave. Also quite often getting 
> 'scrap exceeding maximal scale' errors if I output to pdf.
>
> I checked this was not just a feature of that dataset by mocking up a 
> similar situation in two other datasets, and got similar results.
>
> The work around seems to be to avoid using the standard errors;
>
>    fix 12 at 01  1562372 5439558 992    #20 20 20   entrance
>
>    fix 0 at 10      1562117 5440239 1080  #5  5   20   another entrance
>
>    fix 120 at 05  1562124 5439500 1020  #10 10 10  entrance three
>
> but this then results in each gps location receiving equal weighting.
>
> I think I might have noticed this problem a few years ago, and gave up 
> on trying to sort it out because I wasn't able to identify the 
> characteristics of the problem well enough.
>
> Anyone else having problems like this?
>
> Or identify a reason why what I am trying to do is not possible?
>
> Or is it a bug?
>
> Bruce
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Therion mailing list
> Therion at speleo.sk
> http://mailman.speleo.sk/mailman/listinfo/therion

-- 
> -------------------------
> Xavier Pennec
> Senior Research Scientist / Directeur de recherche
> Asclepios project-team, INRIA Sophia-Antipolis
> 2004 Route des Lucioles, BP93
> F-06902 Sophia-Antipolis Cedex, France
> +33 4 92 38 76 64
> +33 6 78 35 16 90
> http://www-sop.inria.fr/asclepios/
> -------------------------------

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<http://mailman.speleo.sk/pipermail/therion/attachments/20131222/12c72271/attachment.html>

Reply via email to