Trimble Business Center

Anyone know of a style sheet or way to review what the raw sensor / leveling tolerance in TBC that was accepted by the field crew once they finished a scan? We are using a tablet with the last version of 2017.XX with an SX10 running the latest firmware and TBC 5.40.

I have 25 scans. 10 of which were observed from control points using a full dome "coarse" scan and in some cases an additional polygon area(s) using a higher intensity such as "fine". The remaining scans were all observed from scan station setups. I suspect that several of the higher intensity scans (from control) seem to have been completed with an out of tolerance leveling from when the scan started and ended due to how the cloud results appear on columns which were measured from multiple control points. In some cases, we are talking about as much as 0.4 feet (comparing the majority of scans to suspected bad scan) from approx. 350 feet from the SX10. From what I can determine, the suspected bad scans were all from setups where control was placed in sand...

Unless there is a way to remove the control properties from a scan that I suspect was the out of tolerance and do a cloud to cloud registration (not sure if this can be done or how), I currently have to omit these scans entirely, or cut out the portion of the data which is over a certain distance (not sure I will even do this).

I'd really like to be able to see what the accepted "out of tolerance values" where, if and when they occur in order to QA/QC the work our field crews are doing as this would prevent a lot of headache in the office. In some cases, it would be quicker to send the crew back out. In other cases, like this one it would not be not so easy to have them run back out. Which is why I want to be able to QA/QC what they accept while they are on site.

------------------------------
john blaikie
------------------------------

This would be interesting to know.  SX10/12 scan data is either georeferenced (based on the quality of your control points) or it's a free scan that you register through functions such as pairwise through TBC.

------------------------------
Robert Hoy
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 03-12-2021 10:19
From: john blaikie
Subject: SX10 scan data sensor / leveling tolerance QA/QC

Anyone know of a style sheet or way to review what the raw sensor / leveling tolerance in TBC that was accepted by the field crew once they finished a scan? We are using a tablet with the last version of 2017.XX with an SX10 running the latest firmware and TBC 5.40.

I have 25 scans. 10 of which were observed from control points using a full dome "coarse" scan and in some cases an additional polygon area(s) using a higher intensity such as "fine". The remaining scans were all observed from scan station setups. I suspect that several of the higher intensity scans (from control) seem to have been completed with an out of tolerance leveling from when the scan started and ended due to how the cloud results appear on columns which were measured from multiple control points. In some cases, we are talking about as much as 0.4 feet (comparing the majority of scans to suspected bad scan) from approx. 350 feet from the SX10. From what I can determine, the suspected bad scans were all from setups where control was placed in sand...

Unless there is a way to remove the control properties from a scan that I suspect was the out of tolerance and do a cloud to cloud registration (not sure if this can be done or how), I currently have to omit these scans entirely, or cut out the portion of the data which is over a certain distance (not sure I will even do this).

I'd really like to be able to see what the accepted "out of tolerance values" where, if and when they occur in order to QA/QC the work our field crews are doing as this would prevent a lot of headache in the office. In some cases, it would be quicker to send the crew back out. In other cases, like this one it would not be not so easy to have them run back out. Which is why I want to be able to QA/QC what they accept while they are on site.

------------------------------
john blaikie
------------------------------

SX10 data. Quality is "Control" for those scans that were measured from control points, else they are free stations measured using the "scan station setup" for cloud to cloud registration. The issue is that there is no way to check what the field crew accepted if after the scan, there was a tilt error.

------------------------------
john blaikie
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 03-12-2021 11:33
From: Robert Hoy
Subject: SX10 scan data sensor / leveling tolerance QA/QC

This would be interesting to know.  SX10/12 scan data is either georeferenced (based on the quality of your control points) or it's a free scan that you register through functions such as pairwise through TBC.

------------------------------
Robert Hoy

Original Message:
Sent: 03-12-2021 10:19
From: john blaikie
Subject: SX10 scan data sensor / leveling tolerance QA/QC

Anyone know of a style sheet or way to review what the raw sensor / leveling tolerance in TBC that was accepted by the field crew once they finished a scan? We are using a tablet with the last version of 2017.XX with an SX10 running the latest firmware and TBC 5.40.

I have 25 scans. 10 of which were observed from control points using a full dome "coarse" scan and in some cases an additional polygon area(s) using a higher intensity such as "fine". The remaining scans were all observed from scan station setups. I suspect that several of the higher intensity scans (from control) seem to have been completed with an out of tolerance leveling from when the scan started and ended due to how the cloud results appear on columns which were measured from multiple control points. In some cases, we are talking about as much as 0.4 feet (comparing the majority of scans to suspected bad scan) from approx. 350 feet from the SX10. From what I can determine, the suspected bad scans were all from setups where control was placed in sand...

Unless there is a way to remove the control properties from a scan that I suspect was the out of tolerance and do a cloud to cloud registration (not sure if this can be done or how), I currently have to omit these scans entirely, or cut out the portion of the data which is over a certain distance (not sure I will even do this).

I'd really like to be able to see what the accepted "out of tolerance values" where, if and when they occur in order to QA/QC the work our field crews are doing as this would prevent a lot of headache in the office. In some cases, it would be quicker to send the crew back out. In other cases, like this one it would not be not so easy to have them run back out. Which is why I want to be able to QA/QC what they accept while they are on site.

------------------------------
john blaikie
------------------------------

Using the "Create Scan Station" command will remove the control from your stations.




After this, you can register your " Scan Stations".

Tommy

------------------------------
Thomas Tomsu
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 03-12-2021 10:19
From: john blaikie
Subject: SX10 scan data sensor / leveling tolerance QA/QC

Anyone know of a style sheet or way to review what the raw sensor / leveling tolerance in TBC that was accepted by the field crew once they finished a scan? We are using a tablet with the last version of 2017.XX with an SX10 running the latest firmware and TBC 5.40.

I have 25 scans. 10 of which were observed from control points using a full dome "coarse" scan and in some cases an additional polygon area(s) using a higher intensity such as "fine". The remaining scans were all observed from scan station setups. I suspect that several of the higher intensity scans (from control) seem to have been completed with an out of tolerance leveling from when the scan started and ended due to how the cloud results appear on columns which were measured from multiple control points. In some cases, we are talking about as much as 0.4 feet (comparing the majority of scans to suspected bad scan) from approx. 350 feet from the SX10. From what I can determine, the suspected bad scans were all from setups where control was placed in sand...

Unless there is a way to remove the control properties from a scan that I suspect was the out of tolerance and do a cloud to cloud registration (not sure if this can be done or how), I currently have to omit these scans entirely, or cut out the portion of the data which is over a certain distance (not sure I will even do this).

I'd really like to be able to see what the accepted "out of tolerance values" where, if and when they occur in order to QA/QC the work our field crews are doing as this would prevent a lot of headache in the office. In some cases, it would be quicker to send the crew back out. In other cases, like this one it would not be not so easy to have them run back out. Which is why I want to be able to QA/QC what they accept while they are on site.

------------------------------
john blaikie
------------------------------

John

I see an answer for your post process conundrum already posted.
Our field procedures have us running all control from fixed prisms, after every scan we check at least one back sight (typically the furthest one).
This is quick to do when all prisms used for the setup remain in place during the survey. We do encounter the "Out of Tolerance" often (it is very sensitive), but I've only had a small number of scans to redo in 3 plus years.

Bottom line, if I can close on my control post scan, I never have a problem with the scan data position.

Cheers


------------------------------
John Whidden
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 03-12-2021 10:19
From: john blaikie
Subject: SX10 scan data sensor / leveling tolerance QA/QC

Anyone know of a style sheet or way to review what the raw sensor / leveling tolerance in TBC that was accepted by the field crew once they finished a scan? We are using a tablet with the last version of 2017.XX with an SX10 running the latest firmware and TBC 5.40.

I have 25 scans. 10 of which were observed from control points using a full dome "coarse" scan and in some cases an additional polygon area(s) using a higher intensity such as "fine". The remaining scans were all observed from scan station setups. I suspect that several of the higher intensity scans (from control) seem to have been completed with an out of tolerance leveling from when the scan started and ended due to how the cloud results appear on columns which were measured from multiple control points. In some cases, we are talking about as much as 0.4 feet (comparing the majority of scans to suspected bad scan) from approx. 350 feet from the SX10. From what I can determine, the suspected bad scans were all from setups where control was placed in sand...

Unless there is a way to remove the control properties from a scan that I suspect was the out of tolerance and do a cloud to cloud registration (not sure if this can be done or how), I currently have to omit these scans entirely, or cut out the portion of the data which is over a certain distance (not sure I will even do this).

I'd really like to be able to see what the accepted "out of tolerance values" where, if and when they occur in order to QA/QC the work our field crews are doing as this would prevent a lot of headache in the office. In some cases, it would be quicker to send the crew back out. In other cases, like this one it would not be not so easy to have them run back out. Which is why I want to be able to QA/QC what they accept while they are on site.

------------------------------
john blaikie
------------------------------

John,
Firstly a tip for you. If you guys are using Leica's rose colored glass, you need to talk to your Trimble representative about the issues it causes with your instrument centering. You'll be able to see this for yourself if you run a prism calibration with Autolock toggled on and look at where the instrument is trying very hard to point.

Secondly, this is not a "how do I scan" issue. This is an issue where crews are accepting out of tolerance scans and NOT re-observing them for one reason or another. Could be laziness, could be time, could be carelessness.

I want to be able to have a discussion with them with some sort of report or raw data - in hand that says "here is the evidence" that you accepted a bad scan and didn't re-observe it. Currently I have a crew saying that everything was great, but the data says otherwise. SO aside from having to send in an instrument to have it checked out, I'd like to rule out human error and having an educational discussion before spending a ton of money and lost time sending equipment in to Trimble.

Can a Trimble representative please comment or request getting a scan data raw printout report added to the available stylesheets? It should be a matter of formulating the before and after sensor values from scan observations.

------------------------------
john blaikie
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 03-13-2021 08:40
From: John Whidden
Subject: SX10 scan data sensor / leveling tolerance QA/QC

John

I see an answer for your post process conundrum already posted.
Our field procedures have us running all control from fixed prisms, after every scan we check at least one back sight (typically the furthest one).
This is quick to do when all prisms used for the setup remain in place during the survey. We do encounter the "Out of Tolerance" often (it is very sensitive), but I've only had a small number of scans to redo in 3 plus years.

Bottom line, if I can close on my control post scan, I never have a problem with the scan data position.

Cheers

------------------------------
John Whidden

Original Message:
Sent: 03-12-2021 10:19
From: john blaikie
Subject: SX10 scan data sensor / leveling tolerance QA/QC

Anyone know of a style sheet or way to review what the raw sensor / leveling tolerance in TBC that was accepted by the field crew once they finished a scan? We are using a tablet with the last version of 2017.XX with an SX10 running the latest firmware and TBC 5.40.

I have 25 scans. 10 of which were observed from control points using a full dome "coarse" scan and in some cases an additional polygon area(s) using a higher intensity such as "fine". The remaining scans were all observed from scan station setups. I suspect that several of the higher intensity scans (from control) seem to have been completed with an out of tolerance leveling from when the scan started and ended due to how the cloud results appear on columns which were measured from multiple control points. In some cases, we are talking about as much as 0.4 feet (comparing the majority of scans to suspected bad scan) from approx. 350 feet from the SX10. From what I can determine, the suspected bad scans were all from setups where control was placed in sand...

Unless there is a way to remove the control properties from a scan that I suspect was the out of tolerance and do a cloud to cloud registration (not sure if this can be done or how), I currently have to omit these scans entirely, or cut out the portion of the data which is over a certain distance (not sure I will even do this).

I'd really like to be able to see what the accepted "out of tolerance values" where, if and when they occur in order to QA/QC the work our field crews are doing as this would prevent a lot of headache in the office. In some cases, it would be quicker to send the crew back out. In other cases, like this one it would not be not so easy to have them run back out. Which is why I want to be able to QA/QC what they accept while they are on site.

------------------------------
john blaikie
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 3/13/2021 11:04:00 AM
From: john blaikie
Subject: RE: SX10 scan data sensor / leveling tolerance QA/QC

John,
Firstly a tip for you. If you guys are using Leica's rose colored glass, you need to talk to your Trimble representative about the issues it causes with your instrument centering. You'll be able to see this for yourself if you run a prism calibration with Autolock toggled on and look at where the instrument is trying very hard to point.

Secondly, this is not a "how do I scan" issue. This is an issue where crews are accepting out of tolerance scans and NOT re-observing them for one reason or another. Could be laziness, could be time, could be carelessness.

I want to be able to have a discussion with them with some sort of report or raw data - in hand that says "here is the evidence" that you accepted a bad scan and didn't re-observe it. Currently I have a crew saying that everything was great, but the data says otherwise. SO aside from having to send in an instrument to have it checked out, I'd like to rule out human error and having an educational discussion before spending a ton of money and lost time sending equipment in to Trimble.

Can a Trimble representative please comment or request getting a scan data raw printout report added to the available stylesheets? It should be a matter of formulating the before and after sensor values from scan observations.

------------------------------
john blaikie
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 03-13-2021 08:40
From: John Whidden
Subject: SX10 scan data sensor / leveling tolerance QA/QC

John

I see an answer for your post process conundrum already posted.
Our field procedures have us running all control from fixed prisms, after every scan we check at least one back sight (typically the furthest one).
This is quick to do when all prisms used for the setup remain in place during the survey. We do encounter the "Out of Tolerance" often (it is very sensitive), but I've only had a small number of scans to redo in 3 plus years.

Bottom line, if I can close on my control post scan, I never have a problem with the scan data position.

Cheers

------------------------------
John Whidden

Original Message:
Sent: 03-12-2021 10:19
From: john blaikie
Subject: SX10 scan data sensor / leveling tolerance QA/QC

Anyone know of a style sheet or way to review what the raw sensor / leveling tolerance in TBC that was accepted by the field crew once they finished a scan? We are using a tablet with the last version of 2017.XX with an SX10 running the latest firmware and TBC 5.40.

I have 25 scans. 10 of which were observed from control points using a full dome "coarse" scan and in some cases an additional polygon area(s) using a higher intensity such as "fine". The remaining scans were all observed from scan station setups. I suspect that several of the higher intensity scans (from control) seem to have been completed with an out of tolerance leveling from when the scan started and ended due to how the cloud results appear on columns which were measured from multiple control points. In some cases, we are talking about as much as 0.4 feet (comparing the majority of scans to suspected bad scan) from approx. 350 feet from the SX10. From what I can determine, the suspected bad scans were all from setups where control was placed in sand...

Unless there is a way to remove the control properties from a scan that I suspect was the out of tolerance and do a cloud to cloud registration (not sure if this can be done or how), I currently have to omit these scans entirely, or cut out the portion of the data which is over a certain distance (not sure I will even do this).

I'd really like to be able to see what the accepted "out of tolerance values" where, if and when they occur in order to QA/QC the work our field crews are doing as this would prevent a lot of headache in the office. In some cases, it would be quicker to send the crew back out. In other cases, like this one it would not be not so easy to have them run back out. Which is why I want to be able to QA/QC what they accept while they are on site.

------------------------------
john blaikie
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 3/13/2021 11:04:00 AM
From: john blaikie
Subject: RE: SX10 scan data sensor / leveling tolerance QA/QC

John,
Firstly a tip for you. If you guys are using Leica's rose colored glass, you need to talk to your Trimble representative about the issues it causes with your instrument centering. You'll be able to see this for yourself if you run a prism calibration with Autolock toggled on and look at where the instrument is trying very hard to point.

Secondly, this is not a "how do I scan" issue. This is an issue where crews are accepting out of tolerance scans and NOT re-observing them for one reason or another. Could be laziness, could be time, could be carelessness.

I want to be able to have a discussion with them with some sort of report or raw data - in hand that says "here is the evidence" that you accepted a bad scan and didn't re-observe it. Currently I have a crew saying that everything was great, but the data says otherwise. SO aside from having to send in an instrument to have it checked out, I'd like to rule out human error and having an educational discussion before spending a ton of money and lost time sending equipment in to Trimble.

Can a Trimble representative please comment or request getting a scan data raw printout report added to the available stylesheets? It should be a matter of formulating the before and after sensor values from scan observations.

------------------------------
john blaikie
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 03-13-2021 08:40
From: John Whidden
Subject: SX10 scan data sensor / leveling tolerance QA/QC

John

I see an answer for your post process conundrum already posted.
Our field procedures have us running all control from fixed prisms, after every scan we check at least one back sight (typically the furthest one).
This is quick to do when all prisms used for the setup remain in place during the survey. We do encounter the "Out of Tolerance" often (it is very sensitive), but I've only had a small number of scans to redo in 3 plus years.

Bottom line, if I can close on my control post scan, I never have a problem with the scan data position.

Cheers

------------------------------
John Whidden

Original Message:
Sent: 03-12-2021 10:19
From: john blaikie
Subject: SX10 scan data sensor / leveling tolerance QA/QC

Anyone know of a style sheet or way to review what the raw sensor / leveling tolerance in TBC that was accepted by the field crew once they finished a scan? We are using a tablet with the last version of 2017.XX with an SX10 running the latest firmware and TBC 5.40.

I have 25 scans. 10 of which were observed from control points using a full dome "coarse" scan and in some cases an additional polygon area(s) using a higher intensity such as "fine". The remaining scans were all observed from scan station setups. I suspect that several of the higher intensity scans (from control) seem to have been completed with an out of tolerance leveling from when the scan started and ended due to how the cloud results appear on columns which were measured from multiple control points. In some cases, we are talking about as much as 0.4 feet (comparing the majority of scans to suspected bad scan) from approx. 350 feet from the SX10. From what I can determine, the suspected bad scans were all from setups where control was placed in sand...

Unless there is a way to remove the control properties from a scan that I suspect was the out of tolerance and do a cloud to cloud registration (not sure if this can be done or how), I currently have to omit these scans entirely, or cut out the portion of the data which is over a certain distance (not sure I will even do this).

I'd really like to be able to see what the accepted "out of tolerance values" where, if and when they occur in order to QA/QC the work our field crews are doing as this would prevent a lot of headache in the office. In some cases, it would be quicker to send the crew back out. In other cases, like this one it would not be not so easy to have them run back out. Which is why I want to be able to QA/QC what they accept while they are on site.

------------------------------
john blaikie
------------------------------

To go back to your original question, there is a style sheet called Survey Report that should give you some of the QC data your are after:
It's available from the Downloads section of the Trimble Access page:
https://geospatial.trimble.com/trimble-access

Regarding the SX10 and copper coated prisms, the SX10\12's EDM has a wavelength of around 1550 nM. Most copper coated prisms are designed to work with light sources of around 850 nM. An SX10 should be able to measure to a coated prism but may have issues locking on to and tracking one. S-Series can also have tracking issues with coated prisms although not as pronounced as the SX10\12.

------------------------------
James McWha
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 03-12-2021 10:19
From: john blaikie
Subject: SX10 scan data sensor / leveling tolerance QA/QC

Anyone know of a style sheet or way to review what the raw sensor / leveling tolerance in TBC that was accepted by the field crew once they finished a scan? We are using a tablet with the last version of 2017.XX with an SX10 running the latest firmware and TBC 5.40.

I have 25 scans. 10 of which were observed from control points using a full dome "coarse" scan and in some cases an additional polygon area(s) using a higher intensity such as "fine". The remaining scans were all observed from scan station setups. I suspect that several of the higher intensity scans (from control) seem to have been completed with an out of tolerance leveling from when the scan started and ended due to how the cloud results appear on columns which were measured from multiple control points. In some cases, we are talking about as much as 0.4 feet (comparing the majority of scans to suspected bad scan) from approx. 350 feet from the SX10. From what I can determine, the suspected bad scans were all from setups where control was placed in sand...

Unless there is a way to remove the control properties from a scan that I suspect was the out of tolerance and do a cloud to cloud registration (not sure if this can be done or how), I currently have to omit these scans entirely, or cut out the portion of the data which is over a certain distance (not sure I will even do this).

I'd really like to be able to see what the accepted "out of tolerance values" where, if and when they occur in order to QA/QC the work our field crews are doing as this would prevent a lot of headache in the office. In some cases, it would be quicker to send the crew back out. In other cases, like this one it would not be not so easy to have them run back out. Which is why I want to be able to QA/QC what they accept while they are on site.

------------------------------
john blaikie
------------------------------

Or look in the JXL directly, which is the basis of the above mentioned "Survey Report".

------------------------------
Ronny Schneider
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 03-14-2021 16:01
From: James McWha
Subject: SX10 scan data sensor / leveling tolerance QA/QC

To go back to your original question, there is a style sheet called Survey Report that should give you some of the QC data your are after:
It's available from the Downloads section of the Trimble Access page:
https://geospatial.trimble.com/trimble-access

Regarding the SX10 and copper coated prisms, the SX10\12's EDM has a wavelength of around 1550 nM. Most copper coated prisms are designed to work with light sources of around 850 nM. An SX10 should be able to measure to a coated prism but may have issues locking on to and tracking one. S-Series can also have tracking issues with coated prisms although not as pronounced as the SX10\12.

------------------------------
James McWha

Original Message:
Sent: 03-12-2021 10:19
From: john blaikie
Subject: SX10 scan data sensor / leveling tolerance QA/QC

Anyone know of a style sheet or way to review what the raw sensor / leveling tolerance in TBC that was accepted by the field crew once they finished a scan? We are using a tablet with the last version of 2017.XX with an SX10 running the latest firmware and TBC 5.40.

I have 25 scans. 10 of which were observed from control points using a full dome "coarse" scan and in some cases an additional polygon area(s) using a higher intensity such as "fine". The remaining scans were all observed from scan station setups. I suspect that several of the higher intensity scans (from control) seem to have been completed with an out of tolerance leveling from when the scan started and ended due to how the cloud results appear on columns which were measured from multiple control points. In some cases, we are talking about as much as 0.4 feet (comparing the majority of scans to suspected bad scan) from approx. 350 feet from the SX10. From what I can determine, the suspected bad scans were all from setups where control was placed in sand...

Unless there is a way to remove the control properties from a scan that I suspect was the out of tolerance and do a cloud to cloud registration (not sure if this can be done or how), I currently have to omit these scans entirely, or cut out the portion of the data which is over a certain distance (not sure I will even do this).

I'd really like to be able to see what the accepted "out of tolerance values" where, if and when they occur in order to QA/QC the work our field crews are doing as this would prevent a lot of headache in the office. In some cases, it would be quicker to send the crew back out. In other cases, like this one it would not be not so easy to have them run back out. Which is why I want to be able to QA/QC what they accept while they are on site.

------------------------------
john blaikie
------------------------------

James,

I went back and reviewed my survey report out of curiosity and noticed that my report did not look like your report. Went back on to Trimble docushare and downloaded the most recent version of the Survey Report and Problem Solved!

I can now see that the did in fact accept some out of tolerance scans without re-observing them.

------------------------------
john blaikie
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 03-14-2021 16:01
From: James McWha
Subject: SX10 scan data sensor / leveling tolerance QA/QC

To go back to your original question, there is a style sheet called Survey Report that should give you some of the QC data your are after:
It's available from the Downloads section of the Trimble Access page:
https://geospatial.trimble.com/trimble-access

Regarding the SX10 and copper coated prisms, the SX10\12's EDM has a wavelength of around 1550 nM. Most copper coated prisms are designed to work with light sources of around 850 nM. An SX10 should be able to measure to a coated prism but may have issues locking on to and tracking one. S-Series can also have tracking issues with coated prisms although not as pronounced as the SX10\12.

------------------------------
James McWha

Original Message:
Sent: 03-12-2021 10:19
From: john blaikie
Subject: SX10 scan data sensor / leveling tolerance QA/QC

Anyone know of a style sheet or way to review what the raw sensor / leveling tolerance in TBC that was accepted by the field crew once they finished a scan? We are using a tablet with the last version of 2017.XX with an SX10 running the latest firmware and TBC 5.40.

I have 25 scans. 10 of which were observed from control points using a full dome "coarse" scan and in some cases an additional polygon area(s) using a higher intensity such as "fine". The remaining scans were all observed from scan station setups. I suspect that several of the higher intensity scans (from control) seem to have been completed with an out of tolerance leveling from when the scan started and ended due to how the cloud results appear on columns which were measured from multiple control points. In some cases, we are talking about as much as 0.4 feet (comparing the majority of scans to suspected bad scan) from approx. 350 feet from the SX10. From what I can determine, the suspected bad scans were all from setups where control was placed in sand...

Unless there is a way to remove the control properties from a scan that I suspect was the out of tolerance and do a cloud to cloud registration (not sure if this can be done or how), I currently have to omit these scans entirely, or cut out the portion of the data which is over a certain distance (not sure I will even do this).

I'd really like to be able to see what the accepted "out of tolerance values" where, if and when they occur in order to QA/QC the work our field crews are doing as this would prevent a lot of headache in the office. In some cases, it would be quicker to send the crew back out. In other cases, like this one it would not be not so easy to have them run back out. Which is why I want to be able to QA/QC what they accept while they are on site.

------------------------------
john blaikie
------------------------------

0.4' error in 350 feet would be about 4 minutes change in level from when the scan started.  Is that what you are thinking it was?  And you can set the value at which the user will be prompted to accept the scan.

------------------------------
Robert Hoy
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 03-15-2021 07:32
From: john blaikie
Subject: SX10 scan data sensor / leveling tolerance QA/QC

James,

I went back and reviewed my survey report out of curiosity and noticed that my report did not look like your report. Went back on to Trimble docushare and downloaded the most recent version of the Survey Report and Problem Solved!

I can now see that the did in fact accept some out of tolerance scans without re-observing them.

------------------------------
john blaikie

Original Message:
Sent: 03-14-2021 16:01
From: James McWha
Subject: SX10 scan data sensor / leveling tolerance QA/QC

To go back to your original question, there is a style sheet called Survey Report that should give you some of the QC data your are after:
It's available from the Downloads section of the Trimble Access page:
https://geospatial.trimble.com/trimble-access

Regarding the SX10 and copper coated prisms, the SX10\12's EDM has a wavelength of around 1550 nM. Most copper coated prisms are designed to work with light sources of around 850 nM. An SX10 should be able to measure to a coated prism but may have issues locking on to and tracking one. S-Series can also have tracking issues with coated prisms although not as pronounced as the SX10\12.

------------------------------
James McWha

Original Message:
Sent: 03-12-2021 10:19
From: john blaikie
Subject: SX10 scan data sensor / leveling tolerance QA/QC

Anyone know of a style sheet or way to review what the raw sensor / leveling tolerance in TBC that was accepted by the field crew once they finished a scan? We are using a tablet with the last version of 2017.XX with an SX10 running the latest firmware and TBC 5.40.

I have 25 scans. 10 of which were observed from control points using a full dome "coarse" scan and in some cases an additional polygon area(s) using a higher intensity such as "fine". The remaining scans were all observed from scan station setups. I suspect that several of the higher intensity scans (from control) seem to have been completed with an out of tolerance leveling from when the scan started and ended due to how the cloud results appear on columns which were measured from multiple control points. In some cases, we are talking about as much as 0.4 feet (comparing the majority of scans to suspected bad scan) from approx. 350 feet from the SX10. From what I can determine, the suspected bad scans were all from setups where control was placed in sand...

Unless there is a way to remove the control properties from a scan that I suspect was the out of tolerance and do a cloud to cloud registration (not sure if this can be done or how), I currently have to omit these scans entirely, or cut out the portion of the data which is over a certain distance (not sure I will even do this).

I'd really like to be able to see what the accepted "out of tolerance values" where, if and when they occur in order to QA/QC the work our field crews are doing as this would prevent a lot of headache in the office. In some cases, it would be quicker to send the crew back out. In other cases, like this one it would not be not so easy to have them run back out. Which is why I want to be able to QA/QC what they accept while they are on site.

------------------------------
john blaikie
------------------------------