Replacing Field Notes With Digital Data

[Sunburned_Surveyor]

I'm in the process of working on some revised standards for field notes at my office. An interesting issue has come up that I wanted to discuss with my peers and mentors on this forum.

Here is the issue framed as a simple question:

Does the ability to analyze, edit, and report on raw data (raw measurements) from the field in the form of digital data collector files reduce the need for hand written field notes?

I'm not talking about point files, but about the actual raw measurements that are used to produce point files. This is angles, distances, GNSS baselines, instrument heights, rod heights, and other similar data.

For example: If you run a total station traverse your instrument and data collector can be set-up to store all your horizontal angles, vertical angles, slope distances, point numbers, instrument heights, and rod heights. Does all of this information need to be recorded by hand in a field book?

Before you answer the question, here are some things to think about:

1) Most paper records in my office are scanned to PDF. So all this information ends up in a digital form at some point.

2) All digital files can be edited. Even PDF files. But paper files can bet wet, get lost, or be burned.

3) What is the difference between writing field notes on a tablet with a stylus and writing in a field book? If there is no difference in these two methods of field data storage, is there a difference between typing values into a form on a tablet instead of writing with a stylus?

4) Are there legal or regulatory requirements for recording of field data?

5) Is boundary surveying a unique type of surveying that requires some form of written record? I'd certainly want get a blue-ink signature on sworn land owner testimony...although this document would also be scanned at my office.

I'm mostly concerned about the issue as it relates to professional responsibility and professional liability. I'm not worried about it from a practical working perspective. I'm working almost exclusively in a digital way now, with the exception of field notes.

I don't have a strong opinion on this issue one way or the other. I'm interested to hear your take and to see how the debate has gone in your office.

Thanks!

Landon

[Jim Frame]

I still carry a field book on most jobs, but only because it's the most convenient way to record some types of information (e.g. dimensioned sketches). I don't bother duplicating any information stored in the data collector. It doesn't matter if it's a boundary job or not, the data collector keeps good notes in all cases.

Unless a contractual requirement dictates otherwise, I see no need to hand-record measurement data that's already being stored digitally in a form usable by the surveyor.

[hellsangle]

My personal opinion is handwritten field-notes, line-through ‘n all.

‘Course I’m from “old schoolâ€￾.

To give you an analogy . . . wouldn’t a copperplate-style handwritten letter/note/deed seem more cherished, than a typewritten one?

Look into the future 100 years. Would you rather get your mitts on a letter from gramps in his/her handwriting, or an email? Not very “personalâ€￾. Penmanship sometimes can also be “revealingâ€￾.

Leave a legacy, like those have in the past. However, (I’m like you, Landon), either way may be is acceptable. It would be curious if the “courtsâ€￾ would “favorâ€￾ handwritten over potentially-alterable digital data.

Over the past month I have been indexing the contents of a collection of old field notes from 1920s to mid-1950s. It was joyful reviewing every one of those pages. You “feltâ€￾ history. I’m not sure you would have the same emotions (think court) with digital. Fascinating extraneous evidence also existed within the pages. i.e. food cost tabulations, (“eggs 0.10", etc.) related to feeding the crews), or “Sunday . . . poured asphalt concrete . . .â€￾. Dates: “retaining walls were pouredâ€￾ . . . All this detail would paint of picture of what was and wasn’t there on certain dates. Especially well drawn field sketches - like holding a piece of art.

That’s Phil’s two-cents, Landon . . .

Have a good weekend, all.

[Steve Martin]

Digital formats can become obsolete and unreadable.

I used to know what the WILD GRE datacollector codes and formats were. Now, I prefer not to even look at it. Every once in a while, some of the long time staff can bring the old data into DOS Wildsoft and do something with it, but there is no guarentee.

I used to work at a County and we would printout the TDS raw file along with the edited Land Desktop fieldbook file and include them in formal 8.5 X 11 fieldnotes that were indexed and scanned at the end of the job. There was a cover page and index, next came traverse sketches and full handwritten point descriptions. Occasionally corrections were marked on the printout of the TDS raw file. Anyway, you had a full record of what was done in the field. Office calculations and Surveyor's narratives were also indexed and scanned.

Electronic is great, but it sure helps to have some handwritten notes to point you in the right direction when reviewing old project data.

[Sunburned_Surveyor]

I didn't even think about that. Nothing I hate more than proprietary vendor formats for survey data files.

Landon

[Dave Karoly, PLS]

We collect all data electronically.

I have field note forms forms for conventional, GPS and level. These are for recording HIs, THs, detailed descriptions, sketches, slant heights, receivers used, times,etc.

Occasionally I look into our old field books but not really for the angles, distances. I did calculate the traverse of a mile of section line (transit and tape in 1972). My distance for the mile, mon to mon matched his flat, no kidding, surprised the heck out of me. He had the quarter section corner off 5 hundredths, though ;-). This is hilly forest terrain. For some reason the distance he wrote on the sketch for the file was significantly different, I never did figure that out.