California Surveyors Forums

I don't recall reading anything in the forum about this, at least not recently. I'm curious to know which large firms or public agency survey departments have made the switch from bound field books to 8 1/2" x 11" sheets and the pros and cons of doing so. What have you learned? Are you happy you made the change?

Some of the obvious advantages of letter-size notes:

• more room for sketches
• much easier to copy and scan
• more field work on fewer pages
• fit on a clipboard that can hang from a tripod

Disadvantages:

• you can't slip them into your vest or pocket
• easier to misplace/lose
• more likely to tear, bent corners, etc.
• how to store hardcopies (binders are bulky)

Some, maybe most, of these issues can be handled easier by smaller firms, for example, storing binders. Larger firms/agencies might find this to be a bigger issue.

Any advice is welcomed.

Lee

Lee:

The City I formerly worked at used both. The field books were carried in the vest - control diagrams, sketches and descriptions went into them. Data was collected and printed out for inclusion in the project folders. Same with grade sheets and as-staked locations. Each was cross referenced to the other.

Here at the County, field books are the norm for written observations. Topo from the data collectors is downloaded into the CAD program for creation of the survey write-protected layers.

I don't think space for storage is much of an issue. Scanning the field books makes it easier for retrieval.

I think that you've identified the pros and cons pretty well. The one that has always concerned me the most, and the one I've found to be the greatest issue when working for organizations using loose leaf notes is the probability (as opposed to mere possibility) that portions of project notes will be lost or thrown out with papers which actually may be extraneous crap. A few sheets of original notes among desk clutter that becomes unneeded old printouts or scap paper containing interim notations and calc can easily go unnoticed when the scrap paper is gathered up and tossed into the recycle bin. A permanently bound field book is not likely to be overlooked and mistaken for trash. Nor does a bound field book (or a few pages from it) get inadvertently placed in the wrong project binder.

It's more convenient and easier to write info on a prepared 8.5 x 11 form, but that's the only significant advantage that I've found. IMO, that advantage does not outweigh the disadvantage to raw data integrity.

I have adopted a pre-printed form on card stock. Card stock is less likely to be confused with scrap paper covered with doodles and the pre-printed form is nice.

I have a full sized form for work around small properties, like fire stations, where a clipboard is convenient. I have a form designed to be folded in half (each half has an 5-1/2x8-1/2 preprinted form on it). The half form fits in a Sokkia field book binder which fits in a vest pocket for rough country traversing. I've been meaning to make a special folding clipboard for it with plywood and small hinges.

It works for me.

I like the handiness of a bound field book -- it fits in my vest, and the pages are protected. I do use preprinted forms for some things (e.g., GPS observation logs, reciprocal zenith angle logs), but for general all-around suitability, a bound field book is hard to beat.

Pre printed forms on 'Rite-in-the-Rain' paper fits the bill for loose leaf sheets.

I use field books exclusively. In addition to the fact that they are portable, every single project has a specific index to it. Thus FB 245-67 means something and because of our databasing methods, I can retrieve that information in less than 30 seconds. In addition because we constantly cross reference and primarily focus on a specific geographic region, we can research surrounding projects in 5 to 10 minutes. Everything is linked through MSACCESS and retrieved quickly and all our files are GIS retrievable. The field books are scanned as pdf files and are similarly retrievable. I treat them as diaries and encourage the field crew to use them as such, sort of like writing a book. You would be amazed at how that makes a positive attitude. I have seen far too many times with 8.5 x 11 sheets where they go missing or get blown out of the file or are removed and because the job number was not noted, no one knows where it goes. Using a bound book creates an automatic indexing as there is a page 19 after page 18. Far too many times, a crew does not maintain a page index with sheets, day after day and that creates a lot of problems. The key is a numerical index and ease of retrieval and data management. Cross referencing is quick, i.e. benchmark per FB 345-56. fast, simple and efficient.

Are you guys still using T-16s or something? Welcome to the 21st Century, it's a digital age. Field books died with measurement.

How do I put:

1001-
FND 4"x4" CONC.MON.
UP 1.6'
W/2" DIA. B.C. STAMPED:
[stamp diagram here]

N 46deg. W ~ 24.2' to 48" RDWD W/ BLAZE & K-TAG
[2 more BTs here]

Into the code field?

Plus I write down heights as we go for memory and sketches, etc.

Gary Schenk wrote:Are you guys still using T-16s or something? Welcome to the 21st Century, it's a digital age. Field books died with measurement.

I must contest Gary. A written field book is truly the only way to get your complete monument descriptions and sketches into your records. I don't think you can sketch the side of a house or an area which is inaccessible to a rod but can be accessed with a tape in your data collector.

Think about it, FD_SPK_WSH_LS_XXXX_DWN_0.8_DRT, is alot of characters to type, way easier to write it out, you can even do it at the same time you are taking photographs.

Just heard this song and thought the lyrics spoke volumes:

"Hey, whatever happened to waitin' your turn
Doing it all by hand,
'Cause when everything is handed to you
It's only worth as much as the time put in
It all just seemed so good the way we had it
Back before everything became automatic"

Well all I know is the number of times I have seen surveyors collapse and crumble when they hand over a cupful of coordinates on the witness stand and cannot explain what they found or what they did. Complex monuments require a complex description. No one said anyone was ONLY using field books. As with GPS, GIS and EDMs they are a resource and a valuable tool. We also use digital cameras to document all of this. As to it being a digital age, that is true ad that is a big problem. One should not abandon a tool just because it is old. Most surveyors get in trouble for being too reliant on technology. Sometime I will share a case with you where I paced the location of a section corner over the other two surveyors who had all the latest equipment. The court found my location to be the true corner. Cost = $1.2M. How 'bout that technology?

Could just be me, but I think Gary is pulling your legs. I for one appreciate the dry irony.

Doesn't Gary know about the winky-winky emoticon? ;-)

;-)

Cross referencing is quick, i.e. benchmark per FB 345-56. fast, simple and efficient.

Fast, simple and efficient in the office; merely fast and simple in the field. I learned long ago not to put *only* the field book reference in the field notes, because the guy in the field (me!) doesn't always have FB 345 with him. If I'm in the field looking for a bench mark and all I have is a page number in a book I don't have with me, I'm stuck.

Hey, thanks for all the input. I'm feeling the love for field books again.

Gary Schenk wrote:Are you guys still using T-16s or something? Welcome to the 21st Century, it's a digital age. Field books died with measurement.

I prefer my Lietz 30" Transit and a steel tape. The batteries never fail.

Jim, I posted up a link to the city benchmark listing on my website and refer others to it so they have that stuff. You know what is real cool is the Google control network online. I have that on a GIS enabled Ipad and Iphone and it walks me right to the station. Very cool!

Dave Karoly, PLS wrote:Doesn't Gary know about the winky-winky emoticon? ;-)

;-)

I wanted to hold off on that for a bit. :-) I was interested in the defense of the field book. In doing research for jobs it sure seems to me the old notes can be more useful sometimes than their digital replacements.

I share Mr. Page's lack of trust in batteries. And I agree with all the comments. Peg books still have a place.

Jim, I posted up a link to the city benchmark listing on my website and refer others to it so they have that stuff.

And we appreciate the link! Unfortunately for me, the city in which I do the most work doesn't maintain a bench mark network, so I have to remember which datum pertains to which area of town I'm working in, and use the bench marks established by me or a colleague. It's not an issue that comes up often enough to justify creating an online GIS for it, so I just take the pertinent field books with me.

If I don't have a field book in my vest, or at least in my truck, I feel naked.

It’s true field books still have their place. However, the digital age is advancing quickly. I took a CLSA sponsored Arc GIS class taught by Ryan Hunsicker. He introduced a smartphone app “Collector for ArcGISâ€￾. You can create your own forms fill in any info, including pictures, it geo-references and sends the data to your ArcGIS account (database) which the office can view in ArcGIS.

For those without ArcGIS, I came across an app called FieldNotesLT which allows you to enter a monument description, attach photos and then export as a Google Earth kml file. You can then view the descriptions and photos in Google Earth creating your own monument research database.

As for typing, it's sometimes easier to use voice entry which has gotten pretty good in recent years. I'm currently using a Galaxy S4 and considering adding an Ipad mini to my repertoire.

There are many other apps that are useful in the field with more and better being introduced all the time. Navigation, cad (can even do editing), NGS benchmarks, flood maps, timesheets, survey calcs and map check closures, and scanners (for keeping track of all those field expense receipts.) And the list goes on.

Frank Romano, Jr
L.S. 6394

Have you ever had the opportunity or need to retrieve data from a 75 or 100 year old field book that no one has had a need to look at for 40 years or more?

If so, did it seem as though the data was more difficult to read when you looked at it than it was decades earlier (assuming the books had been stored in a dry place)? The ones I've had occasion to refer to, other than slight yellowing of the pages, are as easy to read as the day they were written.


Have you ever had occasion to attempt to look at the field notes collected with a GRE-3 or an SDR-2 from the late 80s/early 90s? You got what, something like 32 characters per text note in the SDR-2, and 3 or 4 attribute fields for type, size, and corner designation, or something like that, in the GRE? This is an especially delightful experience if the notes were by one of those forward thinking outfits that had decided to "go paperless". They probably thought they we being helpful by storing all of the project files, including the field note raw data files on 5 1/2" or 3 1/4" floppies that they placed in the job file folder for future convenience.

Good luck with that.


Electronic files are obsolete within about 5 years of being new, difficult to retrieve after 10 years, and utterly lost after 15 to 20 years.

Books last for centuries.

The best modern systems of taking notes utilizes both electronic methods for automation and convenience, and books for the raw data that warrants longevity.

Another good reason to keep a field book handy.

"Are you guys still using T-16s or something? Welcome to the 21st Century, it's a digital age. Field books died with measurement."

This is funny, because I heard something from one of my crew chiefs just last week in regards to this. As others have pointed out, you typically will not provide enough information in your data collector codes to provide a thorough understanding of what you are collecting. This is pure and simple, "communication". Whether it be by field book or loose leaf paper is not the important thing here, it's communication. If you fail to communicate, the ultimate mapping/boundary may be incorrect. If you are the field guy doing all the mapping and responsible for your own product, it may be a simpler solution, but, if not, you are conveying information to someone else.

The old saying, "a picture is worth a 1000 words" applies here.