[DMoriarty]

If Brauer has never seen them, then why the hell did he falsely accuse me of cutting off my cross section just before what he claimed were "clearly visible" hills just beyond the range of my cross section??  

If Brauer has never seen them, then why didn't he pull them up himself and check them before making reckless accusations about me and my methodology, or pronouncements about how hills were clearly visible, and how I am on a wild goose chase for studying the distant hills? 

Has Brauer never seen the topo at the top of this page?  How far away are those hills?  Has he never seen the cross section in the same post extending over third tee and running over 17 miles from the 6th fairway?  

This is what I am talking about.  It isn't about the specific facts for him.  He pontificates, makes reckless accusations, follows up those accusations with even more reckless accusations, and he has not even bothered to examine the relevant facts?  

And people wonder why I get frustrated??

[Jeff_Brauer]

Well, maybe I did miss something here.  On Nov 18, David said this:

" I'd say it is more accurate to say that they don't make any sense whatsoever.   No one has been able to come close to explaining how they could possibly have been able to see so much of the distant ridge over the intervening ridge.   It just doesn't work unless they were in an air balloon or something."

In the Google cross section you post at the top of this page, you tell us “The 3rd tee first point on the far left of the cross section”. I presume the sixth fairway and start point are the actual left edge of the graph.

Both the USGS topo and the Crump topo show a relative elevation of 6 fairway being at least 10 ft above the third tee (170 to 160 on the USGS for example.)  I don’t know what the Google topo plan might show, but, your Google cross section shows those reversed with the 6th fairway on the left edge at about 150 feet and the No. 3 tee well over 160 feet.  Maybe it is if the tee has been built up at any time, but the photo is of preconstruction topo, so it might be a case of a small, but signifigant situation where a hundred year later change in topo affects the cross section visibility result.

If those two elevations are shown as relatively correct as per the pre earthmoving photo, anyone who has been there to see it themselves, or two other topo sources, I believe the graph shows that over that 17 miles would allow you to see several ridges.  I know David will contend that you cannot mix and match topos, but he may actually be inadvertantly doing that.  When the cross section he prepares shows an elevation start point that is known to be higher than the third tee at a lower elevation than the third tee, it bears some double checking, does it not?

It seems to deserve an independent cross section drawer (Bryan?) preparing the exact same cross section, as any good scientist or researcher would do to confirm this rather than accept it blindly..It seems off compared to other known data.

If I am missing something there, please let me know.

[DMoriarty]

The time to delve into the facts was before Brauer started thowing around accusations that I was fudging the facts to come up with the results I want, and that I was deleting posts to cover my tracks.   That he now wants to discuss "facts" rather than admitting he had no basis for either accusation is a reflection on his character. 

There is no prominent hill just beyond the end of any of my x-sections.   It would make no difference in the cross section shown whether the first point was a few feet higher.  It is easy enough to start the line a bit higher and see that.  The background would still not be visible.  My cross sections (and there have been many) have contained the reference line on which they were based.   Same goes for this one.  It starts at a point in the 6th fairway near where Jim thinks the camera was situation, and continues on the line marked.  I didn't create the x-section.  Google Earth did, based on the line I drew, the beginning of which is clearly marked. 

[DMoriarty]

Bryan,

Have you been on Google Earth lately?   Notice anything different about the elevations?

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

You wanted an apolgy, I apologized, you wanted fact based critiques, analysis and questions, and I provide a fact based question and critique.  You are consistent, in just being pissed that I am involved in the discussion.  I understand that, of course.

I understand you have the line on that cross section, although I have no way to verify it was used in creating the cross section, and there is something very wrong with Google compared to other topos if the sixth fw shows lower than the third green. 

When corrected, I HAVE drawn a line from a 160 elevation on 6 fw and a 150 elevation at 3 tee as per USGS.  If those are relatively correct, I believe you can see every hill past the one you mark at the 6.61 mile mark.

Any explanations from Bryan who knows the Google Topo Map would be appreciated in trying to get to the truth of the matter.  Or an explanation from you as to why you think this cross section proves you shouldn't be able to see anything over the third tee.  I simply don't see it that way.

[DMoriarty]

Brauer apologized?   Surely he is not referring to his suggestion that maybe he was wrong, or maybe I surreptitiously deleted some mystery cross-section he conjured up in his imagination?  It is hard to consider it an apology when it contains an additional false allegation even more offensive than the first!

I understand you have the line on that cross section, although I have no way to verify it was used in creating the cross section, and there is something very wrong with Google compared to other topos if the sixth fw shows lower than the third green.

If Brauer understood the technology, he'd understand that that the cross section is generated from that exact line. And he could easily verify it himself if instead of just pontificating he actually did something around here.  He is the expert on such things, surely he can reproduce the cross section using google earth?    But it is easier and more convenient for him to continue to cast doubt on my credibility.

And I have no idea what he is talking about with regard to the 3rd green, but on the google maps elevations (which may have very recently been updated) there are parts of the 6th fairway which are slightly lower than points on that line around the 3rd tee.  When creating the cross section, I paid no attention to that, but was rather just trying to put it at the right angle.  As I said he is free to add all the yards to the first point not he left he sees fit.  It still doesnt work so long as he is reasonable.  

When corrected, I HAVE drawn a line from a 160 elevation on 6 fw and a 150 elevation at 3 tee as per USGS.  If those are relatively correct, I believe you can see every hill past the one you mark at the 6.61 mile mark.

The latest (and last) quad map has the 3rd tee close to 160 feet, not 150 feet (the 160 contour line passes through part of the tees.)

More importantly, Brauer would have us believe that we are looking in those photographs at a ridge that is over 6.5 miles away??  Look at the ridge in the photos!  Look at he size of trees on the ridge.

[JESII]

Does anyone have an idea that will get this thread (or the conversation in general) on a more interesting track?


David,

Those Google Earth elevations are similare to what I've had all along but the picture does say 10/7/11...Is that Pat on the second green?

The fact that the back tee on three is listed as 4 or 5 feet lower than the middle tee is why I greatly discount any and all numbers it provides.

[Tom MacWood]

Tom,

Getting a little out of sorts that someone would question the great golf historian are you?

Huh? I'm asking you a simple question....why did you ignore (and continue to ignore) the numerous problems with the train story before going off on your wild goose chase? I don't know about you, but I believe it is a total waste of time trying to prove an obviously bogus story.

[DMoriarty]

Does anyone have an idea that will get this thread (or the conversation in general) on a more interesting track?

Jeff could try and to stop with the false, unsupportable claims, especially the ones aimed at my credibility, and with the speculation masquerading as fact, and maybe even do a little research or come up with something that actually advances the discussion.  If he cannot manage that, he could take his tired act to that perpetual email circle-jerk where he and his buddies apparently do little but whine about how nasty I am (or so I am told.)  That way he'll have a support group, and I won't have to waste my time repeatedly setting the record straight.  

David,

Those Google Earth elevations are similare to what I've had all along but the picture does say 10/7/11...Is that Pat on the second green?

The fact that the back tee on three is listed as 4 or 5 feet lower than the middle tee is why I greatly discount any and all numbers it provides.

I haven't checked them but I was thinking they might have been very slightly different along the 6th fairway at least. But maybe not.

As for the google earth measures, they have limitations but don't I don't think they need be dismissed totally, especially when compared to the alternative of relying on the absolute measures of a the 1913 topo.

Regardless, the google earth numbers and the latest USGS quad tell the same story, the 3rd tee ridge seems as if it would have blocked out visibility of those holes.  No way are those tree covered hills in the background are actually sub-100 feet and over six and one half miles away.  

[JESII]

David - maybe I missed it, but are you able to explain to me exactly what is wrong with the 1913 topo?

[DMoriarty]

There is a lot wrong with it in terms of usability, because we are working off of a photo of the topo taken at an angle, etc.  

But as the elevations go, compared to every other data source, the elevations seem to be too high across the map by somewhere around 10 ft.

[JESII]

Thanks, makes sense.

I believe your position against the 1913 map is, more or less, that its basis is off and that explains the 10 foot error. Is that fair?

Are the train tracks at the same elevation on the topo and these other sources?

What will knowing the exact elevations help us figure out? Especially if we know the current technology (or wherever Google Earth fits in chronologically) is off in places by at least 5 feet...

The relative elevations from ridge to ridge seem to be the key, no?

[Bryan Izatt]

In addition to Jim's questions,

Apart from getting a precisely accurate overlay of the 1913 topo, in what other ways is its usability impaired by the fact that the photo was taken at an angle?

As I recall your sample cross check gave a variety of differences.  Are you positing that the entire map is off by a uniform 10 feet (or some other number around 10 feet) or is it randomly different?

What does my exercise with the 1/9 NED data along the 1st fairway and green tell you about the precision (within 5 feet, say) of the 1/9 data on the PV site?

There is a lot wrong with it in terms of usability, because we are working off of a photo of the topo taken at an angle, etc.  

But as the elevations go, compared to every other data source, the elevations seem to be too high across the map by somewhere around 10 ft.

[Bryan Izatt]

Jeff,

I'm not up to date on the last page of stuff, but vis-a-vis what can be seen over the 3rd tee and 2nd green, I'd add the following.  I believe that IF the ridge of the 3rd tee and 2nd green were cleared, then"

it would be impossible to see trees on far hills over that ridge from Pat's preferred point near the beginning of the 6th fairway;

it would be impossible to see more than the tips of the trees from a point between the elbow and the 6th green (unless the trees were very tall);

it might be possible to see trees (if they were tall) if the picture was taken from the 6th green site.

IF there were trees on the 3rd tee and 2nd green ridge or on the immediate back side of it, then it would most likely be impossible to see trees on the far hills from any of the three locations.

As far as I can tell, there are no hills high enough, no matter how far you go out on those lines until the curvature of the earth intervenes.  

Here is a link to the NJ State Atlas topo.  Take a look out that way, and if you find some high (over 160 feet) out there let me know and I'd be happy to look.

http://njstateatlas.com/topo/

Based on all this, my OPINION is that the picture is showing an area to the right of the 2nd green.  My previous overlays of the 4th fairway ridge also support this.

Here's a picture of the elevation profiles for the three angles that I mentioned above.






 

[DMoriarty]

Thanks, makes sense.

I believe your position against the 1913 map is, more or less, that its basis is off and that explains the 10 foot error. Is that fair?

If the benchmark information was wrong to begin with, then that would explain an overall shift in the elevations.  But really it is hard to say exactly what went wrong. I can only tell that the absolute elevations seem to be wrong in a consistent direction (by that I mean off from the other data sets) by somewhere around 10 feet or thereabouts.
  The trouble is, the map is so skewed and hard to test except in the broadest sense.  If there are other problems or if the absolute value problem was caused by something else than an erroneous  benchmark (or an erroneous collection of the benchmark data,) it would be difficult to tell.

Are the train tracks at the same elevation on the topo and these other sources?

An excellent question but unfortunately difficult to answer because the contour lines on the 1913 map do not extend to the RR tracks.

What will knowing the exact elevations help us figure out? Especially if we know the current technology (or wherever Google Earth fits in chronologically) is off in places by at least 5 feet...

As I recall Bryan's theory was that maybe my calculations about what would be visible were off, because the 6th hole used to be quite a bit higher before some presumed leveling.  A higher 6th fairway would mean a higher viewpoint and more chance seeing over the intervening ridge.  I rejected this notion because, among other things, the absolute numbers of the 1913 topo seem to be well off the actual elevations as determined by various USGS products.  
- So I guess knowing the absolute elevations would help us determine what might have been visible and what would not have been visible.
- Also, if  we could figure out a consistent error in the 1913 topo, and compare it to current elevations, then it might help us determine where, if anywhere, major earth moving might have taken place, and might help us better understand the evolution of the design and construction process.  
- But you should ask Bryan, because he seems is driving this train

The relative elevations from ridge to ridge seem to be the key, no?

As visibility goes, the keys are the relative elevations from ridge to ridge AND the relative elevations of the far hillside across the tracks.   That is another problem with using the 1913 topo -- it doesn't extend to the hills across the tracks.    Also trees (even trees past the summit but sticking up into the line of site) and other obstacles on the intervening ridge might impact visibility.

[DMoriarty]

In addition to Jim's questions,

Apart from getting a precisely accurate overlay of the 1913 topo, in what other ways is its usability impaired by the fact that the photo was taken at an angle?

I cannot attest to much about the usability of that 1913 topo.  Can you?   If you are the one who wants to use it, then shouldn't you be the one verifying it's usefulness?

And lining it up is a pretty big issue, isn't it?  Another issue is readability. You did a great job on extracting the lines for the first third, but there are places where I cannot quite make out the lines elsewhere. There has been so much writing and erasing on the map it makes it difficult to tell what is what in places.  

Take for example the area where the 7th greens are marked.   I can make out the 170 contour line, and part of the 175 contour line, and even a bit of what seems to be the 180 contour line, but cannot make it all out, and cannot tell if there is any circular top of ridge contour in all the eraser and pencil marks.  Can you?

As I recall your sample cross check gave a variety of differences.  Are you positing that the entire map is off by a uniform 10 feet (or some other number around 10 feet) or is it randomly different?

Obviously those are not the only two options.    It could be skewed in the same direction with the errors in an approximate range.

You seem to want to pin me down on the accuracy of this 1913 topo, and I wouldn't even know where to begin.  If you want to use it, that should be your job to determine the reliability, shouldn't you?  

Generally, the errors seem to all go the same direction and the magnitude seems to be roughly around 10 ft, but it very difficult to check, mostly because of limitations on the 1913 map and lack of information about how it was created, but also because of limitations on the USGS maps.  We are dealing with contours lines of five and 10 feet, so telling the exact magnitude of the difference at any one point isn't feasible at this point.  

What does my exercise with the 1/9 NED data along the 1st fairway and green tell you about the precision (within 5 feet, say) of the 1/9 data on the PV site?

I addressed this above in an post to you and a post to Jim.  Generally, it confirmed what I expected from looking at the rasterized image-- you chose to do your sampling where there appears to be gaps in the data, and so it isn't a big surprise that your result was not very precise for this particular sample area.  Given that we could both see this from looking at the rasterized image, I am still left wondering why you would chose such a spot?  My guess is that if you repeated your experiment in a higher resolution area, you'd have much different results (provided you used a smaller contour interval.)  

Are you able to actually look at the raw data for individual collection points?   If so it might give us some idea on what is happening.  

[JESII]

That all makes sense.

The only thing I could add to help right now is that I' be happy to tell you how a few points of referrence compare to the tracks today.

[Bryan Izatt]

Jim,

To the best of my knowledge and testing, none of the USGS maps have enough resolution in elevation to pick out the elevation of the RR track as opposed to the immediately surrounding land. 

[DMoriarty]

Jim,

To the best of my knowledge and testing, none of the USGS maps have enough resolution in elevation to pick out the elevation of the RR track as opposed to the immediately surrounding land.  

I agree with this generally.  But the same would be true of the 1913 Topo, even if its survey lines extended through the tracks (they don't.)  It is still a matter of connecting the data points, and that requires some extrapolation, whether by field sketch or algorithm.  And we have no idea where the data points were for the 1913 Topo, or even how far apart they were spaced.

That all said, if we ever get a complete 1/9 NED data, we will probably be able to tell get very close.  
______________________________________________

Bryan,  Do you mind confirming a few readings for me off the 1913 Topo?

I am trying to read the elevations for the ridge as it runs generally down the 9th hole and generally toward the 18th tee.   I am getting that the entire ridge is between 155 and 160 ft, except of for the little oval at or near the left green on No. 9 marked "top of ridge." This section is at 160 ft. or over.  Correct?  

I am also trying to follow the 150 line,  which seems to extend almost all the way to the RR tracks; more specifically to the point near the current 18th tee which is marked by a number of survey lines intersecting.   Is this what you see as well?  

[Bryan Izatt]

Thanks, makes sense.

I believe your position against the 1913 map is, more or less, that its basis is off and that explains the 10 foot error. Is that fair?

If the benchmark information was wrong to begin with, then that would explain an overall shift in the elevations.  But really it is hard to say exactly what went wrong. I can only tell that the absolute elevations seem to be wrong in a consistent direction (by that I mean off from the other data sets) by somewhere around 10 feet or thereabouts.  There is a difference between saying they are "wrong" versus meaning "off".  Each of those is different from saying "different".  I'd prefer to use "different", since neither of us know which numbers are "right" at that site.  Saying one set of numbers is wrong states that the other is "right".  Do we not both question the accuracy of the 1/9 NED data?  If it can't mark the contours properly then how can it be "right"

  The trouble is, the map is so skewed and hard to test except in the broadest sense.  If there are other problems or if the absolute value problem was caused by something else than an erroneous  benchmark (or an erroneous collection of the benchmark data,) it would be difficult to tell.

The benchmark would only account for a 3 foot uniform change in the elevations, i.e. the 1913 benchmark was 3 feet higher than the 1983 benchmark.  BTW, I don't consider that an error.  There are reasons why benchmark elevations can change over time.

The absolute value problem, as you call it, is predicated on your sample set from post 219:

The USGS NED 1/9 Arc Second data is not very close to the  1913 topo.   A few examples examples,
-- The 1913 topo has the first green at between 105 and 110 feet, while the 1/9 NED data has it at around 94 ft.
-- The 1913 topo has the third green at around 135 ft, while the 1/9 NED data has it at around 124 ft. 
-- The 1913 topo has the sixth green at around 180 feet, while the 1/9 NED data has it at around 166 ft. 
-- The 1913 topo has the fourth green at between 115 and 120 feet, while the 1/9 NED data has it at around 111 ft. 
-- The 1913 topo has the eighteenth green at around 110 feet, while the 1/9 NED data has it at around 101 ft.

This sample set presupposes that you could accurately locate the elevations on both maps to do comparisons.  You seem to say that it isn't possible properly locate the maps relative to each other, so the basic premise of the delta is somewhat nebulous.  How can any of us account for the delta if we don't know the accuracy or location from either map.[/size][/color]

Are the train tracks at the same elevation on the topo and these other sources?

An excellent question but unfortunately difficult to answer because the contour lines on the 1913 map do not extend to the RR tracks.

What will knowing the exact elevations help us figure out? Especially if we know the current technology (or wherever Google Earth fits in chronologically) is off in places by at least 5 feet...

As I recall Bryan's theory was that maybe my calculations about what would be visible were off, because the 6th hole used to be quite a bit higher before some presumed leveling.  A higher 6th fairway would mean a higher viewpoint and more chance seeing over the intervening ridge.  I rejected this notion because, among other things, the absolute numbers of the 1913 topo seem to be well off the actual elevations as determined by various USGS products. 

Apparently you misunderstood whatever theory you thought I had.  Going months back, I have stated that my opinion is that the photo shows the area over the ridge starting to the right of the 2nd green and over towards the 4th green.  For that field of view, the far hill and its trees should be clearly visible.  A long time ago I came to an opinion that the far hills would not be visible looking over the near ridge along a line over the 2nd green and 3rd tee.  Which of this do you reject?
 
- So I guess knowing the absolute elevations would help us determine what might have been visible and what would not have been visible.

Do you not have enough confidence in the USGS quads or 1/9 NED to do this determination?  The 1913 topo is not necessary for that analysis.  I believe I stated in one of my analyses based on USGS data that the relative differences in the ridges from the 1913 topo could be used but wouldn't make much difference.  Of course you are precisely right that the topo doesn't cover the far side of the tracks so there is no way to do the complete analysis based solely on the 1913 topo.  Is that really what we are debating?

- Also, if  we could figure out a consistent error in the 1913 topo, and compare it to current elevations, then it might help us determine where, if anywhere, major earth moving might have taken place, and might help us better understand the evolution of the design and construction process. 

I agree.  However, I think we could discuss what grading might have been done given the 1913 contouring and the current observational understanding of what's on the ground.  For instance that the first green was probably sited on an existing nose that was flattened to form the green and excavated on the sides to create the abrupt slope down from the green.  The current landform of the green doesn't exist in nature.  Feel free to debate.

- But you should ask Bryan, because he seems is driving this train

The relative elevations from ridge to ridge seem to be the key, no?

As visibility goes, the keys are the relative elevations from ridge to ridge AND the relative elevations of the far hillside across the tracks.   That is another problem with using the 1913 topo -- it doesn't extend to the hills across the tracks.    Also trees (even trees past the summit but sticking up into the line of site) and other obstacles on the intervening ridge might impact visibility.

I agree.  But, why can't we do the analysis from the USGS topos.  What does the difference in absolute elevations have to do with that analysis.  It's a red herring.
 

[Bryan Izatt]

In addition to Jim's questions,

Apart from getting a precisely accurate overlay of the 1913 topo, in what other ways is its usability impaired by the fact that the photo was taken at an angle?

I cannot attest to much about the usability of that 1913 topo.  Can you?   If you are the one who wants to use it, then shouldn't you be the one verifying it's usefulness?

You were the one who said "There is a lot wrong with it in terms of usability".  I just wanted to understand what the lot of things were.  What are they?

And lining it up is a pretty big issue, isn't it?  Another issue is readability. You did a great job on extracting the lines for the first third, but there are places where I cannot quite make out the lines elsewhere. There has been so much writing and erasing on the map it makes it difficult to tell what is what in places.  

Sure, lining up is an issue.  I think we could probably get close enough to have a discussion, but based on past experience, if the alignment isn't precisely provable to you then the discussion probably won;t go anywhere useful.

Take for example the area where the 7th greens are marked.   I can make out the 170 contour line, and part of the 175 contour line, and even a bit of what seems to be the 180 contour line, but cannot make it all out, and cannot tell if there is any circular top of ridge contour in all the eraser and pencil marks.  Can you?

Cleaning up the topo to make it readable on here was tedious and time consuming and I don't propose trying to do that for the rest of it.  I would be nice if someone would take a picture straight on and close enough to make it readable and post it here, but it doesn't seem likely that will happen.  Re: the 7th green, damn Crump et al for messing up a perfectly presentable topo map with all those eraser and pencil marks.  What were they thinking? 

As I recall your sample cross check gave a variety of differences.  Are you positing that the entire map is off by a uniform 10 feet (or some other number around 10 feet) or is it randomly different?

Obviously those are not the only two options.    It could be skewed in the same direction with the errors in an approximate range.  Obviously.

You seem to want to pin me down on the accuracy of this 1913 topo, and I wouldn't even know where to begin.  If you want to use it, that should be your job to determine the reliability, shouldn't you?  I'm not trying to pin you down on the accuracy of the 1913 topo.  You questioned its accuracy because the absolute elevations were "wrong".  I'm quite comfortable, knowing how surveys were done, that the contouring is most likely close to correct within the tolerances of surveying techniques at the time.  I feel no need to prove it.  If you feel that the contouring can't be used in any way then it's your job to prove that it is inaccurate.  I make no claim that the absolute elevations are absolutely right.  The only observation I can offer at this time is that both the elevations and contours are different between the two maps. I would place my confidence in the 1913 topo as far as the contours go.  The two analyses I've done of the 1/9 NED have been disappointing in proving that the NED accurately represents the contours that currently exist in reality.

Generally, the errors seem to all go the same direction and the magnitude seems to be roughly around 10 ft, but it very difficult to check, mostly because of limitations on the 1913 map and lack of information about how it was created,  Those who can read the fine print say that there are notes on the topo about the tools that were used to create it - plane tables etc.  but also because of limitations on the USGS maps.  We are dealing with contours lines of five and 10 feet, so telling the exact magnitude of the difference at any one point isn't feasible at this point.   I agree that there are differences and that some of that is attributable to the NED data.  So, saying that the 1913 topo is "wrong" is falacious logic. 

What does my exercise with the 1/9 NED data along the 1st fairway and green tell you about the precision (within 5 feet, say) of the 1/9 data on the PV site?

I addressed this above in an post to you and a post to Jim.   Sorry, I haven'y caught up yet. Generally, it confirmed what I expected from looking at the rasterized image-- you chose to do your sampling where there appears to be gaps in the data, and so it isn't a big surprise that your result was not very precise for this particular sample area.  Given that we could both see this from looking at the rasterized image, I am still left wondering why you would chose such a spot?  My guess is that if you repeated your experiment in a higher resolution area, you'd have much different results (provided you used a smaller contour interval.)  It was not clear that there is a "gap" in the data around the 1st green.  It is not even clear to me what the colored areas mean.  At worst it's 1/3 data.  I thought the 1st green area looked like 1/9 data.   I picked that spot for a number of reasons.  One, it was your first comparative point, so it seemed like a good point to start.  Two, it looked from photos that there were changes in elevation that should be visible from 1/9 data. And, three, I had a photo to compare contours to reality in a general sense.  And, four, it was on the area on the 1913 topo that I had cleaned up so I could actually read the contour lines.  No hidden motivation or nefarious plot.  If you have a place with elevation change in a small area that you think is reliable 1/9 data and is in the area of the topo I cleaned up then let me know and there's a photo. I'll give it a go.  I'd really like to be able to believe in the 1/9 NED.

Are you able to actually look at the raw data for individual collection points?   If so it might give us some idea on what is happening.

No, there is no way I know of to just look at the raw data. The file format is described but you can't just display it with the tools I've found.  Hence the need for Global Mapper to handle the file.  For whatever it's worth the metadata that comes with the file and that I posted above, claims it is 1/9 data with 1/9 data resolution, at least horizontally.  Now, I know that could be wrong, but it can't be possible that everything we don't like or understand is wrong.  

[Bryan Izatt]

Jim,

To the best of my knowledge and testing, none of the USGS maps have enough resolution in elevation to pick out the elevation of the RR track as opposed to the immediately surrounding land.  

I agree with this generally.  But the same would be true of the 1913 Topo, even if its survey lines extended through the tracks (they don't.)  It is still a matter of connecting the data points, and that requires some extrapolation, whether by field sketch or algorithm.  And we have no idea where the data points were for the 1913 Topo, or even how far apart they were spaced.

I wasn't commenting on the 1913 topo.  Of course, it doesn't cover the tracks.  If they had been asked to survey that area then they likely would have done spot elevations, as Jeff has suggested, of the track where it differed from the immediately surrounding area. If you wanted to know the track elevations, I guess you could try to find the RR survey when they built the line.

That all said, if we ever get a complete 1/9 NED data, we will probably be able to tell get very close. I would hope so.  Does this mean that you don't think any of the 4000 feet of track is in an area of real 1/9 data? 
______________________________________________

Bryan,  Do you mind confirming a few readings for me off the 1913 Topo?  Sure, I'll try, but I'm not sure where you are trying to see.  When you mention 9th hole and 18th tee, do you mean where they are now, or where they are marked on the map.  The 9th green is at the top, for instance.

I am trying to read the elevations for the ridge as it runs generally down the 9th hole and generally toward the 18th tee.   I am getting that the entire ridge is between 155 and 160 ft, except of for the little oval at or near the left green on No. 9 marked "top of ridge." This section is at 160 ft. or over.  Correct?  

I am also trying to follow the 150 line,  which seems to extend almost all the way to the RR tracks; more specifically to the point near the current 18th tee which is marked by a number of survey lines intersecting.   Is this what you see as well?  

[Bryan Izatt]

Do you suppose that any of our on-site representatives could go out there now that the trees are denuded and take pictures from the prospective locations on the 6th FW so we could compare that way?  Certainly wouldn't want to de-frame the pictures from the 6th FW of the early clearing and Crump hunting to see what's on the back.

[Bryan Izatt]

David,

To try to bring some closure to the what-can-you-see-in-the-picture stuff, can you measure the height of the trees on the far ridge in inches from the Brown picture and tell me how high that is in feet.  And how far you away you think they are from the camera.  I'm still struggling with how much (in feet) you're seeing in the picture.

[Bryan Izatt]

David,

Where do we stand on the photo?  I have stated where I think it was taken from and where it was aimed.  I have stated that I think the part of the caption that says 2nd green and 3rd tee is wrong and that they are just outside the picture to the left.  I think that a view over the 3rd tee ridge cannot show as much far ridge tree line as the photo shows.

I can't quite figure out whether you think the caption is all wrong and the picture is of somewhere else, or the caption is to be believed in totality and therefore, something else is wrong.  Do you have an opinion of where the photo was taken from and where it was pointed?  Or, are you satisfied that you know that there is no view over the 3rd tee and that that calls the caption into question and that's the only point you're trying to make?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()