Identical points with different co-ordinates

[Lary]

Hi,

I've got several dozen points in one area. Some are:

X= 0.0145 Y= -0.5305 Z= 7.7110

X=7490.5380 Y=22794.8280 Z= 7.8310

MEASUREGEOM Distance gives

Distance = 2.3818, Angle in XY Plane = 189.0703, Angle from XY Plane =

357.1121

Delta X = -2.3490, Delta Y = -0.3750, Delta Z = -0.1200

 

I've done a few searches and had no results, so either I'm not using the correct terms, or this is a first.

 

I'm collating data on services asbuilt. The data has been collected using surveyors with gps/total stations, imported via csv and/or manually entered. We are using a GDA zone 50 grid with truncated co-ordinates.

The previous surveyor was using Carlson and I'm using Civil 3D. This shouldn't be an issue for most things.

Some data has come from the project supervisor, using ACAD 2013 and he is working in millimetres, compared to the usual metres. I just scale all of his data by 0.001.

 

These things shouldn't be an issue.

All the drawing settings are normal AFAICT.

 

Some of the polylines have wildly varying elevations.

Elev = -17903.9097 snapped to point with elevation of 10.580

Elev = 17817.7326 snapped to point with elevation of 10.652

 

The lines that are connected to any of these points are typically correct, other than a few that are snapped to zero elevation.

 

I've been using 3D Polylines to generate accurate lengths of conduit runs and the results I'm getting are reasonable. Using DATAEXTRACTION gives also reasonable data.

 

I'm not handing this data over to the client, they only want a PDF with some tables. I would just like to know how it is possible to have this happen.

 

 

Cheers

 

Ben

[Organic]

Some data has come from the project supervisor, using ACAD 2013 and he is working in millimetres, compared to the usual metres. I just scale all of his data by 0.001.

 

When you scale it scales everything, including the elevation. So unless his elevations were also in millimetres, you would get erroneous results.

[Lary]

When you scale it scales everything, including the elevation. So unless his elevations were also in millimetres, you would get erroneous results.

 

All of his measurements were in mm. His elevations scaled correctly, I checked that.

Even so, it wouldn't explain why the elev were so large and also why they were sometimes negative.

[Organic]

Crap in = crap out etc. Most people working in 2d or those who don't know what they are doing don't care about 3d geometry. The project supervisors data probably had errors in it.