Horizontal geometry reports are confusing when there are station equations at cardinal points. A few of our surveyors have commented on this and I can see where they’re coming from.
I’ve attached three example geometry reports. Their names indicate the version of GEOPAK or ORD used to create each, with the same horizontal geometry element. The first curve has a station equation at the PT of the curve and the second has an equation at the PC.
GeomBL_report_GEOPAKSS10.pdf
GeomBL_report_GEOPAKSS10_OpenRoadsTech.pdf
GeomBL_report_ORD2023.pdf
GeomBL_report_GEOPAKSS10.pdf: This is an example of what our users are used to seeing from GEOPAK COGO.
The curve data of the first curve lists the PT Station 31+91.87 as the back station. (To our users this is desirable)
The curve data of the second curve lists the PC Station 200+00.00 as the ahead station. This makes sense but differs from the logic above.
In any event, we’re not expecting any change to GEOPAK but merely using this as example.
GeomBL_report_GEOPAKSS10_OpenRoadsTech.pdf & GeomBL_report_ORD2023.pdf: These are basically the same report from the OpenRoads Tech in SS10 and to current ORD 2023 version.
The curve data of the first curve lists the PT Station 500+00.00 R2 as the ahead station. This differs from the GEOPAK report and can be confusing because the station equation isn’t listed until after the curve data. One user asked if it were possible to also include the equation at PT point like what’s shown in the curve data for curve two?
The curve data of the second curve lists the PC Station 200+00.00 R3 as the ahead station. And shows the equation with the grouping of cardinal points which at least easier to follow but could make more sense before the PC point.
What is also confusing on the linear element between the two curves the equation at the PT of curve one (beginning of linear element) is noted, but not the equation at the PC of curve two (end of the linear element).
Civil Product Used | OpenSite Designer, OpenRoads Designer, OpenRail Designer |