Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
1st February 2011, 02:53 PM
cmdr_sven Wrote:Being floating staff also means that training will never be invested in me so CPD is a myth. Oh well, I'll stick to digging holes and playing the lottery. 
I think the point I would make (and I am pretty sure David would agree) is that sometimes it is worth taking the initative when it comes to training and learn things that you feel might be useful even if it means chasing the training yourself, rather than waiting for the world to come to you so to speak.
With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2009
1st February 2011, 02:58 PM
Archaeology occupies my mind constantly! I don't have any particular hobbies that do this. In some respects I'd agree with Gwyl, more often than not it takes some non remunerated input on one's part to gain the skills needed to have a skill ladened tool box. I would have loved it if one of my former employers actually did follow through with CPD. The difference for me was that it was something I never counted on. Great if it happened, but I wasn't going to wait around for it. Never once in my career as an archaeologist did I ever expect that I was "owed" something. If I wanted it I had to work for it. Often circumstances i.e. variables that I had no influence on negated my performance. Off to the next contract, with the same attitude of work hard, learn, and hopefully someone in the outfit will recognise my commitment to my "hobby" and take me on full time. During the whole process though, one has to keep looking for a way forward.
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
Posts: 6,009
Threads: 2
Joined: Mar 2017
1st February 2011, 03:45 PM
Quote:I think the point I would make (and I am pretty sure David would agree) is that sometimes it is worth taking the initative when it comes to training
Absolutely... not a lot in this life comes to those that wait...
Current;ly am training my class in using GIS.. so we can survey an upland area and collect data on sheep enclosures and rig... and because I taught my self i never forget.
Which came in handy today as I was given a text list of 63 sites and was able to quickly put them on a map... bish bosh...
The tricky bit comes in the recording competence.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2010
1st February 2011, 06:32 PM
BAJR Wrote:Absolutely... not a lot in this life comes to those that wait...
Current;ly am training my class in using GIS..
What do you mean by using GIS?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2010
1st February 2011, 06:37 PM
gwyl Wrote:Stephen
It is an unfortunate truism of much professional life that you have to put in a bit extra in order to go farther; I know i have, and I suspect that most, of if not all, of the people with any responsibility on the board put in extra hours to get that skill well and truly sorted in their heads, the paper written, the job finished today rather than running into tomorrow or next week.
I think you'll find the same practices in any part of the construction industry, where people at and above a certain level are expected to do extra hours.
No you are either on a salary of hourly rate, anything else undercuts wages, which is where I think your at right now in archaeology, cutting each others throats.
.
Posts: 6,009
Threads: 2
Joined: Mar 2017
1st February 2011, 07:48 PM
Quote:What do you mean by using GIS?
Um... exactly what I mean... GIS or to be precise
geographic information system is being used for the purpose that I require it for the job in hand.
In this case I am locating sites with GPS and plotting them (with meta data) onto a georeferenced raster base map (both OS and Sat Image. The whole is linked to an access database of sites.
It allows me to start building up a pattern of information.
starting with sheep enclosures and polygons of rigs.. plus tracks and settlements just like I did in Croatia and Jordan. I use QGIS... I have used ArcGIS when I was doing work on SMRs ... but... hey QGIS is free and as powerful as you need it to be!
I should have said though... as far as I am concerned, GIS is a
tool, hence my ability to 'use' it.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2010
1st February 2011, 08:39 PM
(This post was last modified: 1st February 2011, 11:20 PM by Stephen Jack.)
OK just want to make sure we on the same page. What GPS sytem do you use, and what is the accuracy?
The point I'm heading to is, if you use a handle held GPS system that has a 3 - 5m accuracy, that should be straight forward. Putting Total Station data or high accuracy GPS data into a GIS data base is a completely different ball game. Do you do this, if so do you classify the accuracy of the data. Point being locating a target below ground using handled data will be hit and miss. Trying to locate a target underground with data from a total station may be spot on or it could be in another country altogether. What are the checks and balances?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2009
1st February 2011, 10:04 PM
BAJR Wrote:... just like I did in Croatia and Jordan. I use QGIS... I have used ArcGIS when I was doing work on SMRs ... but... hey QGIS is free and as powerful as you need it to be!
I should have said though... as far as I am concerned, GIS is a tool, hence my ability to 'use' it.
Apologies for the tangent. Most of the data I used for my thesis was collected using a total station on a site in Jordan and I've always wanted to take a crack at rendering the data in ArcView. Can't afford ArcView, never actually had the opportunity to learn how to utilise it. You have me curious BAJR Admin. I'm going to take a crack at QGIS, thanks for inadvertent reference! Spatial analysis here I come (now this is a hobby!)
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
2nd February 2011, 12:15 AM
Stephen Jack Wrote:Putting Total Station data or high accuracy GPS data into a GIS data base is a completely different ball game. Do you do this, if so do you classify the accuracy of the data. Point being locating a target below ground using handled data will be hit and miss. Trying to locate a target underground with data from a total station may be spot on or it could be in another country altogether. What are the checks and balances?
Putting high accuracy survey data into a GIS database is simplicity provided that you survey to an appropriate degree of accuracy and you are using an appropriate interface software bewteen the raw survey data and the GIS programme. Personally I prefer to create shape files, but of course other people like to download into a Cad version and then upload into the GIS. Horses for courses. Of course lots of information gets inputted into GIS systems at different degrees of complexity (I would say that 'accuracy' is a misnomer in such circumstances. A total station is as accurate as you allow it to be. I would normally say for archaeological purposes that 10mm spatial accuracy is reasonable for most archaeological applications) and of course lots of archaeological GIS-data becomes more complex the greater the number of attributes and attribute distinctions that are applied to it. But for the most part that is post-excavation rather than field survey work.
I don't really understand the point about below ground accuracy. I mean a total station is accurate in all 3 dimensions.....If a total station knows where it is, it can find any point within its view. It can give relative levels of depth providing the machine is set up to a known height. There are modern aids to GPS location integrated into total stations (the Leica 1200+ series for example) that do away with the inaccuracies of hand held GPS. Of course there are some areas where sattelite coverage is not so hot (deep forest for example) but even then modern total stations can use a combination of fixed and temporary stations linked to sattelite or celluar and Bluetooth technology to enable most parts of the UK and western Europe to be within reasonable range....
Checks and balances? First task of the day is always to log the control points that the machine is referencing - at least that tells you whether you are in the right field. I have surveyed both sides of Hadrians Wall on a single site so I guess I could have made an error and been in the wrong 'country'.....yes of course things occasionally go wrong (especially when a total station is being used by a number of users as happens with some modern archaeological digitial recording systems), but I am never more than one 'session' (morning til breakfast, breakfast to lunch, lunch till end of day) ever away from a back-up and a resetting of the machine and I always keep a written survey log, so at least any errors can be lessened or points resurveyed. And of course with the advent of Bluetooth I can back-up the memory card of the machine to my mobile phone at any time....I don't think there is any great mystique to archaeological surveying. Modern machines make it relatively easy. I think it's more important for an archaeologist to possess the knowledge of how the measured data can be processed, applied and interpreted rather than a deep understanding of the workings of the machine that does the measuring.
With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2010
2nd February 2011, 08:02 AM
I hear what your saying, but the only way to know if the data is any good is to go back and find sites with the survey data.
Anyone can survey you only get found out when you test the data which maybe several years later and your long gone. The 1200s with GPS may reduce this issue but how many people are using these machines.
