Monthly Archives: September 2022

Carlson’s .CRDB Format Notes

The Carlson .CRD format has been around for a long time and it is fairly well documented.

The .CRDB format was released around version 5.04, but really become dependable and useful with the release of 5.06 in August 2017. The ‘new’ .CRDB format expands the size of the point name from 9-characters and the size of the point description from 31-characters to 255 characters each.

If you change the extension of the .CRDB file from .CRDB to .SQLite, then you can use any standard SQLite client (like ‘DB Browser’: ) to view the structure:

The structure of a .CRDB (aka .SQLite) file.

and the contents:

Typical contents of a .CRDB file.

I am not sure if point names longer than 9 characters are a good thing and I personally have preferred 4-character point names in the range 0000 to 9999 for years, but I guess I understand STK1024, but extending the descriptions to 255 characters is certainly welcome.

There are also a lot of open source SQLite clients that make reading, writing, sorting, searching, record deletion, db compressing and cleaning for SQLite files very dependable and fast.

I don’t think there any disadvantages to making .CRDB files other than very old versions of SurvCE won’t be able to open them and many 3rd party tools are not .CRDB aware.


Filed under Carlson


I have been writing X-PAD FAQ’s every time I stumble over something interesting. Typically the items are very simple, but I think it is worth writing a bit about them to save others a bit of stumbling. Here is a quick synopsis:

All of the FAQ’s are in a single secure web [ folder ]

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

What is the best Android tablet for X-PAD?

This entry started out as a link to the Samsung announcement of a new Tab Active tablet in October of 2022. But as usual, I have fallen off topic:

We used to sell data collectors with GNSS receivers. And we still do, however with our switch to X-PAD which runs on ‘basically any Android’ device, it is hard for us to sell data collectors because there are so many and the price points go from $80 to $650 for consumer tablets, all the way up to $3500 for a really nice Juniper Systems Allegro 3 or Mesa 3 data collector.

Which device should you purchase?

There are so many great solutions that it is really hard to make a suggestion. It is easier for me to tell you about the Android devices that I personally have: Pixel 4, Samsung 7, Samsung Tab Active 3. I plan to get a Pixel 7 Pro when they release in October and I am also going to upgrade to the Tab Active 4 when they release ‘any day now’.

Why don’t I have an Allegro 3, Mesa 3 or one of the other super-rugged Android devices? Well, I have gotten used to having the latest version of the Android OS on my phone and Samsung tablets. The Mesa 3 has Android 11 and the Allegro 3 has Android 7.1. The Bluetooth 5.x on the Pixel/Samsung seems to go 2 to 4 times further than the Bluetooth on these devices. The screen on the Tab Active has a lot finer detail. The new devices have full banded 5G modems, while slightly older devices have band limited 4G modems.

But the big difference is cost. The Tab Active 3 is $560 on Amazon with overnight delivery in Salt Lake City. That is 6.25 times less than a similar super rugged device!

Cell Phone vs. Tablet

I find that I use my cell phone 95% of the time. I use it for demos, I use it for support, I use it to test receivers and I use it for most survey related functions. If a customer calls me on my cell phone and I am talking on it, then I use my tablet to help with support. If I was doing construction layout or using the volume tools in X-PAD then I would use my tablet because it has a bigger, screen. But I don’t do construction layout or volume work.

The best data collector for me is the one that is always in my pocket.

Things to consider

Removable batteries. Time to charge: if device will charge from 20% to 80% in 20-minutes, then that is something. External charger for 2nd battery available?

Android OS Version.

Camera resolution and picture quality. Pixel and Samsung seem to have great image processing and I take a lot of pictures of cut stones. Will the Auto Focus quickly focus on a cut stone or brass cap?

Bluetooth version (5.x has much better range!)

Network Modem: 4G or 5G LTE? Verizon network compatibility? Network sensitivity. e-SIM?

Sufficient 4G/5G bands? Consider the difference between these two devices:

LTE: 2, 4, 5, 12, EU 1, 3, 7, 8, 20, 28, and AU 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 28


#2: LTE: B1/2/3/4/5/7/8/12/13/14/17/18/19/20/25/26/28/29/30/38/39/40/41/42/48/66/71
5G Sub-610: Bands n1/2/3/5/7/8/12/20/25/28/30/38/40/41/48/66/71/77/78

The second device sure looks better!

Wi-Fi compatibility: Wi-Fi 6 (802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/ax, 2.4GHz + 5GHz, MIMO) or something else?

Rugged case availability. Mounting options for poles and ATV’s. Stylus compatibility.

Fast enough CPU speed? SD card slot for memory expansion (in case you want to put all the BLM field notes in PDF format on your device.)

Screen bright enough? Sunlight tolerance: most of these devices just turn off when they get hot. Screen resolution, not just size may be important for you.

What IP rating? (IP68 is probably best.) Which Gorilla(r) glass? (5 is good.)

I like a fingerprint reader for quick login. And since my devices are connected to my personal google accounts, I want them locked if I leave them around.

Operating temperature range? This may not be important for me because my personal operating range is so narrow.

Do you need a built in serial port?


Which device should you purchase? What ever makes you the happiest might be best.

I am really looking forward to a big new Pixel phone and will be excited to have a Tab Active 4 too!

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

OPUS-Static: a deep dive into orthometric height estimated errors

A few years ago (perhaps 2019) the NGS changed the way that they computed the estimated orthometric peak-to-peak errors reported on an OPUS report.

Previously three items:

  • observed peak-to-peak ellipsoid value
  • estimated error for the geoid
  • and (perhaps) a county wide adder

combined to build an estimated error. The new method combines the observation duration, peak-to-peak ellipsoid observation, the estimated geoid error and the solution’s RMS error:

You would be correct to assume that nearly all occupations reprocessed using this new method will report higher estimated errors.

Here is an actual example, with the location obfuscated:

I made a simple spreadsheet to compute estimated errors using the new NGS method:

Here is a link to the Excel spreadsheet:

With a data table, we can look at the results of shorter and longer occupations:

It should come as no surprise that, all other things equal, even a 48-hour occupation will not match the 3cm result from 2019.

Before I suggest a solution to this higher orthometric estimated error ‘problem’, lets take a moment to compare some of the contributions other than time to the orthometric estimated error.

Baseline (distance) from CORS to your observation

When you process an OPUS observation soon after the observation completes, the nearest available CORS stations may be a long ways distant. In the example above, in 2022 after waiting 3-years to process, every possible CORS station will have posted data and the data will have been Quality Checked by the NGS. Bad stations will have been mapped out.

Closer CORS stations will typically have better matching ellipsoid elevations which in turn will reduce the reported orthometric error.

Good and Bad CORS

There are good CORS stations and bad CORS stations that suck. There are many reasons that make stations inferior:

  • nearby buildings or canopy
  • non chokering antennas
  • antennas without matching absolute calibrations (unlisted domes)
  • bad or insanely long antenna cables on the CORS stations
  • old CORS station firmware
  • poor mechanical mounts
  • … and many more …

OPUS (generally speaking) assumes that all CORS stations are perfect. Even if they are not. So if a station has a bad position, or has extreme multipath, then OPUS does not throw the station away. OPUS assumes the station is perfect and that all of the errors are the fault of your observation.

You should look at the short-term plots for the stations in a solution and exclude stations that suck.

Rapid vs. Precise vs. Final Orbits

While the ephemeris that are used in the OPUS solution don’t matter nearly as much as they used to, you may get a cleaner solution by waiting for precise orbits to become available, usually 15-days after the end of your observation.

Geoid accuracy

For the example above, the original solution was computed with GEOID 12B:

And the second solution used GEOID18:

The estimated error for GEOID18 is 1cm better than GEOID12B. But as you have seen, this does not translate into a smaller orthometric error estimate.

Solution: getting a lower error estimate

If your original occupation spanned longer than 4-hours, it will be possible to break it half and submit each half as a separate session into an OPUS-Project project.

While it would certainly be better to collect the raw observations on two separate days; or do morning/evening splits, with disparate physical setups; splitting the observation into two 2-hour or longer sessions will work.

Here are the results of the OPUS Project using all default settings:

with a 2.2 cm orthometric error estimate.

So, while the new OPUS-Static computation method for orthometric height estimated error may not get you where you want to be, OPUS-Projects probably will.

1 Comment

Filed under OPUS, Uncategorized

SurvCE/SurvPC: FAQ Single or Multi-Point Localizations at Ground

Step-by-step instructions for setting up a ground system for a single point or multiple points linked below:

Single Point:

Two-Point Arbitrary Bearing:

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

X-PAD: Stakeout an object, without a point

Suppose we would like to stakeout an object that does not have an associated point, like the midpoint of a line:

Stakeout the midpoint of a line.

The trick is to select the object’s point as coordinates:

Select from CAD

Detailed instructions with step-by-step screenshots are included in this FAQ:

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

X-PAD: EntitlementID vs. EquipID/EquipSN

In early August 2022, GeoMax switched from an ‘EquipmenID, Serial Number’ license number pair to a single ‘Entitlement ID’. Existing EquipmentID and Serial Number pairs will continue to work forever, however if any option is added to a license or the X-Pert maintenance is extended, you will get a new entitlement ID.

The important thing to know is when you install X-PAD on a device with no activation, you can choose between entering an Entitlement ID or SN Pair:

Selecting a license type in X-PAD activation

And the secret to removing an existing license from your devices is to check it back into the cloud, called ‘Rehost license’.

This document describes the complete process, with detailed pictures:

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

SurvCE/SurvPC Hawaii GEOID Files

Geoid 12B grid files for use with SurvCE/SurvPC are available here:

in .GSF, GSB and zipped versions of each.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized