🌐 Show Forums for All Locations
Show the latest social shares
USA Surveying Forums
United States Surveyors
- Arizona
- Alabama
- Alaska
- Arkansas
- California
- Connecticut
- Delaware
- Florida
- Georgia
- Hawaii
- Illinois
- Indiana
- Iowa
- Kansas
- Kentucky
- Maine
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Michigan
- Minnesota
- Missouri
- Montana
- Nebraska
- Nevada
- New Hampshire
- New York
- North Carolina
- North Dakota
- New Mexico
- Oklahoma
- Ohio
- Oregon
- Pennsylvania
- Rhode Island
- South Carolina
- South Dakota
- Texas
- Utah
- Vermont
- Virginia
- Washington
- Wyoming
- Wisconsin
- West Virginia
- USA Surveying Events
Asia Surveying Forums
Africa Surveying Forums
Middle East Surveying Forums
European Surveying Forums
South American Surveying Forums
Oceania Surveying Forums
Oceania Land Surveyors
Surveying Equipment Support Forums
Choose Your Equipment Type
Search Survey Photos
Search Surveying Photos by Tag
Add Posts, Surveying Photos, Videos and Articles to the Surveyor Community
Add Stuff to Community
Replies
I can't imagine what reason would necessitate the need to use the old National Geodetic Vertical Datum (1929) in preference to the more recent calculation. There will of course be localised and in all probability negligible differences simply as a result of the change in datum and subsequent additional considerations in the calculation of the geoid in the more recent NAVD88.
Not being familiar with the equivalent systems in mapping in North America I can only assume that the more recent NAVD88 is similar in nature to the Ordnance Survey's OSTN15 and OSGM15 geoid calculation to facilitate the use of GNSS and remove the requirement to rely upon physical benchmarks which by their very nature have the potential to be rendered unreliable through geological and/or structural movement. Deep mining of coal and the subsequent widespread subsidence throughout South Yorkshire kept me quite busy throught the 1990's.
Your two datums will in most cases deliver very similar results but it is potentially a significant undertaking to verify values on the old network if said network is no longer maintained.
In short I would suggest that NGVD29 should always be considered inaccrate and thus inapplicable unless extensive checks are undertaken relative to multiple benchmarks in the given area. Any such check can only verify local values so the nature of the specified requirement to use this datum would need to better understood.
May be a bit of a stretch for your circumstance, but I would begin by looking at some of the FEMA El Cerificate specs. Might get you pointed in the right direction.
The engineer may need elevations referenced to mean sea level (MSL) because it is required by local government or he/she needs to compare the existing elevations to local flood maps and so on.
Below is a link to NGS's data maps with horizontal and vertical control.
Just locate the control near your project and use the monumentation(s) elevations to gather the information needed.
NGS Data Explorer
If the site is on a river and only a few miles inland from the coast, quite likely, there’s a gaging station near the site.
If can be more specific about details, I might be able to better help you.
Cheers,
Kev
He should be able to interpolate between the two datums from a single point of measure.
convert would be the better operative.