Brunton Pocket Transit Brochure

Let's continue our conversation about the Brunton Pocket Transit.  In the past we've talked about how useful the pocket transit is, some of the different models available, and I've touched on some Brunton-related web resources.

So today let's take a look at a small brochure that William Ainsworth & Sons (the manufacturers of Brunton pocket transits for most of the 20th Century) used to make available to pocket transit customers.  This particular little booklet was published in 1929, but the illustrations look somewhat older than the late 20's, so I'm guessing this is a reprint of an earlier brochure.  The brochure is small - just a bit larger than a 3" x 5" index card and it's only 21 pages.

It's an extremely useful little book, because it covers in some detail the different ways you can use the pocket transit, whether it's shooting azimuths, reading horizontal or vertical angles, tracing a mineral vein or using the instrument as a clinometer or a plumb.

There's even instruction on how to use the pocket transit in conjunction with the 'Wilson Magnetometer Attachment', a real Rube Goldberg device that is intended to be mounted to a plane table to measure large anomalies in magnetic intensity found in mineral bearing rock formations.  I've never seen a Wilson Magnetometer in person, but I'm keeping my eye out for one!

There's a lot of useful info stuffed into these 21 pages and I thought it important to make the booklet available to the collector community.  You can click here to download the pamphlet as a PDF file (about 1.6 mb).  You can also access the individual pages as images by clicking here to access my Picasa site.

So you Brunton fans out there, enjoy!

Update!  Just today I was doing a Google search on a topic related to Brunton pocket transits and I ran across an interesting booklet titled "Enterprise & Innovation In The Pikes Peak Region" published in 2011 by the Pikes Peak Library District.  In the booklet is a very informative article about David W. Brunton, the inventor of the Brunton Pocket Transit.  There's a very good discussion about the development of the pocket transit.

Brian

Mea Culpa

The Apple iPad.  It created an entire market.  Before the iPad there was nothing.  After the iPad there was true mobile computing, the freedom of the always on, always available device, the one-swipe window to the world wide web.  Apple's mobile operating system, iOS, and the concept of 'the app' redefined functionality on computing devices - small, focused applications highly optimized to a tightly integrated hardware and operating system platform, a platform that brooked no abnormal behavior and assured a commonality of user experience across the software application spectrum. It didn't matter if you were running Angry Birds or a medical diagnosis tool, the touches, taps, swipes and pinches accomplished the same basic end in all apps. That was the genius of the iPad - an extraordinarily high degree of consumer satisfaction via the enforcement of rigid standards.  It's amazing that a borderline anarchist like Steve Jobs was able to convince legions of slavish fans and, more surprisingly, customers in whole new market segments, that the way to 'be a rebel' was to develop for, buy and use some of the most restrictive hardware and software ever brought to market.

Amazing indeed, and it worked!  The iPad and other iOS devices (iPhones, iPod Touches) have revolutionized how many companies operate and opened up new markets and business opportunities, some of which simply didn't exist before the iPad arrived.  So it is with GIS.  Steve Jobs and Apple didn't intentionally set out to create a geospatial hardware platform that is having a huge impact on my industry, they just created the development opportunity that permitted others such as ESRI to see the potential of the device and develop software to exploit that potential.  Beginning several years ago ESRI developed and steadily improved a small collection of applications that leveraged GIS data and services residing in their proprietary 'cloud'.

Over the past few years whenever anyone in my organization came to us and asked what tablet they should buy for mobile GIS our reflexive answer was (and still is), "get an iPad".  The choice made perfect sense.  While ESRI also develops apps for other mobile operating systems - Android, Windows Phone, even Blackberry and the old Windows Mobile (aka, Windows CE) - ESRI today first develops against Apple's iOS.  The reasoning is simple - iOS has been stable for a long time and with it's tight ties to a relatively small selection of Apple-only hardware it is fast and easy to build stable, well functioning apps.  No so with the other operating systems, which seem to change almost weekly and are deployed on a bewildering array of hardware platforms.

(Some time ago I queried one of ESRI's developers about why they focus first on iOS and his comment was classic, "Brian you have to understand, iOS has been stable for about two years.   Android's been stable for about two weeks.")

But what about the other players in the same market segment, particularly Android?  When we first started testing GIS apps on tablets at TATSNBN (The Airport That Shall Not Be Named) we wanted to be as hardware and operating system agnostic as possible.  We really didn't know what our IT department was thinking about selecting for use across the airport.  One week the rumor was Apple, then the smart money shifted to Galaxy Tabs, then it was (just shoot me now) HP tablets running their mobile OS, then later the meme shifted to the new Microsoft Surface running Windows RT.

Early on I managed to get my hands on a Samsung Galaxy Player 5 running Android 2.3.  The hardware was actually pretty good - a 5" mini-tablet that seemed to offer a lot of potential.  The Player 5 was Samsung's answer to the Apple iPod Touch and it came in at about half the price.  I really liked it.  Too bad Android sucked.

Samsung Galaxy Player 5
Sadly it's no longer in Samsung's lineup

By this time I had a lot of experience with the iPad and iOS.  I was using my personal iPad at work to test these GIS apps and my family members were heavy users of both iPads and iPhones.  I had a deep understanding of iOS and the user experience it delivered.  By comparison Android 2.3 was a kludge.  Now, Android 2.3 wasn't a bad OS. Far from it.  I had a number of coworkers who were perfectly happy with their Android smart phones and tablets.  If iOS had never been developed I'd have been singing the praises of Android 2.3 with an exalted voice.  But iOS did exist, and by comparison Android 2.3 sucked. It was complex, counter-intuitive and difficult to learn and manage. It's easy to see why Apple swept all before it.

Eventually a limited number of airport-owned iPads made it into the hands of employees in our business units, and life was good.  We only had to worry about supporting one platform.  But then something happened.  Android came a-calling once again.  As word got out about the usefulness of our mobile GIS services an increasing number of employees at began asking if we could recommend a specific Android device that they might buy themselves for use at work. We tried to steer them towards iPads but many balked at the premium prices Apple demands for their products.  They wanted to test a cheaper Android-based alternative.

My old observations about Android 2.3 resurfaced and I felt uneasy recommending any Android tablet. However, in the intervening two years Google had become more aggressive with Android and had even introduced their own line of mobile devices.  The specs on the Google Nexus 7 tablet released in 2013 looked particularly good. GPS/GLONASS, 5mp camera, digital compass, accelerometer, wi-fi, long battery life and a high resolution screen indicated that it would make a pretty good mobile GIS unit. Another bonus is that it was priced at less than half the cost of an equivalent iPad Mini.  But it was still an Android device.  The Nexus 7 tablet was running Android 4.3 (later updated to Android 4.4), the most current version of the OS.  Reviews on the web gave it high marks, but most of the reviewers were long established Android fanboys so I had to take their observations with a grain of salt.  Still, the capabilities vs. price comparison was compelling and many of the reviewers had a good point in that the Nexus line of tablets are Google's own flagship devices and therefore will always be running the most up-to-date and stable version of Android.  I decided to give the Nexus 7 a try.

Well, four months into the evaluation I'm here to tell you that not only is the Nexus 7 running Android 4.4 good, in many ways it's better than the iPad!  So good in fact that I recommend it over iOS devices to people with no other ties to the Apple ecosystem (for example, folks who don't already have an iPhone or iPod and who might like to take advantage of cross-device syncing).

What makes it so good?  It comes down to the old car salesman's pitch: price, performance and features.

• Price - we've already covered this one.  The Nexus 7 comes in at about half the price of a comparable iPad. 
• Performance - fully as good as any of the iPad's I've used.  There may be differences in processor speeds, camera features, touch screen responsiveness, battery life, etc. but in the world of real use testing I see no difference between the Nexus and the iPad.
• Features - when you match the Nexus and iPad up feature for feature you realize that the Nexus matches the iPad in most areas and even beats it in a few others. The best example is GPS.  The Nexus 7 comes standard with integrated GPS/GLONASS.  If you want this same feature on an iPad you have to pay an additional $100 because only the more expensive data plan-ready iPads have integrated GPS.  This is my biggest complaint about the iPad because it makes the basic (non-GPS) units all but useless as geospatial data collectors.  Apple sees GPS integration as a 'premium' feature while the rest of the mobile world sees it for what it is - a commodity feature.

With Nexus 7 you get GPS.
Can't always say that about the iPad!

I do have to give the nod to the iPad in a few areas.  First is build quality.  Apple's build quality is always top-tier, and the build quality differences between the iPad and the Nexus 7 are obvious.  The Nexus is manufactured by ASUS and it feels exactly like what it is - a plastic bodied tablet.  While the ASUS build quality is very good it in no way matches the solid industry leading build quality and feel the iPads are known for.   But consider this - if I drop my iPad mini and break it I'll stand there and cry, bemoaning the loss of my $530 jewel.  If I drop and break my Nexus 7 I'll just go order a new one.

The Nexus 7 makes a pretty good Collector for ArcGIS platform

Next is screen resolution.  OK, the Nexus is no slouch.  In fact it's pretty darned good - real good considering the price of the unit.  Google put a lot of time and effort into getting the screen right, and it shows.  But Apple's current Retina display is the industry leader for a reason. It can't be beat in terms of resolution, clarity, color fidelity and brightness.  Do you give anything up by going with the Nexus?  No, not in real use terms, but Apple has the clear lead here. The screen is just better.

But at the end of the day do these differences matter?  No, not really.  Because here's the real deal maker - the current version of Android, version 4.4, is damned good. From a user experience perspective it has moved way beyond the clunky fanboy experience that was Android 2.3.  I'll anger the legions of Apple fans in my family and state that Android 4.4 is as good as iOS 7.x.

After my Android 2.3 experience I was expecting to have to deal with an immature, techie focused operating system.  I was impressed to find instead a stable, mature, feature rich operating system that makes this a serious business tool.  A large part of the improvement is Android 4.4's tight integration with Google's cloud computing environment, including Google Drive, GMail and Google Docs.  In my opinion Google just has a far better implementation of these services and features than Apple does with its comparable products such as the iWorks suite.

Is the Nexus 7 a perfect device?  No, of course not.  It won't fit everyone's needs, but I do recommend you give it a hard look before making what would otherwise be a reflexive Apple purchase.

Brian





  

Orientation - It's Not Just For College Freshmen!

I came across another neat little Army publication the other day, one I'd never heard of before and initially thought it was an Army Corps of Engineers manual:

This little manual covers a lot of advanced topics such as geodesy, survey, coordinate determination, even astronomical observations using theodolites.  It's a  pretty intensive manual, chock full of weighty Engineer topics.

Only it's not an Engineer manual.  I was surprised and bemused to see that it was published in 1941 under the direction of the Chief of Coast Artillery.  Huh?  Coast Artillery?

So what did the Coast Artillery mean when they used the term 'orientation'?

Definition - The term orientation as used in the Coast Artillery Corps means:
a. The accurate location of datum points and the establishment of ines of known length and direction.
b. The adjustment of the azimuth indicating devices on guns and observing instruments when the axis of the line of sigh is pointed at that azimuth.

Application - In its application to artillery, the term orientation includes the following:
a. The determination of the meridian for the measurement of azimuths.
b. The determination of the coordinates of the directing point, observing stations and spotting stations for a battery.
c. The determination of the length and azimuth of base lines and director offsets.
d. The establishment of such reference and datum points as may be necessary.     

(TM 4-225 Orientation, paragraph 2. a. & b.)

For those not aware, since the founding of our country right up until the mid-20th Century our key harbors and coastline sections have been overwatched by large artillery pieces, designed and situated to destroy enemy vessels intent on entering our harbors and waterways and doing damage.  In fact, one of the earliest jobs of the Corps of Engineers was the construction of harbor and waterway defenses and the siting and preparation of the firing positions for these coastal artillery guns.  However, it wasn't until 1901 that the Army recognized the key differences between the missions of the coast artillery and field artillery by establishing the Coast Artillery Corps as a separate branch.

Modern field artillery has always had a strong need for surveyors.  As the concepts of indirect artillery fire matured and rifled cannon delivered the ability to fire projectiles far beyond the visual range of the gun crews the need for surveyors to accompany and support field artillery units emerged.  After all, to accurately hit a target you can't see you first have to know precisely where you are.  Many of the concepts covered in this little manual are directly applicable to field artillery survey.  But we are talking about field artillery -  guns that get towed around the battlefield by trucks, set up, shoot some shells then pack up and move to the next firing position.  Coast Artillery is a different beast.  It operated large, permanently placed guns overlooking harbors and waterways that were already precisely mapped.  Why the need for more advanced surveying and mapping techniques?  The answer is laid out in Section (Chapter) IX of the manual, where it discusses the duties of the Battalion Reconnaissance Officer.

It appears that not all Coast Artillery cannon were permanently mounted.  At the time of publication the Coast Artillery Branch either had or was anticipating use of mobile 155-mm artillery, railway artillery and anti-aircraft guns.  It would be the responsibility of the Reconnaissance Officer and his reconnaissance parties to find new gun locations, work out their proper positioning (orientation) and if necessary map the the new areas of coverage so the gunners knew where they were shooting.

The battery reconnaissance officers, under the supervision of their battery commanders, compute the data necessary for the orientation of the plotting boards and complete the organization of the battery plotting rooms and observing stations.  The battery executives, utilizing the orienting lines supplied them, orient the guns of their batteries.

          (TM 4-225, paragraph 49. e.)

While coastal defense was a huge mission during WWII, and the Coast Artillery branch provided a key service to the nation, it quickly became apparent that aircraft were a far more effective coastal defense tool than land-based artillery.  By the end of the war long range bombers and radar made fixed coastal defense sites obsolete. In 1950 the US Army dissolved the Coast Artillery branch and absorbed its officers and enlisted personnel into the regular Field Artillery branch. Today all that remains of a once proud branch of the US Army are some abandoned casements dotted along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, and at the Presidio of San Francisco you can still view an original 'disappearing' coastal defense gun at Battery Chamberlin.

Battery Chamberlin
The Presidio of San Francisco

Brian

A Little Plane Table Work

A week ago I picked up some old photographs that are claimed to be of Army surveyors doing some plane table survey work on Fort Belvoir, Virginia.

The notations on the back of each photo gives each Soldier's name and the date - November 1959.  While the location is supposed to be Fort Belvoir there's no written indication that is the actual location. However, having been assigned to Fort Belvoir a number of times I'll say that the vegetation certainly has that 'northern Virginia in the fall' look about it, so I'll accept the fact that we are looking at a location on or near Fort Belvoir.

Another clue is the Soldiers, and more specifically their uniforms.  There's no sleeve rank on any of their field jackets or shirts, indicating to me they are trainees attending advanced individual training at either the Engineer School or the Army Map Service school on Fort Belvoir.  These are most likely young men - probably draftees - who are learning the trade of surveying after graduating from Army basic training.  They simply haven't been in the Army long enough to earn rank beyond that of Private.

Plane table surveying was once the primary method of developing detailed sketches and surveys of small areas.  The geodetic and topographic surveys would establish he broad framework of survey control and elevation for large areas or regions.  The plane table surveyors would follow behind filling in the details - roads, buildings, fence lines, monuments, prominent topology and geology, etc.  Plane table work was a close meld of surveying and cartography, and plane table sketches done by talented surveyors are true works of art.

Alas, plane table surveying is also a lost art.  It died off back in the 1980s with the introduction of electronic surveying systems - total stations - that can collect data much faster and much more accurately than a surveyor standing at a plane table.  While the output of a total station lacks any sense of artistic composition, the data tends to be more accurate and precise.

But back to our young men.  They had to have scored fairly high on their Army entrance tests to qualify for training as a surveyor, so this was a smart group of guys.  Odds are they all had very good math skills.

My guess is these young fellows all did their two year military obligations, left the service and went on to enjoy life in the civilian world.  A few probably went to college using the generous VA education benefits still in place in the 1950s, a few probably moved on to employment in blue collar jobs.  Odds are none of them stuck with surveying in the civilian world - that's just the way things went.  However, I'm hoping that their exposure to surveying and mapping enticed at least one of them to pursue a civil engineering-related field once they left the service.

So let's introduce our hale and hearty young surveyors!

Jim Heichel

Gustafson (no first name given)

McNeely & Robinson (again, no first names)

Robinson (sitting, recording), Gustafson (left)
and McNeeley (right)

These fine fellows are all in their 70s now and hopefully are looking back on long, successful and happy lives. I hope they view their time in the Army with great fondness and the memories of the this beautiful fall day spent in the field learning plane table work brings a smile to their faces.

Brian

Patton's Prayer

In early December 1944 General George S. Patton's 3rd Army was stalled in front of the Siegfried Line along the French - German border.  Patton was a master of combined arms operations and he knew he needed tactical air support from the Army Air Forces before he could breach the Siegfried Line and push on towards the Rhine River.

But the weather was not cooperating.  The winter of 1944 was one of the worst on record for central Europe.  Thick cloud decks and heavy fog were keeping Allied aircraft grounded all across France and the Low Countries.  Patton was frustrated, impatient and angry.  He saw German resistance crumbling before him yet he knew he couldn't push forward into the German homeland without adequate air cover.  The 3rd Army and its supporting Air Force ground attack squadrons were a deadly team.  Ground-based artillery often had trouble keeping up with the 3rd Army's advanced forces, but the Air Force's growing fleet of attack aircraft like the rugged and deadly P-47 Thurderbolt could range ahead of the forward ground forces, striking military strong points, attacking enemy convoys and in general wreaking havoc and helping to open lines of advance for Pattons armored formations.

In the second week of December Patton's frustration hit a boiling point.  Patton was a man of deep religious faith and he absolutely believed that God was on the side of the Allies.  The General decided it was time to remind the Good Lord just who's side he was supporting.  On December 8th Patton put out an order directing all 3rd Army chaplains to pray for good weather.  At the same time he called for his staff chaplain, Colonel James O'Neill.

I quote from Patton's published diary of WWII, 'War As I Knew It':

General Patton: "Chaplain, I want you to publish a prayer for good weather.  I'm tired of these soldiers having to fight mud and floods as well as the Germans.  See if we can't get God to work on our side."

Chaplain O'Neill:  "Sir, it's going to take a pretty thick rug for that kind of praying."

General Patton:  "I don't care if it takes the flying carpet, I want the praying done."

Chaplain O'Neill:  "Yes, sir.  May I say, General, that it usually isn't a customary thing among men of my profession to pray for clear weather to kill fellow men."

General Patton:  "Chaplain, are you teaching me theology or are you the Chaplain of the Third Army?  I want a prayer."

Chaplain O'Neill:  "Yes, sir."

What Chaplain O'Neill came up with is one of the classic military prayers:

"Almighty and most merciful Father, we humbly beseech Thee, of Thy great goodness, to restrain these immoderate rains with which we have had to contend.  Grand us fair weather for Battle. Graciously hearken to us as soldiers who call upon Thee that, armed with thy power, we may advance from victory to victory, and crush the oppression and wickedness of our enemies, and establish Thy justice among men and nations. Amen".

After the war the chaplain, Monsignor James O'Neill (by that time a retired Brigadier General) wrote down his version of the story.  It helps clarify some of the dates surrounding the event.  In the classic movie 'Patton' starring George C. Scott we are led to believe that Patton orders the prayer in reaction to 3rd Army's difficulty reaching the Ardennes as they advanced to relieve American forces trapped during the Battle of the Bulge.  The truth is that Patton ordered this prayer at least a week before the Germans launched their offensive into the Ardennes.

Patton directed that the prayer, along with his Christmas greeting to the Soldiers of the 3rd Army, be printed and distributed just before Christmas.  The printing job was immense.  Virtually every Soldier in the 3rd Army was to receive a copy so hundreds of thousands of copies needed to be printed, and printed fast.  The job was beyond the capability of the printing services available within the 3rd Army Adjutant General's office.  Chaplain O'Neill discussed the requirement with the 3rd Army Engineer and the decision was made to have the 664th Engineer Topographic Battalion, with its multiple large format offset presses, execute the print mission.

Patton's prayer, printed on the back side of his Christmas
greeting to the Soldiers of 3rd Army

Patton's Christmas greeting (front side)

By December 14th 1944 the prayer was distributed throughout 3rd Army.  On December 16th the German Army launched operation 'Wacht am Rhein' ('Watch on the Rhine') or as we refer to it today, the Battle of the Bulge.  Hitler's plan was to attack west through the Ardennes region in Belgium, capture the port of Antwerp, split the Allied armies in two and force the Americans and British to accept a separate peace. Within 24 hours of being notified of the German offensive Patton turned the entire 3rd Army 90 degrees and raced north to relieve the trapped forces.  Patton smelled blood; the Germans had stuck their neck out and he intended to cut it off.  But he still had to contend with the weather.

For seven days the American forces trapped in the Ardennes pocket struggled to hold back the German onslaught, but were denied close air support due to the foul weather. Then suddenly, unexpectedly, on December 23rd the weather cleared.  Allied aircraft could range freely over the Ardennes and they extracted a fearsome toll on the Germans.  At the same time 3rd Army forces smashed into the southern flank of the German pocket, shattering and all but destroying the enemy forces before it.  The German Army never recovered from the Battle of the Bulge and 'Wacht am Rhein' was the last offensive ever mounted by Hitler's military.

Patton was convinced that the prayer, as applied by all the 3rd Army Soldiers who received a copy, was instrumental in changing the weather in the Allies favor.  In Patton's mind it was confirmation that God was on his side and on the side of the 3rd US Army.  For his part in composing the prayer Chaplain O'Neill was personally awarded the Bronze Star medal by Patton.

The story of Patton's prayer is important to me for two reasons.  First, the images of the card you see above are those of an original card issued to my uncle, Captain Andy Harbison.  Andy was a battery commander in the 176th Field Artillery Battalion which was operating in General Support of 3rd Army.  He signed the card and sent it home to my aunt, Dorothy (Dottie) Harbison in Buffalo, NY.

This extract from the 176th's field log highlights the battalion's involvement in the Battle of the Bulge.

The second reason is the 664th Engineer Topographic Battalion's involvement in the printing of Patton's 1944 Christmas greeting and prayer.  While not a 'mapping' mission, it still represents a fascinating piece of US Army WWII topographic history.  Almost 39 years to the day after General Patton ordered these cards printed I reported for duty with the indirect successor of the 644th Engineer Topographic Battalion.  As a young Engineer captain I found myself assigned to the 649th Engineer Battalion (Topographic) in Schwetzingen, Germany.  The 649th provided topographic support - mapping, survey, terrain analysis and map distribution - to all US Army forces in the European theater. A tenuous connection perhaps, but I like to think that I am part of the legacy of units that helped the US Army achieve victory in WWII.

So, like General Patton, let me wish you all a holiday greeting in the firm belief that the Good Lord is on our side.

Merry Christmas!

Brian

GPS Proves Einstein!

Well, it verifies Einstein's Theory of General Relativity.

Here's a very interesting video of the 2012 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate on whether neutrinos can travel faster than the speed of light.  One of my favorite scientists, Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson (the fellow whom Sheldon Cooper blamed for having Pluto downgraded from a planet to a mere ball of ice) does a great job of moderating and keeps the discussion both lively and understandable for public school graduates like me.

Part of the discussion focuses on Einstein's Theories of Relativity, both Special and General.  The General Theory of Relativity states that time moves faster in low gravitational fields.  This is known as gravitational time dilation.  Starting about the 30 minute mark the discussion turns to how the atomic clocks on board the US Global Positioning System (GPS) satellites are intentionally 'slowed' to compensate for the changes in the progression of time in lowered gravitational fields. One of the panel members, Dr. Christopher Hegarty of the MITRE corporation, comments on how tests have shown that if the clocks on the GPS satellites are not intentionally slowed then the signal accuracy based on the uncompensated clock will drop from a few dozen feet to about 11 kilometers in just one day!

Dr. Hegarty also comments about how some of the time compensation computations are actually handled by the GPS receiver software.

So remember folks, every time you fire up your GPS (or even just use your smartphone to find the nearest Starbucks) you are helping to verify the Theory of General Relativity.  Go Einstein!

The Harriman Geographic Index System

A few months back I picked up a packet of US Army training regulations and manuals that were published in the 1920s and deal with mapping and aerial photography.  Army publications from this era don't often appear on eBay, and those dealing specifically with mapping, surveying and related topographic sciences are even rarer.  In fact, after years of hunting on eBay for historical publications dealing with these topics this was the first time I'd ever seen any from the inter-war period.  My guess is that virtually all outdated documents got heaved into the garbage can in the late 1930s as the Army was ramping up for war and new publications covering map production and map reading were introduced.

I was surprised to find myself in a small bidding war for these documents.  I'm sure it wasn't against anyone with a specific interest in Army topographic history.  The other bidder(s) were more likely motivated by the relative rarity of the documents.  In the end I paid about $30 for the packet and at the time I thought I'd bid too high.  As it turns out I think I made a good investment.

The packet included five Army Corps of Engineers publications:

• Training Regulation 190-7, Topography and Surveying, Map Reading - The Harriman Geographic Index System (July 15, 1927)
• Training Regulation 190-25, Topography and Surveying, Topographic Drafting (June 21, 1923)
• Training Regulation 190-27, Topography and Surveying, Aerial Photographic Mapping (January 23, 1925)
• Training Manual 2180-35, Topography and Surveying, Special Methods of Relief Representation (January 3, 1928)
• Training Manual 2180-45, Topography and Surveying, Meridian Determination (April 16, 1928)

As a group these manuals represent an interesting view into the evolution of Army mapping activities that incorporate the lessons learned and the new technologies that emerged from our experience in WWI, particularly the use of aerial photographs as map substitutes and as base data for topographic map compilation.  In these documents you get the sense that the Corps of Engineers is starting to realize that it now has significant responsibility for providing standard map products to a modern Army with a potential world-wide mission.

Most of these publications cover topics I'm well familiar with, but the Harriman Geographic Index System is something I'd never heard of before.

Click on the photo to enlarge

Once I read through the document I realized that the Harriman system is designed to allow a Soldier to accurately locate himself or any feature on a map to within a few hundred feet anywhere in the world.  In essence it is an early worldwide grid reference system (although it bears no resemblance to the current Military Grid Reference System).

It is also very complex.  While the mechanics of the system were fairly easy for me to figure out, I can't imagine myself standing in front of a classroom of Soldiers trying to teach this system.  It might have been a useful tool for well educated officers working in the relative comfort and calm of a rear-area command post, but for a tired, cold and scared draftee with a 9th grade education who is sitting in a muddy foxhole trying to call for artillery fire support this system is all but unusable.

The Harriman system uses the South Pole as the origin point and the International Date Line as the meridian.  It successively divides up the Earth into smaller and smaller rectangles based on latitude and longitude.  Each of these rectangles get an index number in the Harriman unit system that, when combined, permit locating features to within about half an acre.

Harriman 'units'

Since the Harriman system is based on latitude and longitude it is projected onto a spheroid.  This means the land areas defined in this system vary with latitude.  The further away from the equator the smaller the land area encompassed by a Harriman system rectangle.  This also means the Harriman system is not a point identification system like the Military Grid Reference System, but is an area reference system that defines smaller and smaller rectangles on the face of the earth.  The smallest area that can be defined in the Harriman System, the Position Unit, is 2 seconds in latitude and 1 second in longitude.  This equates to about a 4,875 sq. ft. 'box' at 49 degrees latitude, or about a 70 ft x 70 ft area on the ground.  The Harriman system has the potential to identify a point feature such as a road intersection with a positional accuracy that is well within the map accuracy standard for a 1:50,000 topographic line map.  From a practical perspective Harriman's system is accurate enough.

Harriman Index Geograph

But it's the identification of these units that can get confusing.  The Harriman system requires the user to concatenate an ever longer string of numbers, separated by colons, semicolons and slashes, to identify locations.  The smaller the area the longer and more confusing the string.  For example, according to the manual the Harriman system ID for Battery Byrne at West Point would be designated as 2665:4515; 7792. Users of the Military Grid Reference System (MGRS) could argue that this system can be just as confusing. However, I'd counter that the MGRS use of the grid zone designation (ex: 18T) and the 100,000 meter grid zone ID (ex: WL) alpanumeric system takes a lot of confusion out of sending and receiving coordinate locations.  For example, the MGRS coordinate identifier for the same Battery Byrne location is 18T WL 8726 8316.  Perhaps it's my 30+ years of using MGRS that has me jaded, but I just think MGRS is less confusing.

Now the Harriman system isn't a bad system.  In fact, it's quite logical and it works well within its known limitations.  And I have to be honest, before the Harriman system there was... nothing.  The Chief of Engineers was quite clear about what the Harriman system is and is not:

"It should be realized that the Harriman index system is in no sense a method of map making or of chart building; still less is it a new system of projections.  It is merely a simplified system of using an established arrangement.  It may be used on any map or chart, regardless of projection or scale, provided the longitude and latitude of the southwest and northeast corners are available or can be determined by scaling on the map.  Since only arabic numerals are employed in location designation, this system is capable of use in any language."

In the late 1920s the federal government seemed quite enamored with the system and there are indications that a number of federal agencies had adopted it.  In 1928 Congress actually held hearings to decide whether to purchase an unlimited use license from its developer, George C. Harriman. But other than a few tangential references on the web I can't find any more discussion about it.  This training regulation is the only full reference I've found.  Even more interesting, when reviewing Army topographic references - training and field manuals - published beginning in the late 1930s as the US Army ramped up for war, I find no references to the Harriman system.

It appears Mr. Harriman's system was a flash in the pan, dropped by the Army in the 1930's as the Corps of Engineers realized it needed a better map coordinate system to address the exploding world-wide mapping requirements.  The Army needed a coordinate system that was logical, consistent, accurate and easy to teach to the millions of draftees about to be deployed to battlefields around the world.  It was out of this requirement that we got the Military Grid Reference System, a system stood the test of time and war.

Brian