ELABORATION

Pacing is a reasonably easy and quick method of measuring distance in the field. However,
in the presence of modern convenient instruments used in large-scale measurements—it may be
structural or field—pacing has been quite overlooked by many to be an outdated and inaccurate
method in surveying. However, pacing can still be one useful tool for a civil engineer or surveyor,
as though it may be reliant on estimates, at least the engineer will still be able to familiarize the
area and material that he will be working it, without being too obvious that he is actually doing
measurements.

Thus, pacing is one of the basic things that a beginner surveyor must know about, and
every surveyor or civil engineer must always determine and memorize his own pace factor, even
more so that his phone number. If no available measuring instrument is present, or if the
engineer only wishes to get a glimpse of his next project’s area of work without catching everyone
else’s eyes, pacing is the method to go. It also saves time and energy, having to only walk normally
on the length that needs to be measured, while counting mentally.

This experiment is thus conducted to determine the pace factor of the surveying students,
as well as to use this in the computation for measuring an unknown length.

On the first part of the activity, a taped distance was used to determine the pace factor. The
taped distance AB measured 55 meters, and it was walked on seven times, with the paces made
ranging from 73-76. The mean of the paces was then calculated—74.43—and then divided to the
taped distance. Based on the tabulated data (Table 1.1) and the computations made, the pace
factor was found out to be 0.74. The pace factor calculated is reasonable, since this is within the
range of normal pace factors.

Having found out the pace factor, this was then used to measure the unknown distance
BC. Again, Distance BC was walked on seven times, and the paces ranged from 28-32. The average
of the paces was then computed, resulting to 29.14. This was then multiplied to the pace factor,
yielding a result of 21.56 meters, which is now the paced distance. Comparing the result to the
later revealed actual distance which was 21 meters, there was a discrepancy of 0.56 meters. This
1
was then used to compute the relative precision, which was 38. It means that the paced distance
and actual distance are almost the same, with only little, almost negligible discrepancies.
OBSERVATION, REMARKS, AND CONCLUSION

Seeing that the paced distance on the second part of the exercise was almost similar to
the actual distance, this also proves that the pace factor computed was reasonable, and that the
method of pacing is still reliable when estimating field measurements. Now that the pace factor
has been determined, this can then be used on future surveys.

There are a lot of factors than can affect how the pace factor is determined. First and
foremost, the way the pace is executed is important, since there will be times that paces will
differ by a few units especially with whatever the mood of the person walking is. Also, it must be
made sure that the striding is done in a straight line, as any little curve here and there can alter
the actual length walked. These may be minute details, but when they will stack up, they can
actually lead to large differences on the results.

1
It should be noted, however, that the relative precision computed—38—is not within the
1 1
range of accepted precision for measuring distance by pacing, which is from 200 to500. This may be
neglected at the moment, though, as this involves pacing, plus the walking errors
aforementioned on the previous paragraph that has been executed due to the lack of prior
experience.

Indeed, pacing is still a method in surveying that should not be overlooked. When done
properly, this can help engineers on their estimates. It only takes a pace factor and properly—
but naturally—executed steps.

LIST OF REFERENCES

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS