Certainly is a steep learning curve with many intricacies such...

Certainly is a steep learning curve with many intricacies such as the projections/stretching and many many more.

I am certain DRE's eastings do NOT match Google Earth. GDA94 vs WGS84 are unlikely to be too different - a few meters is almost a given but not 40m.

Using a relatively simple cross check yielded the same result:

Going back to the original announcement I cross referenced the plan coordinates and GE. Points 1 and 2 are chosen because they are on the main eastings provided and have readily identifiable topographic features nearby.



Putting the DRE coordinates for point 1 into Google Earth gives this. Ditto Point 2



Zooming in on point 1 with dre 1 40m west (assumption).



The dre 1 point plots where the end of line sample shows on Figure 2 (within limit of accuracy at least) in the announcement. [?discrepancy 40m].

Point 2 also plots 40m east on GE - visually.

DT said the auger program ONLY sampled black soil plains. The dre 1 point is unlikely to be black soil IMO.

Georeferencing Figure 2 used GE derived coordinates so it is not surprising the resulting overlay displayed similar results.

The coordinate system presented in Figure 2 is different to Google Earth's by some 40m. Why? I do not know.

Any thoughts @GreenTroopy?

It is not uncommon for minor errors to show up in announcements.

In the case of this apparent discrepancy field work will use actual coordinates not map based ones. Storm in a tea cup.