Field geometry review workspace
Shape the field.
Expose the risk.
Sketch a field concept, distinguish interior exclusions, compare headland and travel assumptions, audit geometry risks, and keep every drawing attached to its evidence.
01Envelope
02Sketch
03Headland
04QA
05Evidence
06Export
Declare the scale and the machine assumptions.
The grid is a schematic thinking surface—not a coordinate map. Dimensions turn cells into rough areas so width, headland, and turn assumptions can be compared visibly.
Separate the field from what should not be worked.
Paint the outer shape and interior exclusions. Passable and impassable exclusions stay distinct because an operator, path planner, and section-control workflow may treat them differently.
Derived headland Travel orientationSCHEMATIC · NOT TO SCALE
See what the assumptions consume.
Compare all-around and top-bottom headlands, switch travel orientation, and watch the coarse interior and turn-space review update without pretending to generate guidance.
Gross envelope25.30 ha
Workable area24.68 ha
Excluded area0.61 ha
Headland area7.34 ha
Interior area17.34 ha
Headland depth24.0 m
Turn requirement24.0 m
Turn clearance0.0 m
Interior lane estimate35
Area and lane figures come from the coarse rectangular grid. They are comparison aids, not surveyed hectares, turn paths, coverage guarantees, or machine settings.
Find awkward geometry before transfer.
The checks expose disconnected areas, narrow cells, edge-touching exclusions, missing interior space, and turn assumptions that need a human decision.
Field components1
Work components1
Narrow cells0
Edge exclusions0
Evidence review and real geometry validation remain required.
Keep the drawing attached to its evidence.
A clean shape is still unsafe if its source, exclusions, implement geometry, turn trial, or receiving workflow is unknown. Save a baseline to make later assumption changes visible.
Is the origin of the geometry and its coordinate reference identifiable?
CAPTURE / Source system, capture method, date, coordinate reference, and transformation history.Was the outer boundary observed and reviewed for the intended operation?
CAPTURE / Capture method, correction state, offsets, reviewer, and field observation.Are passable and impassable areas distinguished and current?
CAPTURE / Obstacle identity, access rule, seasonality, permanence, and accountable reviewer.Does the working-width assumption match the exact implement and setup?
CAPTURE / Exact machine, implement, effective working width, hitch, offsets, and configuration.Has the proposed headland been checked with the actual machine in a safe area?
CAPTURE / Observed turn behavior, soil and slope context, clearance, stop rule, and reviewer.Is the target display or farm-software workflow and its format expectation known?
CAPTURE / Receiving product, software version, supported object types, and transfer method.EVIDENCE GATEblocked
Find evidence for Source and coordinate reference.
- unknown
- 6
- documented
- 0
- field verified
- 0
SCENARIO BASELINENo baseline saved
Save the current analysis before changing geometry or machine assumptions.
Evidence states are user assertions. This browser does not inspect coordinates, machinery, documentation, field conditions, or receiving-system support.
06 / BROWSER-LOCAL HANDOFFExport a review packet, never a machine boundary.
The JSON preserves the schematic grid, assumptions, derived issues, and evidence states. It contains no coordinates and is not Shape, ISOXML, guidance, or task data.
Verify the boundary before connecting machine behavior.
Continue through the source, geometry, field, and handoff checks that separate an educational sketch from an accepted operational record—then study the systems that may consume it.