Looks like the profile is just doing what the points defining the surface are telling it to do. The best you can do is to be sure the polyline/alignment follows one of the breakline plines so it doesn't cross TIN lines
Yeah, that's what I figured, but I was hoping there was a way to smooth the data out a bit so the profile didn't look so horrible. The area in question is a railroad, so I'm quite sure the ground doesn't actually jog that much.
I've applied some surface smoothing Kriging Method....it looks better however that isn't the solution per se.
The issue is really did the survey crew collect data with a high enough resolution for the intended purpose?
This is something that is a learning curve for some, to get enough data to accurately represent the surface.
With a good sample interval one can almost do without breaklines.
This is flown LIDAR data. The drawing I posted is a blocked-out portion of the larger area that was sent to me. The only thing I edited, was putting a point at each breakline vertex, flattening the polylines, and using them as proximity breaklines. The only reason I did this was in the hopes that, when I ran a 'simplify surface', it wouldn't be bound by elevated breaklines.
It's a pretty tight grid through there, but it's just really jagged, and I can't understand how LIDAR data would yield such odd results.
Another oddity was in the elevated contours they provided. When I created a surface from them, the c3d contours matched the polylines - as they should, but when I would pick points to check an elevation, it would return strange results. If I picked between 100 and 101 contours, even in the exact middle of the two contours, it would give 100.01, but when I got right up to the 101, it would jump from 100.02 to 100.9.
I just need to be able to show a good profile of the existing area and I can't get it to smooth itself out.