So I've read with interest here about stock pile volume reports via photography. Seems there is a service that you upload your photos, and they process the data for a fee. Could this be construed as "Surveying" without a license? Some state do require a PLS or certified photogrammetrist for measuring and calculating volumes.
That said, what if a service existed that produced 3D models from photography for a fee? If the model is just a relative model and not tied to a particular datum, is it still surveying? How would this service be considered any different from a stock pile report from a service? Would one need to be licensed in every state they perform this service in?
Just opening my thursday can of worms. As Gavin pointed out, we'll probably all argue this to death while the train goes over the horizon.
It seems to me , that the problem with requiring a person to get a land surveyors license to do what you are describing and a lot of other things that some claim should only be done under a land surveyors license, is that the land surveyors licensing process only measures a persons ability to land survey. If you included all of these technical criteria's into the licensing process, it could possibly reduce the ranks of PLS' in an already dwindling profession and because of the land survey criteria involved, I doubt very few of the persons providing these services would even bother, leading to a very abrupt and untimely death to an up and coming technology. All because the all knowing surveyor said so... #unindustrialrevolution
We provide reality capture services. We use photos to do volume calculations for mines and brownfield sites, some topo, for models/floor plans/renderings/dimensioned drawings, for planning purposes, etc. There are still a lot of situations where this technology does not work so we use it in conjunction with a scanner when needed. Very cool technology that can be down to a centimeter +/- accurate for architectural applications and a few of centimeters accurate for topographic applications. Accuracy depends on the final product needed and how the data is collected.
We have a sub consultant that flies a 50 acre mine in a little more than half a day. We can usually provide volumes of every pile on the site plus reserve volumes by middle of the next morning.
As for the legality of it...Engineers can supply topo as well as architects with no issues. GIS companies can put contours on GIS maps. Construction companies calculate volumes daily. I don't see any reason it would be covered strictly under a license (in NY anyways). Similar technology to scanning. Anyone can go buy a scanner and start making models from the data. All of that stuff including ensuring accuracy is a technical skill easily learned by the right person, license or not. The main reason we are licensed (in NY anyways) is to determine boundary and property lines.
All of these things...Robotics, GPS, Scanning, Reality Capture, GIS, etc. are all just tools we can use to complete the task at hand.
The use of the tools is not governed by a license, however, the finish product is. If the finished product is to be "authoritative" and "certified", it must be done by a licensed individual. GIS people can plot contours, however, they can not certify to their accuracy. It is the protection of the public that is the key element in whether a license is needed. NYS definition refers to the "measurement of the earth's surface" which requires a license. Yes "licensed" engineers are allowed to provide surveys that are not related to boundary, however, i question whether architects are included in this exemption. There is also an exemption for contruction(thanks to the unions). These various tools i.e. gps, photogrammetry, scanners, etc are nice as long as the individual is willing to accept responsibility for the measurements they are making and understand measurements.
For the past few months New York Dept. of Education has investigated me for possible misuse of the word "surveyor". My title has always been Land Surveyor Technician.
I gave them my college degree in Land Surveying from Paul Smith's College, and my resume with 25 years experience working along side of and under the supervision of licensed land surveyors. Tried to explain to them how I have always worked along side a licensed surveyor. Just the two of us in a small business. Therefore I have performed many aspects of the profession. Which is also part of my required path to qualify for the licensure exam. It seems those working in a small survey firm whom must wear many hats, walk a fine line between right and wrong.
I do have a separate business where I provide training and tech support to others in the profession. Clearly this is not wrong.
The key here was they thought I was a part owner of a land surveying business, which I am NOT.
Had my A$$ chewed on a bit. After bring his finding to the board, they agreed I've done nothing wrong. But they want me to sign a statement, that I may have used the word "surveyor" incorrectly.
The only good from this episode, is it has encouraged me to complete the licensure application and pursue the exam. Even though I have no desire to do any boundary work. Just for something to hang on the wall, and prevent thorns in my side.
Lee Green
I agree with the board, you should not be using the title "Land Surveyor". Hell I don't even use it and I'm licensed. That's not the service and scope I provide. I think there should be a seperate test like in MD. Engineering Surveyor and boundary surveyor.
I tend to agree with Ralph; I'm not licensed and I would never consider using the word Surveyor in my title. Survey Technician, definitely. Land Survey Technician, maybe. I'm a CST II, so I just put that on my e-mail signature.
The way the law USED to read in Louisiana was that if you hold a license as a Land Surveyor, you MUST so identify yourself as such on all business correspondence and related documents whether you like it or not.
Not sure what the current law is in Louisiana.
In regard to stockpile volume determinations, Photogrammetric Mapping companies world-wide have been doing that on a daily basis since the 1940s. Requiring a license as a Boundary Surveyor to do such is restraint of trade.
YMMV.
"Land Surveyor Technician" is not a statutorily protected title in NY.
As far as I can tell you can call yourself an engineer or a surveyor, if you think you do that kind of work.
The key is that you can't imply that you are a "Professional Engineer" or "Land Surveyor" (statutorily protected titles in NY) by the use of a similar title and actions.
The fact that the surveying profession is in trouble across the country is apparent from this thread. I too try to distance myself from the title by using "Land Boundary Consultant" on my letterhead. I don't want to be seen by a client as just another "Land Surveyor" because I believe I'm better than that. Lee doesn't want the title because he doesn't want to work land boundary projects that require a license and he already has more expertise is some areas than some with the license. Ralph doesn't want the title because he too does not want to be confused with the average "Land Surveyor" who doesn't have his expertise, he believes he's better than that.
There are a plethora of mechanical engineers who don't have any desire to hold a PE license. They still call themselves engineers and PE's still respect them and don't go after them. But I've never heard a PE want to distance themselves from that designation.
The problem is obviously a much too narrow scope of practice associated with a surveying license.
Measurements are being done and will be done by anyone who can master the technology and has some educational background to understand it. Land boundaries should fall under the State BAR association, measurements should be unregulated, and design under the PE.
Now excuse me while I head to my booth at the mall to whiten some teeth.
Sorry for your troubles Lee, I'm sure you will soar through the exams no problem. You are certainly not the problem locally, nor those with similar work histories across the country.
All professional licensing is restraint of trade.
FYI Dr. Mugnier,
In North Carolina Photogrammetry is considered Land Surveying. We went through a big discussion over that close to 20 years ago.
Restraint of trade? As Mr. Frymire said, every license is a restraint of trade in one form or another.
Larry P
> Measurements are being done and will be done by anyone who can master the technology and has some educational background to understand it.
Heck, they're being done by people who have no understanding of the technology and have no related educational background. The purpose of licensure is to provide an easy way for the public to distinguish between the two.
Yeah, my sarcasm showing. CA seems to have a good handle on the licensing of surveyors. But NY it seems the license is so unworthy it is to be avoided, especially by those who are experts in measurement.
coordinate systems, areas, and software certification
Our profession is a combination of technical understanding, experience, and resulting knowledge and expert opinion.. part of that is understanding of things like datums, coordinate systems, and potential sources for error. Our obligation to protect the public interest certainly covers volumetric certifications, as these will vary based on the above factors. A random user that owns a RC heli and uses a web-service to magically compute volumes doesn't know what web-mercator projection is. Certainly wouldn't understand that the areas obtain when performing measurements in this system are highly distorted, and that the corresponding volumes will also be. Areas depend on coordinate systems.. but if you don't even know what system you're working in, how could you hope to provide an accurate value?
If the user is not certified then the software should be. Is the software even suitable for the calculation? Has it been tested and shown to produce reliable results?
Hypothetically, and I'm speaking from a protecting public interest perspective only, if the hardware (camera, gps, imu) and software (SfM and volumetric calculation) were tested by the state and shown to be reliable to the point that any user could produce true results... then yes, they should be permitted to do so. That currently is not the case, nor even close to it.. anyone saying otherwise is selling snake-oil.
Fyi, here's an eye-opening technical article on this matter.. from ESRI, none the less:
http://resources.arcgis.com/en/help/main/10.1/index.html#//00570000004m000000
