Engineers and Surveying - 2011 NCEES Model Law

Oh boy..here we go.

Fortunately this is just a "model law" to be used as a guide. My complaint is that even though in many states engineers are allowed to do "engineering surveys", the engineer of today has no concept of what is involved with current technologies in surveying, datums, coordinate systems etc and how they might affect their designs.

They should allow the surveyors to do the surveying and the engineers to do the designing based on the information we provide them.

> They should allow the surveyors to do the surveying and the engineers to do the designing based on the information we provide them.

I strongly agree. The problem is, that in most states, surveyors are governed by Boards that are mostly comprised of engineers instead of surveyors. Until that fact is changed, good luck.

Agree that is the problem. In New York, 12 engineers and 3 surveyors sit on the board

> Oh boy..here we go.
>
> Fortunately this is just a "model law" to be used as a guide. My complaint is that even though in many states engineers are allowed to do "engineering surveys", the engineer of today has no concept of what is involved with current technologies in surveying, datums, coordinate systems etc and how they might affect their designs.
>
> They should allow the surveyors to do the surveying and the engineers to do the designing based on the information we provide them.

:good:

Not just that, you can present as many model laws as you like; if the contract clearly states a Surveyor's License is needed, then that's what's needed. Reminds me of this jackass with a P.E. license who was supposed to be a track layout expert, this guy had no clue and obviously obtained the contract through some dubious means.
He was projecting himself as some kind of expert by regurgitating every thing I said. For a moment I thought I had a parrot on my shoulder or there was a never ending echo in the tunnel. One day I was hospitalized and he was totally exposed. He had no idea what to do and cancelled a pour during a General Track Outage, fortunately the MTA had this Clown removed. I think he is still sniffing around some of the large projects out there.
The bottom line is like I said before, a license is just a piece of paper. If you have no clue of "measurement science and procedures", you have no business pursuing this type of work and if you try to wing it you should be bought before the board, whether it be Surveying or Engineering.

That's why there's a degree called "Surveying Engineering", and I'm not implying that you need a degree, because if you work in the right environment you can gain the experience necessary. I know guys with Surveyor's licenses in multiple states who I wouldn't hire as a rodman.

Ralph

Wow. Really?

How much industrial surveying do you do? How about deformation surveying? etc.

Your argument would carry more weight if every state had education requirements for surveying licenses as high as the requirement for engineering licenses.

Most states have a four year degree requirement for land surveying as well as engineering,however, they usually also have alternative methods of getting licensed BY experience for both engineering and land surveying. At least New York does. Surveying is still a measurement science, and whether you are doing industrial surveys or deformation surveys they are still based on measurement. Knowing your equipment, its capabilities, the concept of datums and coordinates systems are all a part of the meausement science. My point is that most engineers do not understand those concepts and how to apply them, even though they should.

RISPLS has lodged a petition with the NCEES to have the term “Engineering Survey” Removed from the Model Law.

The term “Engineering Surveys” appears to be pretty benign and innocuous at first glance, but as in our case here in RI when the engineers attempted to modify the state statute to in include it as part of RI definition of engineering last year, the model law hurdle was a difficult hurdle for us to overcome. Our Lobbyist told us the State Legislators like “Model Laws” as being the accepted norm. (a dangerous precedent in this case) We were lucky to have the Proposed Legislation not find it’s way out of committee.

The designation of “Engineering Surveys” needs to regulated by the same body that regulates Surveying in each state, not by the Engineers. In my opinion it is a loop hole that needs to be closed.

RISPLS did EMail the petition to the other State Surveying Societies asking them to send a letter of support, at the end of last month. RISPLS has a place holder on our website for this issue. http://www.rispls.org/NCEESEngineeringSurveyPetiton.html We could add to this page any information that you think will be pertinent. We have support letters from NH & CALS so far that we know of. And I know the State of Washington was looking at asking them to move the definition under Surveying where they thought it properly belonged.

Regards,
Edward J. OBrien, P.L.S.
RISPLS President
NSPS Governor Rhode Island
EMail: EJOBPLS2000@COX.NET
EMail: EJOBPLS2000@GMAIL.COM
CELL: (401) 533-0883
RISPLS is now on Face Book

There is no clear lower limit to what an engineering survey is. It's absurd to claim engineers aren't allowed to own a tape measure, so how do you draw the line between an engineer making a measurement of any kind and surveying?

I would suggest the same rules apply to Engineers as apply to GIS practitioners under the NCEES Model Rules [Sec-210-25] Inclusions and Exclusions to the Practice of Land Surveying.The Model Rules NCEES [Sec-210-25] Inclusions and Exclusions to the Practice of Land Surveying is the combined wisdom of the document created by the NCEES Task Force Committee comprised of members ASPRS, MAPPS, ASCE, ASPRS, URISA, NSGIC, and UCGIS, that met some 32 times by teleconference and devoted some 650 Professional hours into its creation. The section is broad enough to allow engineers to do what they want and need to do, until a survey activity becomes “Authoritative” in nature. The Surveyor has purview over the “Authoritative” jurisdiction.
Activities that must be accomplished under the responsible charge of a Professional Surveyor or Land Surveyor (unless specifically exempted in Section B. below) include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. The creation of maps and geo-referenced databases representing authoritative locations for boundaries, the location of fixed works, or topography, by either terrestrial surveying methods, photogrammetric or GPS locations. This includes maps and georeferenced databases prepared by any person, firm, or government agency where that data is provided to the public as a survey product.
2. Original data acquisition, or the resolution of conflicts between multiple data sources, when used for the authoritative location of features within the following data themes: geodetic control, orthoimagery, elevation and bathymetry, fixed works, government boundaries, and cadastral information.
3. Certification of positional accuracy of maps or measured survey data,
4. Measurement, adjustment, and authoritative interpretation of raw survey data,
5. GIS-based parcel or cadastral mapping used for authoritative boundary definition purposes wherein land title or development rights for individual parcels are, or may be affected.
6. Interpretation of maps, deeds, or other land title documents to resolve conflicting data elements within cadastral documents of record.
7. Acquisition of field data required to authoritatively position fixed works or cadastral data to geodetic control.
8. Adjustment or transformation of cadastral data to improve the positional accuracy of the parcel layer(s) with respect to the geodetic control layer within a GIS for purposes of affirming positional accuracy.

If the “inspections of construction for the purpose of determining in general if the work is proceeding in compliance with drawings and specifications” is “incidental” and therefore not “Authoritative” then there is not a problem with engineers doing these activities by definition.

Further I would define “Authoritative” as we have defined it in the MOU we have here in RI. http://www.rispls.org/MOU/RISPLS-RIGIS-MOU- [01-25-2011].pdf

For the purpose of this MOU we define:
“Authoritative” as:

Components or elements which:

1) Carry a PLS Stamp & Signature or are explicitly declared or represented as being equivalent or superior in accuracy to similar data depicted in any surveying activity referred to in RIGL Chapter 5-8.1;
2) Are intended to be used for any aspect of engineering design;
3) Are intended to be used for the determination of property boundaries, the location of fixed works, or topography;
4) Are intended to be utilized relative to any regulations, including but not limited to permit applications, that pertain to the location and bulk of improvements or fixed works;
5) Are to be utilized for the certification or declaration of positional accuracy of any spatial data.

Again: If the “inspections of construction for the purpose of determining in general if the work is proceeding in compliance with drawings and specifications” is “incidental” and therefore not “Authoritative” then there is not a problem with engineers doing these activities by definition.

Regards,
eddie

"...Most states have a four year degree requirement for land surveying ..."

You might want to educate yourself.

State Requirements

Rhode Island allows those without a Degree to sit for the LS. How are they more qualified than a PE?

State Requirements

> My point is that most engineers do not understand those concepts and how to apply them, even though they should.

WOW, thats a big statement, MOST, do you know Most engineers?, think not, I understand that this has always been a touchy subject, fact is the engineering degree is much harder than a surveying degree, and these folks getting an engineering degree then a few more credits to get a surveying degree, or not, in my experience they have a very sound concept about what we do and the measuring sciences. They may lack a little on the boundary retracement but they will get that with some experience. I feel we need to give them their just due.

Just because you are an engineer does not mean that you know nothing about surveying or that you know everything about surveying. Just because you are a surveyor does not mean that you know everything or nothing about engineering. Hell, just because you are an engineer does not mean you know everything about engineering. It all comes down to the statement that you will not practice in areas that you don't know what you are doing. I was taught how to do construction stake out before I was an engineer. I am now an engineer and I still know how to do construction stakeout. I wouldn't know where to start with designing a bridge. So, I can stake out a bridge but I will not take a project to design one.

I found no record of an ABET accredited Surveying program in Rhode Island.

It appears to me your Society has the cart before the horse!

And, I'm sure Rhode Island residents would be appreciative of your efforts in funding one.

daw JD PE LS F.ASCE
Professor Emeritus

The NCEES Model Rules are created in coordination with the NCEES Model Law and should not be interpreted in isolation from the Model Law. The Model Law allows engineering surveys, and no doubt the exemptions would have been altered if this were not the case. Also, the RI MOU was designed to distinguish activity by unlicensed individuals involved with GIS from licensed land surveyors, and does not apply to the practice of other licensed professions.

> Just because you are an engineer does not mean that you know nothing about surveying or that you know everything about surveying. Just because you are a surveyor does not mean that you know everything or nothing about engineering. Hell, just because you are an engineer does not mean you know everything about engineering. It all comes down to the statement that you will not practice in areas that you don't know what you are doing. I was taught how to do construction stake out before I was an engineer. I am now an engineer and I still know how to do construction stakeout. I wouldn't know where to start with designing a bridge. So, I can stake out a bridge but I will not take a project to design one.
:good: :good: :good:

Well stated Neil, I believe this type of work is a Hybird of both so beyond the theory there has to be some experience.
Personally I think it boils down to personal qualifications and competence.

Ralph

Just substitute "Architectural Surveys" for "Engineering Surveys" and explain to me the difference to the public or to a surveyor. Gosh, we could even try this with "Landscape Architectural Surveys".

I personally know architects who have more college level surveying than most civil engineers today. And how much surveying knowledge is found among chemical, mechanical, electrical engineers, etc.?

They all get a free pass under the "model" law. What kind of law will actually protect the public?

Not even a rodman? I only got one state license but I bet I could do that; with a little supervision of course.

I think I get your point though. The license (engineer or Surveyor) should indicate you have some sense. If the licensing process is not accomplishing that, then we need to look at the process not the individual qualifications. Lot of engineers I wouldn't hire to engineer certain things, but they seem to be able to do anything under their license. Why are surveyors so impotent? We have no political clout.

The way things stand in NY, all surveying will be done by engineers or incompetent surveyors in not too long a time. If the only thing surveyors can do under the license is boundary, then there is little reason to obtain the license. Especially if we all agree boundaries are only a minor thing to be learned on the job. If that's the case there is hardly a reason not to let engineers determine boundaries.

Under current law and public perception, engineers are surveyors but surveyors are not engineers. It's political and has nothing to do with knowledge of how to provide the client with what they need.

Duane

I didn't mean to come on so strong, but I do feel strongly about the subject matter. It's a huge market segment worth Billions of dollars here in NYS. I mentioned before how most State and City contracts are written so that this must be supervised and Stamped by an NYLS, yet the consensus is "That's not why you're Licensed". If in fact we are only licensed to pound hubs and brag about our ability to find rocks, we're in a sad state of affairs and pretty soon somebody's gonna get wind of this and use it against us.
If you recall there was an old series N license that allowed you to practice minor engineering, where did it go? The stronger lobby won again? What are you telling your students about their future prospects?

I shared my experience above with a P.E. biting off more than he can chew and firmly believe that if you don't have the training it doesn't matter what license you have. Many on this board choose to narrow down Surveying, when in fact it is Broad and wide. This type of work should be covered by Licensed Surveyors, but most don't view it that way. If you go to Europe you'd see what Surveyors do and how they are actually viewed. It's like day and night.

Cheers
Ralph