Interesting Pennsylvania GIS vs. Surveyors case.

Seems like a reasonable decision, the board went overboard with that one.

Inventory of resources isnt Surveying. Good decision if you ask me...

Surprised such a huge project didn't have a least one licensed LS on board.?ÿ I guess the essence is Survey Grade GPS equipment does not require licensure to purchase, so enterprising "GIS"y corporations utilize it to replace the field guy with a clipboard, rag tape, and wheel.?ÿ Should an LS be involved in that?

Another stake in the heart of land surveyors; used to be any precise location of topography or fixed works required an LS.?ÿ I made good money locating true north and latitude to 15' at microwave antenna sites and it took me while to get good at it. Also, the old T2-steel tape survey was a skill.?ÿ Now technology has caught up and firms can advertise "We'll locate your assets +- a few meters cheep!" because the same field guy formerly with the clipboard is now a (fairly competent) GPS expert concerning the drudge work of data collection..

I'm reticent to predict the future, but except for new construction, accurate topography, boundary/subdividing tasks, and squeaky tight technical stuff,?ÿ ?ÿthe market share of LS required activities is significantly diminished by this court decision.?ÿ But I reluctantly agree, it's not the tool, it's the fool.

If this goes big time, i.e. GIS corporations doing massive asset location surveys, let's see how the firms without a single licensed LS employee fare in the long term.?ÿ There's some tricky stuff going on in 100 mile wide surveys good for a coupla meters, all the paperwork,?ÿ and they could get mud on their faces post contract.

Me thinks a certain western State would disagree strongly on certain points. ?ÿEspecially about the use of the term "engineer".

This one IS interesting.

I read the majority's opinion to rely on a determination that the contested activities fall under "engineering land surveys" in PA law and to therefore infer that only those activities related to engineering fall under the practice of surveying.

While the majority opinion relies on the PA laws use of the term "engineering land surveys" and other language to reverse the Board, the statutes in other states often (maybe mostly) do not.?ÿ This logic, key to reversing the Boards finding, would not apply in many other states.?ÿ

The minority dissent does not find that "engineering land surveys" are limited to engineering purposes and also presents some good arguments supporting the Board's finding. The minority opinion discussion addresses:

- Validity of the Board's expertise: "Notably, the Board is one of technical expertise and this Court should be wary to upset its legal determination especially where, as here, the Board's findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence and those findings fit squarely within the pertinent statutory language."

- Public Safety: "As the Board stated in its decision, ƒ??[w]hoever is not qualified to practice surveying endangers the public by practicing land surveying.ƒ? (Board's decision at 22ƒ??23.) In this case, CEC shared DRG's maps with PA One Call and the EMS services for 6 or 7 different counties, id. at 21, and one can only imagine the potential danger of not properly locating electrical infrastructure such as transformers and distribution poles."

The findings are a good read for everyone trying to assess if their state's definition of surveying covers the listed activities.?ÿ

My 2 cents - In my part of the world "engineering surveys" as an activity that engineers do simply does not exist any more (I'm sure there are exceptions). Most engineers recognize that reliably understanding the information that GPS provides (reliably enough to depend on it for design, public safety, and expenditure of public moneys) requires expertise obtained through study and practice with geodesy, coordinate systems, datums, error analysis, adjustments, and more. When competent engineers need a survey, they call a competent surveyor.?ÿ?ÿ

I can accept the concept that this was merely an inventory. However should any of this information be used to construct, etc., an engineered facility, then the GIS firm is?ÿde facto guilty of performing an engineering survey without a license. The utility is allowed to use that information without having a licensed engineer or surveyor, but the third party provider, GIS firm, is not exempt.

Paul in PA, PE, PLS

Now if a board wished to do a public service it should consider censuring anyone involved with creating zone A FEMA maps. These clearly are not done to engineering standards. At least the ones I've seen are not.?ÿ

Posted by: MightyMoe

Now if a board wished to do a public service it should consider censuring anyone involved with creating zone A FEMA maps. These clearly are not done to engineering standards. At least the ones I've seen are not.?ÿ

Flood maps, used as flood maps should be used, as a general guide to nationwide risk for insurance rates, are actually an excellent product ?ÿ

However any municipality or review agency that uses them in any manner in the design process, or doesn't understand that the chances of them being design level accurate for any single property are slim to none, ?ÿis akin to a fifty year old patient visting a doctor with severe chest pain ?ÿand the doctor looking at an actuary table and telling them they're fine, they will live to 78.?ÿ

Flood maps and GIS are like firearms; their misuse isn't the fault of their creators.?ÿ

James is spot on. They are Flood Insurance Rate Maps specifically made for insurance and regulatory use. The regulatory use demands repeatable objective determinations. If the maps are used in accordance with rules and FEMA directorates they work very well. There are procedures in place for when they dont.

The 2 biggest problems with the program are simple. Those who build in no risk zones pick up a huge part of the losses through subsidies. If you build in a risky zone it should be on you, not me. The second problem is the gross abuse of the data by communities and folks who have never read what it is and isnt.

Those who build in no risk zones pick up a huge part of the losses through subsidies.

This +100. ?ÿThe maps are fine, the program itself is monsterously fouled up because the point of insurance is for people who are exposed to potential risk to pool their resources to insure against financially catastrophic, but somewhat unlikely, random loss. ?ÿAs soon as the cost of the insurance is subsidized by those without exposure to loss, then risky behavior is incentivized. ?ÿ

You'd think one of the lessons learned in 2007-2008 is that when there is minimal to no cost to incur financial risk in housing that people tend to do very risky things; and when millions of small risks are tethered together, very bad things can get out of hand very quickly. ?ÿ

Not sure what maps you have, but the zone A maps I work with weren't done to any standard, they are not "fine". Often they cover hillside far out if the plain or dont even cover the stream. That is proof they weren't done to any engineering standards, so they should not be used to grab money from landowners. We are talking about huge amounts of money. Either fix those maps or remove them, either way it would be a good thing for the board to get involved, in my state a flood determination is covered under engineering and these maps are a stain on the practice.?ÿ

Would you consider it an inventory if the utility company used the data for determining Call Before You Dig responses, or if the original RFP required sub centimeter accuracy (implying a higher purpose)?

I too and perfectly fine if the work was to catalog the possessions of the rural electric company, but if they use it for mapping and geolocation of the assets, and they provide that data to the public as such, I think we have entered into a different realm one that requires some level of professional oversight.

?ÿ

Just my 2 cents ...

I don't have a major problem with the idea of inventorying such assets being done by GISers in many cases, but one section of that case does bring up a concern for me:

"...this GPS survey is concerned with the electrical facilities within the confines of lands for which [CEC] has either a right-of-way interest to lands owned by others or facilities within lands owned by [CEC]."

That section sounds like there may have been some determination of interest in land.?ÿ Would be interesting to know more about if/how these right of way interests were determined.

That scenario adds another layer of problems.

The exemptions for doing survey related work generally limit it to internal use. When you provide the information as authoritative to outside users you're over the line.

Utility companies have to inventory property for taxes, much like the Val maps railroads do. So to do it GIS is a very good resource, they shouldn't execute easements, but they need the data for reasons not related to surveying.

We are licensed because of our boundary expertise, not our measuring ability.?ÿ If you are dependent on using the law to keep people from measuring, you're going to be in for a rude awakening.

We are licenced to ensure minimum competence in the tasks defined as Professional Land Surveying by the States we work in. Some places include topo, others dont.

The object isn't to prevent others from measuring. It is to ensure there is a mechanism in place to regulate providing those services to the public.

Posted by: thebionicman

We are licenced to ensure minimum competence in the tasks defined as Professional Land Surveying by the States we work in. Some places include topo, others dont.

The object isn't to prevent others from measuring. It is to ensure there is a mechanism in place to regulate providing those services to the public.

Of course the object is to keep others from measuring.?ÿ Surveyors have this idea that they're the only ones that know how to do it.?ÿ Do you have any idea how many times I've heard surveyors gripe about how we need a law to stop unlicensed folks from doing construction layout?

I personally hate pounding hubs. The last large site I worked had theee robots, three GPS units and a total station running most of the time. We were the only crew associated with a PLS.?ÿ

The Boards need to protect the public. If yours thinks thats best done by preventing others from measuring it's not my business. I do think its goofy...