AS the spring is unfolding, there are more posts and discssions and meeting brewing about this issue.
?ÿ
One Poignant and prescient concept that NO ONE in GIS is discussing is that ANYONE, ANYONE can practice or work in GIS, ascend the ladder of position names(often self appointed or derived), and eventually if so inclined(much more recently too for pay increases and job justification) attain the GISP. And there is no required continuing education like any other licensed profession, because its not licensed. Go Figure.
Only people that trained under the legal required pathway, with validated and confirmed experience and a few fairly intense exams, and competency and continuing education, can be licensed as Surveyors.
?ÿ
Anyway, here is more grist for the speeding mill wheel.?ÿ I support both sides, as I work in both sides. I anticipate this will be a hot topic for a while, and needs to be addressed in the forums we all particpate within, so take it as you see it.
And for attribution, I am a Member of URISA, and this is a collection of the email Listserve messages we all receive daily and hourly sometimes.
?ÿ
Enjoy:
___________________________________________________
?ÿ
We have all gone over this territory a lot in the past. We think about this too much as a 'turf' issue when it is really a choice issue. Surveyors have clearly set up a turf war by attempting to define their practice and profession too broadly.
I'm not a licensed surveyor. I don't have a license to practice law or medicine. But, I have used surveyors, lawyers and doctors in my personal life, when it was my choice. Sometimes lawyers give advice which we choose to ignore. Sometimes doctors give advice which we choose to ignore. Sometimes before I consult a doctor or lawyer, I consult a friend or family member for advice. Should I never ask my wife 'Honey, my back hurts. What do you think I should do about it?' Should I never ask my brother 'my employer has violated my contract. What do you think I should do about it?' In many cases it is our choice to use a surveyor or not. I had a tree blow over in a storm on my property which landed on my roof. No damage except a bent gutter. I thought the tree was right on the property line. But maybe it was on my neighbors side of the property line. Maybe not. I could have hired a surveyor to make the determination, but that would be silly. I cut the tree down myself and repaired the gutter, and my neighbor gave me some beers.
I own my own house. My title deed includes a property map and legal description. Neither I nor my mortgage lender asked a surveyor to certify it. Of course title insurance is cheaper than hiring a surveyor. My choice, my lenders choice. Now before I bought my last two homes I hired a licensed engineer to do my home inspection. I could have accepted the sellers inspection report, but the cost of an inspection by my own licensed professional provided me with real value and protection that I chose.
Let's look at the case of trying to determine if a hydrant is within 500 feet of a school. Who wants to know and why? Maybe the school principal has an administrative obligation to ensure that there is at least one hydrant within 500 feet of the school. The school has a couple options - consult GIS to reasonably determine if a hydrant is within 500 feet, or hire a surveyor. If they hire a surveyor, what is the scope of work? Is it to determine - yes/no - if a given hydrant is within 500 feet? or is it to measure precisely how far a given hydrant if from the school? And how did the school determine which hydrant to measure? If the school principal made an assessment that a given hydrant is the closest to the school based on visual observation is he/she practicing surveying? In reality, the school principal and administration should be able to make a reason judgement if they need a surveyor to answer the question or if visual observation or consulting a GIS is sufficient. The only value that a survey could provide in this case is to know precisely how far a given hydrant is from the school.
In King County we in GIS create official boundary maps and legal descriptions all the time. Within the next seven or eight months, across the United States, some of the most important boundary maps will be created without surveyors - political district maps with 2020 census data. In Washington the survey community has been quite for several years. The last flurry was in 2015 - at which point I authored a letter to the board of licensing that was signed by 10 Washington State Public Agencies. Read about this case and the letter here:
https://waurisa.org/resources/Documents/TheSummit/TheSummit_Issue39_2015_Summer.pdf
beginning at p. 3. Interestingly, the Board never responded to the letter, even though legally required to do so.
?ÿ
?ÿ
______________________________
I specifically included this link as an example of how much this is a SIDE issue for them, the article on the Bees, and other stuff were all congruent pages, where as this specific article is spread throughout nd difficult to follow, which i found ironic to say the least(jitterboogie)
_____________________________
?ÿ
-------------------------------------------
Subject: State Land Surveying Laws Impacting GIS Professionals
Certainly, surveyor advocates in some states are over-reaching their legitimate licensure mandate, and are trying to enter the "GIS lane." But, some GIS professionals are also reaching into the licensed surveyor lane. Specifically, when a GIS pro, or a photogrammetrist captures the location of "fixed works" (e.g., anything that has been built by humans), maps it, and then that locational data becomes the authoritative location for the fixed work (could be a manhole, or a fire hydrant; could not be a tree), then that GIS pro is practicing survey without a license.
Now, we've had innumerable arguments about the meaning of "authoritative," even though the generally understood definition is sufficiently precise. That's a smokescreen for not recognizing what is the domain of surveyors. GIS pros can map hydrants for any other purpose except if the resulting data or document is the one used to determine the authoritative location of the hydrant. Map diagram to manage the maintenance of hydrants? No problem. Fire run maps to show which corner of a block the firefighter needs to look for the hydrant? No problem. Measurement to determine whether there is a fire hydrant within 500 feet of a school (assuming the law requires that as a maximum distance)? Yes, it must be done under the supervision of a licensed surveyor.
To summarize, as detailed in the URISA White Paper ("Boundaries of Professional Practice"), if the location is being mapped from original measurements AND it is being used as the authoritative determination of location by a governmental agency, then the mapping should be supervised by a licensed surveyor. Any subsequent maps that are derived from the original documents, are referential and fully in the domain of GIS pros.
Obviously, some GIS pros who are doing this kind of original mapping will be unhappy.
In this forum, there are calls for "opening a dialog" with surveyor organizations about this topic.
Please note that the current NCEES Model Rules are the result of such a dialog, in which GIS professionals got far more than what the surveyors were willing to concede to GIS. As licensed professionals, ostensibly protecting the "health, safety and welfare" of the public, they had, and have, far more political power than do GIS pros. If we insist on squeezing into their lane (because today's technology makes it easy to do so), there will be far more state legislative bills that we will have to try to fight.
_____________________________________
Subject: RE: State Land Surveying Laws Impacting GIS Professionals
We should also be mindful of the practical impacts whether or not they are illegal. If people like realtors, who in the past have used surveyors to sketch out property boundaries to use in presentations as opposed to recording the boundaries, now begin to use cheaper non surveyors for that same purpose that is a loss of business to surveyors. So you can see why surveyors might want to restrict that activity even if it is done legally with the proper caveats. I'm not saying that justifies their actions just that it's a human reaction.
In response to Bruce's discussion of "authoritative", the state, by virtue of requiring certain levels or education and experience to be granted a license, has given surveyors a legal standing to issue opinions about property boundaries and to perform engineering related surveys. In that context they establish the "authoritative" coordinates even though separate surveys can disagree. And I also note, as Bruce has acknowledged, the NCEES Model Rules does not define "authoritative" as they couldn't agree on a precise definition. Unfortunately but understandably, "authoritative" is being used in similar but unrelated contexts that muddy its use in surveying.
------------------------------
Here is a current article (published today, May 5) in GPS World, looking at this issue from a surveyor's point of view. (I excerpted a few sentences)
Surveyors, not the tools, define the profession
May 5, 2021 - By Tim Burch
www.gpsworld.com/...
The evolution of technology and associated tools may help improve the profession, but it will not replace the knowledge necessary to be considered a true professional. ...
These tools and associated software are much advanced compared to their earlier surveying instrument counterparts, but through extensive programming and easy-to-use interfaces, this equipment may seem simple to use to the layperson. ... The knowledge to operate these instruments is user-friendly and intuitive. So what happens when the technology is used by someone who is not a surveyor? ...
A UAV operator in North Carolina has filed suit against the NC Board of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors. The board previously ordered the operator to discontinue his UAV flights that engaged in mapping, surveying and photogrammetry services. The operator had been providing images to realtors and homeowners that depicted graphical lines representing property lines, but also included a disclaimer that the product was not intended for surveying purposes. The board ruled he was surveying without a license. The operator is now suing the board and accusing them of violating his First Amendment rights of free speech. ...
Many instances of low-budget outfits and even fence installers have been brought before state licensing boards because they misrepresented surveying services.
______________________________
Years ago, we (the city property mapping office) began creating maps for the police department showing the location of a drug arrest in relation to a school. If it was within a certain distance, the penalties for the crime were more severe. They turned out to be very successful. At one point, because the maps were used in court, I advised the police that they might ought to use a surveyor since this was used in court. They decided to continue with us and the documents were never questioned in court. Were we practicing surveying without a license?
Police regularly use total stations and survey techniques to collect very accurate "authoritative" data describing crime scenes, particularly vehicle crashes. Are they practicing surveying without a license?
------------------------------
As demonstrated by all of the above, laws are in place in every state to address the rare situation when professional boundaries are crossed. Additional licensing and regulation is unnecessary and impairs our ability to practice our profession.
Again, it's simple but some insist on making it complicated -
-------------------------------------------
Subject: State Land Surveying Laws Impacting GIS Professionals
In the example of determining whether a hydrant is 500 feet from a school. If the GIS showed it was well within 500 feet both sides could merely stipulate that fact so it is no longer in contention and a surveyor wouldn't be needed. If either side challenged the distance then a licensed surveyor would be needed.
------------------------------
?ÿ
?ÿ
?ÿ
Licensing is not a topic really concerns me. My interest is in the application of mathematics to surveying, primarily coordinate systems. However, much of the same mathematics applies to GIS. In addition, GIS can be a valuable storage medium for coordinate information, but that doesn??t happen as an automatic byproduct. It takes careful thought, rigorous initial set-up, and constant monitoring to make it so.
Consider, for example, accessible records of survey monuments in the Seattle GIS:
Look at the GIS-produced data sheet for Benchmark 3673-3701.
There is a lot of data here, including the following (US survey feet):
|
Northing (Feet) |
225,341.0000 |
|
Easting (Feet) |
1,270,470.0000 |
|
Northing (Meter) |
68,683.0000 |
|
Easting (Meter) |
387,239.0000 |
Some quick calculator work gives 225341*12/39.37 = 68,684.07, a full meter different for the Northing. Perhaps the ??feet? are rounded to a whole number, even though the format shows accuracy to 4 decimal places. We can check that with two calculations. First convert 225,340.5 feet to m
eters and then convert 225,341.5 feet to meters. The results should bracket the published meters value:
225340.5*12/39.37 = 68,683.92
225341.5*12/39.37 = 68,684.23
The published value is not between these two values, so something went awry somewhere else. Later on, we??re told that horizontal accuracy is <=50.000 meters/164.042 feet, a correct units conversion.
The indicated precision and accuracy of units conversions vary widely from point to point. If the simple math is wrong, should I be suspicious of the rest of the record? Maybe not, but I am. Sloppiness in one area makes me question the rigor in other areas.
But let??s go further. Just after the accuracy statement, we find this:
|
Latitude Deg Min Sec |
47 36 28.36620 |
|
Longitude Deg Min Sec |
-122 19 59.30765 |
These coordinates are stated to an accuracy of roughly +/- 0.3mm. How is that possible?
Well, it turns out that these are the lat/lon values that result when the nearest-foot Northing and Easting are submitted to NCAT. Nearest-foot coordinates have turned into sub-meter coordinates.
As a monument finding guide, all of this may be acceptable, but these coordinates could not be used directly in a survey. Furthermore, the implication for property line accuracy is not good.
As a second example, let??s look at the City of Scottsdale:
?ÿ https://eservices.scottsdaleaz.gov/maps/benchmarks
The coordinates here are given as Northings and Eastings in the City of Scottsdale Coordinate system. This system uses an average combined factor of 0.999801686. The description is sketchy, but the conversion from State Plane to City can be done like this:
City Northing = 976,264.328 + (State Plane Northing ?? 976,264.328)/0.999801686
City Easting = 712,943.084 + (Sta
te Plane Easting ?? 712,943.084)/0.999801686
The base coordinates are for city monument 7192 whose City and State Plane coordinates are equal to each other.
In the pop-up for a point, the only coordinates given are the City Coordinates. You should be able to get to State Plane and lat/lon by reversing the formulas.
Now, here??s the problem. There are very few ways to check the accuracy. City Point P0003 is NGS monument McDowell, DU2204. The coordinate conversion works flawlessly for this point. However, City Point 0002 should be NGS Buford, DU2222. For this point, the conversion produces values some 13 feet different. But City point 6062 converts to +/- 0.1 foot of NGS point AI3355. The Paradise Valley GIS shows lat/lon and some of its points are also in the Scottsdale system. Adjusting from probably HARN for Paradise Valley to NAD83(86) for Scottsdale gets close.
For me, the most useful one is Teton County, WY. This is so because those folks make Shape and associated files available for download along with data sheets for the points. Comparison of coordinates from machine to the hard copy source allows for some minimal checking and lets me develop whatever map I want.
In my humble opinion, GIS has a ways to go before it??s even useful to surveyors let alone able to replace surveyors. Licensing will not cure haphazard data shop procedures or sloppy programming. And limiting the amount of data shown is counterproductive.
I have great respect for GIS technology and great respect for surveyors. In GIS as in surveying, the devil is in the details and disciplined implementation is key to success.
??Best regards? to both.
?ÿ
?ÿ
?ÿ
?ÿ
Reminds me of this short story?ÿ by Asimov:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Machine_That_Won_the_War_(short_story)
Full text:
https://mcraenglish.weebly.com/uploads/1/5/8/7/15876062/the_machine_that_won_the_war01.pdf
Whenever coordinates are expressed in that fashion you can be sure they aren't surveyed values. It's also possible that they are no where near the actual position of the physical monument. Surveying at a desk can produce some sketchy numbers. They may have come from drawings or simply looking at photos.?ÿ
As to Teton County mapping, this was done by Greenwood Mapping founded by a land surveyor. I'm not well versed in their mapping since there isn't much work there. But when I was bidding on a project I could tell it would be very useful, the amount of information available is impressive. Including at least a partial abstract for the parcels I looked at.?ÿ
Teton County GIS is impressive. When you download the Shp files, you get everything. i haven't done it and probably won't but it's possible to submit the whole thing to NCAT and check every lat/lon vs state plane coordinate.
That's the way it should be. There's no need to guard that data form, at least in my opinion.?ÿ
?ÿ
I can see why it's so well done. Tons of county cash (252k per capita average on a 22k population) and a Land surveyor who went to grad school for GIS, and works with other GIS personnel whom are also big time programmer.
That's the best example I've seen of how GIS and Land surveying exist awesome team!
Jackson and Jackson Hole are upscale for sure. The development and management of the GIS are an example of what to do. Understand that I've never developed a GIS. What I have done many times is manage projects to install large computer systems and, rightly or wrongly, I've always viewed GIS development as systems installations, and that's hard work.
There's so much more to it than hiring a few young geography majors and telling them what you want at the end. You have to identify the real customers and determine their needs. Then you need to know how those needs are currently satisfied and how your system can improve that. The folks currently filling those needs are your best sources of help, so you have to give them a good reason to help you. Finally, you have to organize so that all of your talent has a role and understands what they are to do. And remember, the total system is the computer and everyone who interacts with it in any way at all.
GIS is such a great concept. You can tell by the cooperation between Esri and Autodesk how the leaders of those companies see potential markets and they go beyond rendering bicycle trails on Chromebook screens.
On the other hand, requiring surveyors to conform to government GIS inputs and displays is not a good approach. Neither is holding information without displaying it. If GIS and GIS professionals are so great, then they should be able to adjust to a variety of input formats. Program it once and it's there forever. That's far more efficient that requiring a hundred different people to program it once each.
I'm an old guy used to computers and mathematics and management. If I've wrongly characterized the current GIS environment, please set me straight.
I would just like to see the tool achieve its potential.
?ÿ
?ÿ
Big Blue influenced; 26 years with an IBM insurance company customer, although most of my time was spent negotiating requirements between users and analysts and pushing daily progress on projects. It was a COBOL/Assembler shop, I was a FORTRAN/Machine Language guy with actuarial experience, so I could speak enough "user" and "analyst" language to mediate disputes. I also had a bit of clout, and that helped a lot.
I still own IBM stock (4.4% dividend yield now), buy more when the price falls to a 6% yield, and buy Lenovo computers (yes, I know they're Chinese, but I also know their lineage). When Big Blue bought Red Hat, they showed that they are serious about the cloud.
The things that intrigue me about GIS are the data storage and calculation power. The things that intrigue me about surveying are the human data storage and calculation power. I sense that surveyors feel the human importance to their field is slipping away. While surveying software and GIS offer tremendous productivity improvements, the cost of exchanging human cognition for machine power is high.
What's on the ground is key to surveying and GIS professionals need to understand that. Surveyors describe the ground with both words and numbers, with huge weight placed on both, but the ground rules. I don't know how often GISers visit the ground, but, from comments here, it seems that it might not be enough.
I've consumed reams of triangulation data from old C&GS publications, but I've never stood at the top of a Bilby tower during nighttime looking for a light shining from a similar distant setup. But every time I look at azimuth/distance from one peak to another, I think about how those numbers were obtained. I can store them in a computer and work (play?) with them algorithmically to my heart's content. But I never forget how they came about and what they mean.
Ultimately, the commonality between Esri and Autodesk may drive the process. At least one common language may emerge to help bridge the gap.
?ÿ
Truly serendipitous for this topic to receive this input.?ÿ I was occupying a desk supporting internal mainframe financial applications and left for exploration geophysical data collection due to job leaving to another country company in Big blue.
Yes. The two are the human glue that the data needs to make it relevant, otherwise it's just a big box doing efficient processing, with no overall value.
I was there when they proudly rolled out the OS390 redhat campaign. They were slightly worried that Sun oracle Storage Tek would take a substantial part of their pie.
I had a functional original monochromatic Thinkpad that I finally found the nerve to have recycled. And now a travel Lenovo Thinkpad.
Funny how were all a lot closer than we think or know to each other than we realize at times.
The reason the Teton County GIS is the gold standard is because it's surveyor based, not so much because of funding. Teton County's assessed valuation paled in comparison to the rich counties in the state?ÿ during the time GIS was being implemented. Basically is was cause of Rich Greenwood jumping in and taking control of the process.?ÿ
His mapping programs are being used in many counties now, however, that didn't get the parcel data fixed for location or the cadastral info embedded like it is in Teton county. The other issue with Teton County is there is little ownership in the county, most of the county is Federal only a small percentage has any need for GIS parcel data.?ÿ
The reason the Teton County GIS is the gold standard is because it's surveyor based
Kitsap County was too
Compared to Kitsap; King County is a joke
If you could have three features in a local GIS, what would they be?
There are many features imbedded inside a GIS so picking out only three isn't very productive.
But if you mean 3 additional features then I would want an abstract of the land, all the plats (subdivisions) and maps (ROS, COS) linked to the parcel back to the GLO plat and a link to all water petitions, Order Records, Plats, ect.?ÿ
That would be the dream GIS.?ÿ
Not going to happen anytime soon.?ÿ
That first section shows either an actual or feigned level of ignorance that is appalling.?ÿ Pretty much every situation the author equates to surveying without a license is not even applicable.?ÿ Asking family members for an opinion on a subject which they have no expertise in is not the same as paying someone without appropriate knowledge of the subject for their inexpert opinion.?ÿ Neighbors agreeing to a solution for a problem that is near the boundary is not a surveying issue - it is when they don't agree that problems arise.?ÿ Defining political boundaries is addressed in many surveying licensing regulations as outside the scope of the licensing law, so it is a non-issue.
With that level of lack of knowledge, it is a surety that said person will have a vocal and wrong opinion.
Which is why I started the thread.
Thank you for saying something about that.
It's not an isolated opinion unfortunately in the Larger GIS community.?ÿ?ÿ
