My thoughts are that ALL tasks in the model laws from state to state are the same EXCEPT boundary. It seems a portable license works for ALL but boundary IMO.
Some of the arguments in the responses I think are valid, BUT no amount of testing will cure poor surveying practice. As stated, I am licensed in five states. Would I do boundary in all five? No, it is not possible to know everything about boundary in five states despite passing a state specific exam in each. In fact, I doubt I would be inclined to take on a boundary someplace else in my state of residence outside of a local county or so around where I have lived and worked for decades, so much changes region to region even in the same state. The only way to get competent in an area is lots of study, mentoring and actually working there. Unfortunately lots of licensed folks can't measure, let alone survey and everyone of them passed a test. If you are good, you put in the time to learn what needs to be done, if you aren't you just skate by. Practicing within your competence level is rare for most, they have a license and rubber stamp in ignorance. Even today (29 years after getting 1st licensed) if I am outside my home state in one of the other four where I am licensed, I review the applicable statutes if I am unsure on what is required for my little area of practice (control surveys).
I have seen a lot of work regarding just control over the last 30 years come through the door at various mapping firms where I worked and doing an excellent job including complete metadata is rare. A lot of firms may have the PLS on staff, BUT they in no way are doing the work, but hey it checks a box. Box checking is easy for BOR's to enforce, BUT evaluating for competence seems much more difficult.
I don't know. Just because you pass the test, does not mean you have a clue about local boundary situations. Being registered in a state not contiguous to where you live, has me forming opinions about you and how you survey. Out of towners come in to survey our larger commercial sites (since us hics don't know anything), screw everything up, make us to take the blame (stupid local surveyors) and leave the clean up to the locals. Even the municipalities allow them to over-plat right-of-ways and neighboring property, and shrug it off, since they are no longer here. If we did that, they would clean out clock, report us to the board and make us pay to fix it.?ÿ
I think if you want a license in a different state, you need to work there a while, until you know what the heck you are doing.?ÿ
I think if you want a license in a different state, you need to work there a while, until you know what the heck you are doing.?ÿ
I certainly think that is valid at least for boundary work.
Maybe a two tier licensing scheme is warranted. One for everything but boundary and boundary ONLY.
My understanding is Texas has two classes of surveyor licenses; Registered Professional Land Surveyor (RPLS) and Licensed State Land Surveyor (LSLS). I don't know the particulars, BUT obviously they can do different tasks and maybe that is a valid model?
SHG
@holy-cow?ÿ ?ÿ Which is why the GLO Manuel is no longer referenced in Florida Surveying Standards of Practice. Any duface can prorate two intersecting lines without reviewing a single deed, tie associated references, review anecdotal material;?ÿ and poke out his chest and say how he surveys 'by the book'.
@dmyhill you did misunderstand. I'm not for deregulation, I'm for smart regulation.
@holy-cow And sometimes it's the local.?ÿ Sometimes lack of knowledge, sometimes lack of caring, sometimes economical duress due to poor business practices.?ÿ We could regulate that the landowners do it themselves; after all nobody is localer than they. How could they ever get it wrong if they walk it together?
I agree with Duane.
My thoughts are that ALL tasks in the model laws from state to state are the same EXCEPT boundary. It seems a portable license works for ALL but boundary IMO.
Agree one thousand percent.
Unfortunately lots of licensed folks can't measure, let alone survey and everyone of them passed a test. If you are good, you put in the time to learn what needs to be done, if you aren't you just skate by.
Yep. This is why more rigorous requirements for education, training and testing should be implemented. And the boundary portion needs to be a separate endorsement that one cannot sit for unless they go through the foundational (portable) licensing process. Perhaps add a few other higher-level endorsements...
If someone can't competently measure, they can't competently measure a boundary. It's either that or split out the licenses so that whoever evaluates the boundary is removed from the measurement process.
I have seen a lot of work regarding just control over the last 30 years come through the door at various mapping firms where I worked and doing an excellent job including complete metadata is rare. A lot of firms may have the PLS on staff, BUT they in no way are doing the work, but hey it checks a box. Box checking is easy for BOR's to enforce, BUT evaluating for competence seems much more difficult.
Unfortunately, I see a lot of those licensees doing the work, but doing it incorrectly, because they can't measure competently. But because they passed that entry level test and are "in charge" they don't get challenged when they screw something up.
Part of this is why many States do not include certain work functions within the realm of licensure as a LAND surveyor.?ÿ They have that function within the Professional Engineer realm of licensure.
LAND surveying is a very worthy profession by itself.
@dmyhill when the ditbags can act a fool with impunity, good surveyors (and the public) suffer.
I sense some above posters are stating the testing (and experience, references, etc.) requirement has become too lenient and applicants who are not qualified pass.?ÿ The other side of the coin is lots of folks (70%, 2016 CA statistics) fail, some over and over again, so it does provide a bar which the grossly incompetent cannot hurdle.