http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2019-20/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/2860.pdf?q=20200130113401
?ÿ
?ÿ
This appears to be turning responsibility for the choices of zone and foot definitions over to the NGS.?ÿ ?ÿ
The foot definition is a done deal.?ÿ Texas is redefining zones too.?ÿ Just not refined and approved.
The international foot is going to rule.?ÿ You should start labeling what foot you are using to
avoid confusion in the future.
Nearly every jurisdiction echos the work of NGS in statute. It makes sense to do it by reference if possible rather than burning pol-cap to keep up. At the very least put it in admin rules to speed up the process...
When we developed the Oregon Coordinate Reference System zones we made the conscience decision to work with our legislators to remove the definition our systems from the Oregon Revised Statutes and place them in the under administrative rules governed by ODOT.?ÿ The managing committee is made up of a mixture of government and private surveyors as well as GIS folks.?ÿ Makes it really nice not to have to run the legislative gauntlet when you want to add a zone.?ÿ
Oregon placed it in the hands of the DOT. Because there was a person at the DOT taking a leading role. In the case of Washington my understanding is that no one at the DOT, nor anyone else with pull, has any interest in getting involved. But somebody should. NGS will not have funding nor any special interest in what goes on in WA, and nothing will happen.
That's not the case. NGS will develop systems for any State that asks as long as you do so within the policy framework they have established.
I was speaking about Oregon's effort to remove control of our coordinate systems from the hands of the legislators. Mark is correct that we had a great champion, Ron Singh, at ODOT.
As for the creation of the low distortion projections, the effort was coordinated by ODOT in an effort to enhance their project workflow. A group of about 10 of us from various private firms and government agencies got together to create the original group of projection. We were aided by the expertise of Michael Dennis and his helpful software tools. Michael is currently at NGS.
My understanding, which could be incorrect, is that NGS will set up the framework for LDP's but will not actually develop them.
The international foot is going to rule.?ÿ You should start labeling what foot you are using to
avoid confusion in the future.
It's weird how many people are screaming that the iFt is going to cause the sky to fall.
I can't remember putting out a single survey, recorded or not, where I did not explicitly state "Distances shown hereon are in U.S. Survey Feet". It's like calling out basis of bearings, geodetic basis of coordinates, combined scale factor, etc. Best practices. When we switch, the assumption will be that work performed before the switch was in sFt, if it is not called out as such.
"Some surveyors do not employ best practices" is not a reason to halt improvements/changes to the NSRS.
And if you are doing WA SPC (NAD83), then you are by definition using US Survey foot. When we go to the new reference frame/datum, then it will all be iFt, by definition.
I suppose that there are some legal descriptions that cover multiple miles where you could miss closure by a tenth. I don't know if I have ever seen a legal that defined the type of foot. It will be interesting to see how best practices handles a call of a radius of 5000 feet.
(Cue the uproar over accuracy and how precise our work needs to be.)
... any LDP design process should represent input from?ÿ a broad range of stakeholders (who are also willing to volunteer and fund).?ÿ Want LDPs? Step up, volunteer, seek funding...?ÿ No bucks, no Buck Rogers...
Agreed. The NGS will design and document zones. That is relatively easy to do. Getting agreement on what the zones will be is far less so, and has to be a local thing. If no organization inside the state is interested enough why should the NGS do anything other than let the sleeping dog lie?
I'd prefer to see furnishings rather than just having the door to an empty room left unlocked.?ÿ Nevertheless, it beats being shut out in the cold.?ÿ
?ÿ
I thought that NGS was willing to design a statewide and state plane zones for a state unless the stakeholders wanted to propose their one. What NGS won't do is design LDPs. A state has to design those themselves and then have NGS approve them.
