Reply from a perspective client after I explained why my proposal has a clause regarding work outside an initial time frame in case of unforeseen field circumstances:
Okay thanks.
But it would seem to me, with all the technology we have and the documentation, that even with one stake, compass bearing, distances and other pertinent information that, that would be easily accommodated and no doubt frequently encountered.
But I appreciate the clarification.
Best regards,
I gots to get me some 'o that technology!
I have been keeping up with all the lies some of my competitors have been telling clients for years about their new fangeld technologies and what they can do with it.
Have fought the want to put in into print because I am afraid they will come at me for plagiarizing their work.
😉
> Reply from a perspective client after I explained why my proposal has a clause regarding work outside an initial time frame in case of unforeseen field circumstances:
I think I'd regard that as a red flag if you have a prospective client who thinks they know more about what land surveys actually involve than the expert they should think that they are hiring.
Unforeseen difficulties are primarily due to typical errors made by experts with older equipment and practice; and typical errors made by surveyors who believe they are experts because of technology. A computer scientist may refer to the latter as GIGO, Garbage In, Garbage Out and it is unfortunate that the technology will produce results with incorrect data. The typical explanation of such individuals is "Because the computer said so." A true expert would be able to understand how the technology augments his abilities and not the converse. The occasional results of the egotistical technocrat result in unfortunate headaches for a property owner and a need for a true expert.
Or something like that.
> Unforeseen difficulties are primarily due to typical errors made by experts with older equipment and practice; and typical errors made by surveyors who believe they are experts because of technology.
I think that it may well be that the boiler plate language that references "unforeseen difficulties" may benefit from some tweeking in a way that emphasizes the desired result over the possible forces arrayed against it. "From time to time unusual circumstances are encountered in the course of a survey that require further investigaton. In the somewhat unlikely event that such a matter appears in the course of the work, we will inform you as to its existence and its likely effect upon our estimated schedule for completion of the work."
Perhaps I should better describe. Nobody seems to understand positional tolerance. Those 1800's surveys meeting a 1:400 were great for the day; now the results would be laughable.
My father spoke with the GIS Tech at the Town last week. He has stated that the LiDAR used for the new FEMA Maps is so 'perfect'. He has fed this to some of the other Town Staff who are now looking at how great it is.
We have aerial topographical maps across the whole Town from 2000 that meet the same standard and are the same quality plus or minus one GIS unit. (I like making simple units of measure that mean nothing)
Excellent point . . . we have a competitor here who constantly tells clients that his survey is more accurate "because he uses GPS." This is shameful, because people believe it!! I would love to find a good article to reprint in the local paper regarding this.
