Jones, post: 383725, member: 10458 wrote: Maybe they believe the professional can determine what level of accuracy is needed for each project.
So, your theory would be that minimum standards of practice should be whatever the licensee thinks they ought to be? Novel concept and well suited to RTK use, too.
Kent McMillan, post: 383733, member: 3 wrote: You may have missed this part, but the disappearance of accuracy standards in Texas is best explained as a result of the widespread adoption of RTK by surveyors who discovered that they were routinely failing the old standards.
Is this your opinion or fact?
TXSurveyor, post: 383736, member: 6719 wrote: Is this your opinion or fact?
The stated reason for the elimination of old Rule 663.15 was published in the Texas Register as follows:
"The amendment to 663.15 renames the rule as Precision and Accuracy. The amended rule is adopted to eliminate specific positional tolerance requirements which were determined by surveying means and methods that the Board now considers outmoded. The amendment acknowledges that more current methods and equipment, such as GPS, for example, are presently employed by land surveyors to attain accuracy and precision in measurement."
The entry in the Texas Register regarding the elimination of accuracy standards goes on (on Page 5504):
"Public comments were received regarding 663.15 saying that the Board needed to include tolerances in the rule text because the language was vague otherwise. The Board felt the change to this rule was necessary to account for modern technology used in the field, such as GPS. The surveyor, based on the equipment being used, should determine the appropriate tolerance. The Board rejected the suggestions."
In other words, the stated reason for the rule was the use of GPS, which has become pretty much synonymous with RTK. The Board thought that a standard accuracy tolerance of 1:10,000 + 0.10 ft. was "outmoded" and chose not to adopt any accuracy standards at all. Considering that RTK GPS would easily fail the old standard in many cases and that no standard replaced it, what other reasonable inference for the purpose of the rule change should be drawn?
The new rule provides:
"Survey measurements shall be made with equipment and methods of practice capable of attaining the accuracy and tolerances required by the professional land surveying services being performed."
But does not impose any requirement whatsoever upon the accuracy or error tolerances of the survey. It has "RTK" written all over it.
Here's a link to the Texas Register, Volume 38 August 23, 2013 Page 5503
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth342079/m1/133/
O not so. Since we are making this up as we go, so I suppose it is because as the texas bor left the superbowl, some 20 yrs ago, they could not find their cars, so they held a vote, and decided to get rid of min stds, to make it easier to find their cars. Yup. That best explains it. And Texas is a big place.
Um hum. But, thats ok. We can send em an rtk crew, to put em right... 🙂
Maybe even some water too!
Sent from my VS880PP using Tapatalk
Well, when you abandon a rule that specifies certain positional accuracies in favor of a rule that only requires in effect that "the surveyor shall use the equipment that he uses to make the survey" and you specifically reject any suggestion that some uncertainty tolerances should be specified, there really isn't any positive way to spin that.
The remaining question is "Why?" and the above provides the answer. It's to accommodate the use of "GPS", which mainly means RTK and Network RTK GPS and GNSS. There isn't much question but that RTK had eroded standards and this is an example where the standards completely disappeared beyond the exhortation to "use the equipment that you feel you must use to make the survey, and let's all hope it works out, but if it doesn't, hey, stuff happens."
I think it's novel that you believe accuracy standards reduce the number of poor surveys.
Kent McMillan, post: 383739, member: 3 wrote: The stated reason for the elimination of old Rule 663.15 was published in the Texas Register as follows:
"The amendment to 663.15 renames the rule as Precision and Accuracy. The amended rule is adopted to eliminate specific positional tolerance requirements which were determined by surveying means and methods that the Board now considers outmoded. The amendment acknowledges that more current methods and equipment, such as GPS, for example, are presently employed by land surveyors to attain accuracy and precision in measurement."
The entry in the Texas Register regarding the elimination of accuracy standards goes on (on Page 5504):
"Public comments were received regarding 663.15 saying that the Board needed to include tolerances in the rule text because the language was vague otherwise. The Board felt the change to this rule was necessary to account for modern technology used in the field, such as GPS. The surveyor, based on the equipment being used, should determine the appropriate tolerance. The Board rejected the suggestions."
In other words, the stated reason for the rule was the use of GPS, which has become pretty much synonymous with RTK. The Board thought that a standard accuracy tolerance of 1:10,000 + 0.10 ft. was "outmoded" and chose not to adopt any accuracy standards at all. Considering that RTK GPS would easily fail the old standard in many cases and that no standard replaced it, what other reasonable inference for the purpose of the rule change should be drawn?
The new rule provides:
"Survey measurements shall be made with equipment and methods of practice capable of attaining the accuracy and tolerances required by the professional land surveying services being performed."
But does not impose any requirement whatsoever upon the accuracy or error tolerances of the survey. It has "RTK" written all over it.
Here's a link to the Texas Register, Volume 38 August 23, 2013 Page 5503
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth342079/m1/133/
Well, there ya go. And I expect the next ALTA revision is going to be written after much consideration of this as well. If a manufacturer can show reliable built in checks and procedures (proven by scientific experimentation) it would go a long way to recognition of rtk as acceptable for ALTA work. For instance at one time there was a statement that angles needed to be doubled unless a 3" or better instrument was used and listed closures instead of statistical methods. Then it went to .07' 95% however you can get it. Maybe the title industry really only needs .07' 95% per point if it will reduce costs.
Jones, post: 383750, member: 10458 wrote: I think it's novel that you believe accuracy standards reduce the number of poor surveys.
Actually, accuracy standards reduce the number of poor surveyors since they provide a basis for disciplining them. No accuracy standards at all means that there is no basis for even admonishing any sort of grossly incompetent measurement practices. If the ability to make measurements to some known standard were not central to land surveying practice, it wouldn't matter. Surveyors could just pace distances or scale them using Google Earth.
Duane Frymire, post: 383759, member: 110 wrote: Well, there ya go. And I expect the next ALTA revision is going to be written after much consideration of this as well. If a manufacturer can show reliable built in checks and procedures (proven by scientific experimentation) it would go a long way to recognition of rtk as acceptable for ALTA work.
Well, why not adopt the present Texas approach of stating that the surveyor should just use equipment that in theory might be able to produce some sort of accurate measurements, but without stating what constitutes an acceptably accurate measurement? Let's anticipate the use of cell phones for making land surveys at the "customer-friendly" end of the cost spectrum instead of constantly having to revise standards downward to accommodate market forces.
For instance at one time there was a statement that angles needed to be doubled unless a 3" or better instrument was used and listed closures instead of statistical methods. Then it went to .07' 95% however you can get it. Maybe the title industry really only needs .07' 95% per point if it will reduce costs.
The difference is properly one of specifying results, rather than methods and procedures, with the exception that some standard methods of demonstrating and documenting results that would apply across the spectrum of technology are necessary. That is exactly what minimum positional uncertainty standards like those of the ALTA/NSPS specification do. It's what Texas had in place, although with more relaxed accuracy depending upon the status of the land.
jpb, post: 383729, member: 9284 wrote: Not at all. I would not set a corner this way. But to set a front lot corner with a normal 25'x140' or 50'x140' lotting, with a found monument on either side, how would you not be well within the OLD standards to pull a tape from corner to corner?
I think Kent was referring to the tape being a fiberglass tape, and a fiberglass tape will "stretch". You need a Clad tape with a tension handle.
Is today Groundhog day again?
Kent McMillan, post: 383762, member: 3 wrote: Actually, accuracy standards reduce the number of poor surveyors since they provide a basis for disciplining them. No accuracy standards at all means that there is no basis for even admonishing any sort of grossly incompetent measurement practices. If the ability to make measurements to some known standard were not central to land surveying practice, it wouldn't matter. Surveyors could just pace distances or scale them using Google Earth.
I never stated that standards are not important, my point was that maybe Texas thought some professional judgement could be used. In some places a 1 in 10000 would not suffice but yet still meet the minimum.
Scott Ellis, post: 383765, member: 7154 wrote: I think Kent was referring to the tape being a fiberglass tape, and a fiberglass tape will "stretch". You need a Clad tape with a tension handle.
There's that as well as the basic consideration that if a relative positional error of 0.10 ft. between two monuments so unacceptable as to constitute incompetent practice, what should the working tolerance be to be more than reasonably certain that the maximum error has not been exceeded. Obviously, it will be less than 50% of the maximum and if each endpoint is positioned by a sideshot, the maximum allowable working tolerance in the position of each is significantly less than that.
Let's separate some of the issues that are on the table. The MIXING of non related issues is causing a general headache to all.
1.) Kent is a surveyor. He strives for excellence. He has got the tools to do it, (Least Squares, Static GPS, Some flavor of Total Station, ) Some Toyota truck, and a straw hat.
2.) Kent felt obligated to perform to Min Standards. Then , somebody went and changed the Min standards, so that in TEXAS there pretty much was no positional tolerance requirement.
3.) A number of practitioners have bought GPS, in different flavors. Kent is competing with these practitioners. It is giving him headaches. Because his "numbers are solid, and he has the math to prove it". Whereas, some of his competitors are doing "wham bam thank ya ma'am" surveying.
4.) Kent has NOW gone to the ALTA standards, to find a niche for his high performance activities, and essentially pours hate, contempt, and general dislike for all other methods.
Now, before ANYBODY thinks I am against doing good work, let me say, Kent is probably doing some good work. (I have never retraced him, So, I have no personal knowledge of this)
However, there is alot going on, and not all of it is bad. It just needs analysis.
When I see a plat, and the NAME on the plat, I can pretty well tell you the accuracy standards of that practitioner. For some, this varies, with the DATE of practice.
So, there is a whole group of surveying instruments called "Total Stations". They come in all flavors and kinds, colors and varying accuracies. Same is true of Compasses.
Same is true of GPS.
There is Static, post processed GPS
There is RTK. (Real Time Kinimatic)
There is PPK (Post Processed Kinimatic)
There is PPS (Post Processed Static)
Some surveys get done with all the above. Some get mixed and matched, in many ways.
But, the bottom line is that the NAME on the plat, will pretty well tell you how accurate that instrument is. With only few exceptions.
But, Kent seems to link and group everybody who performs surveying, into 2 groups.
Group A: Those who have DIRECT numbers to associate with every pin, or corner on a given survey.
Group B: Those who have indirect numbers to associate with every pin, or corner on a given survey. He has grouped along with this group every negative he has had experience in surveying.
(I'm sure we can enter a drum roll, and another KM diatribe here...)
But, I associate the name on the plat more than the methods used, to tell me what I have.
So, if you use a compass, a tape, and a theodolite (all flavors), and a GPS, (all flavors) and you know how to put it all together, you can do good work.
And, if you are ethically deficient, your work may have good numbers on paper, yet not be good work in the field.
It is easier to cast dispersion on the tools, than to admit we all have sinners hearts.
So, I hope every body has a good day, and properly sorts all the flotsam, and jetsam of this discussion.
I will add, I once knew a surveyor, who USED a transit, and 100' tape. He only used the compass needle in the transit. His work is solid. Generally his plats closed by 1:1000', and in 100' you could have 3' of error. BUT all his monuments were out there. And, he was retraceable. I honor his work, 99% of the time.
And, another surveyor, his plats always close, but the monuments vary widely, and you never know what you have, and it is impossible to tell from his legend what is found, or set, and it is a labor of analysis. He also does NOT show the markers he disagrees with. I found one of his, jobs, that had 3 monuments, His plat only said Fd. Mon. Impossible to tell what he used. The 3 monuments were 7' 3' and 1' from his math.
Surveying is a challenging, and demanding profession. Tell what you did. Use high positional tolerances. Use equipment you understand, and can trust. Work hard. And, Don't let Kent's diatribe keep you from knowing what is going on in the profession.
One of the things we MUST understand is the tools a given practitioner uses. And how they used them. This is never more true.
And, I love my Javad.
Nate
Nate
Jones, post: 383772, member: 10458 wrote: I never stated that standards are not important, my point was that maybe Texas thought some professional judgement could be used. In some places a 1 in 10000 would not suffice but yet still meet the minimum.
I'd think that it's self evident that if you have no rule in force, there is no rule. So declining to specify survey accuracy means that survey accuracy doesn't matter. It's an obvious accommodation to RTK users to merely say that a surveyor should use equipment that in theory, on a good day, in ideal circumstances could give a good result, but without stating what consitutes a good result. In other words, the rule is completely unenforceable for anything other than failure to use surveying equipment or some other unspecified technology.
Nate The Surveyor, post: 383777, member: 291 wrote: Let's separate some of the issues that are on the table.
It is easier to cast dispersion on the tools, than to admit we all have sinners hearts.
Alrighty then. If one were to translate that into a rule, wouldn't be:
"The surveyor shall try to do a good job if he feels it might be possible, but if'n he doesn't, that doesn't make him a bad person, only someone trying to scrape by."
for 10+ years or so a survey company in Canada (I worked for) did boundary surveys with RTK 90%, and than something bad happened, nobody knows what was it, because company policy is not to reveal. After that a new RTK policy popped up: RTK all boundary pins, than set up new base and RTK all those pins again. (two bases have rtk vector between them of course)
So much more field time (money) all of a sudden was worth to put in in order to check such a reliable and productive method.
Pipeline boundaries are long (tenth to hundred kilometers) so RTK is natural choice..... but do you want to sleep well after you sign the boundary ???
lmbrls, post: 383769, member: 6823 wrote: Is today Groundhog day again?
Yuriy Lutsyshyn, post: 383782, member: 2507 wrote: for 10+ years or so a survey company in Canada (I worked for) did boundary surveys with RTK 90%, and than something bad happened, nobody knows what was it, because company policy is not to reveal. After that a new RTK policy popped up: RTK all boundary pins, than set up new base and RTK all those pins again. (two bases have rtk vector between them of course)
So much more field time (money) all of a sudden was worth to put in in order to check such a reliable and productive method.
Pipeline boundaries are long (tenth to hundred kilometers) so RTK is natural choice..... but do you want to sleep well after you sign the boundary
Yes, doing things the quickest way possible no matter how much it costs is in the long run usually significantly more expensive than doing them in a reliable manner.
Kent McMillan, post: 383732, member: 3 wrote: Under the old standards, a corner that was re-established within the incorporated limits of a city and reported to be in a position more than 1:10,000 + 0.10 away from where it actually was placed would have been considered evidence of incompetent practice. For a lot with a frontage of 50 ft., that would amount to an error greater than 0.10 ft. in the reported position of a front corner as located constituting incompetent practice.
So, that meant that if 0.10 ft. was incompetent practice, what standard would a surveyor need to work to in order to be certain to be within standard? The answer is that if the maximum size of the 95%-confidence relative error ellipse between the two corners as reported is to be 0.10 ft., then a surveyor would need to keep keep the uncertainties of the positions of each corner as reported below about +/- 0.03 ft. DRMS. which is not a particularly loose error budget.
If the monument's are found, and within the standards that you mention, they are the corners! Gasp,They could even be the actual corners regardless if they meet meet an arbitrary standard. That is why people are licensed, to have the knowledge, skill, and understanding, and ability to logically come to a solution to the problem. The fencing crew that resets a corner they remove, does not have the licence or knowledge base to make professional decisions in our world.
We are not professional measurers. We measure to help make decisions base on the record, found monument's, missing monuments, chain of title...... That is why we are licensed in our jurisdictions, because we have achieved a level of MINIMAL competency. There are good surveyors and bad surveyors.
If I would choose to set a monument with a rag tape in the above and split the line and set a monument there, you have no right to dispute the monument because you have assigned some arbitrary coordinate to found monuments. I don't care what coordinates you give to them, chances are I have coordinates in them as well. Just because you assign a different coordinate then I did to the corner, gives you no right to reject the monument or talk bad, run down, or degrade someone who does things differently then you would. It is clearly stated in your own rules that you are subject to by the great State of Texas.
