The outfit that did the work established an elevation of 80.86' on an Al cap on site using OPUS. I happened to have a nearby control point (.5 miles) from some work I did a couple of months ago that I had an OPUS on and great sky and I used it to RTK in and check the elevation holding the elevation on my control point. I get an elevation of 80.16, so about .7' difference. Okay. So I do another fresh set up using my control point and do 10 minute PPK obs on the same point, get a fresh OPUS on my base to use, and get almost exactly the same result for both my base point and the AL cap in question. At this point I'm more than a little stumped, so I do a direct static on the Al cap in question for 2+ hours, and get an ortho height of 80.72'. The cap in question was set a couple of years ago by another surveyor I know and they forwarded me their control sheet for it which shows an elevation for this as 79.94'.

As a sidenote, I've matched up near perfect on a couple of the other benchmarks of theirs I've checked.

Next week I'm going to borrow a couple of other receivers and do a simultaneous obs on both for 2 plus hours. I've checked everything I can think of and still don't know why I'm getting this .7' discrepancy. Any ideas? Trimble gear, R780 and R12i, using Access and TBC for the post processing. The only thing I can think of is it might have something to do with the CORS stations OPUS is using? Still, seems like a lot. 

TIA and have a great day.

• When do two wrongs make a right? When they are equal in size and opposite in sign. 

• There is no such thing as a random error; you just haven't been able to put your finger on it yet.

After sending the information to the FHA, he received the following reply (actual letter):

"Upon review of your letter adjoining your client's loan application, we note that the request is supported by an Abstract of Title. While we compliment the able manner in which you have prepared and presented the application, we must point out that you have only cleared title to the proposed collateral proper back to 1803. Before final approval can be accorded, it will be necessary to clear the title back to its origin."

Annoyed, the lawyer responded as follows (actual letter):

"Your letter regarding title in Case No. 189156 has been received. I note that you wish to have title extended further than the 194 years covered by the present application. I was unaware that any educated person in this country, particularly those working in the property area, could not know that Louisiana was purchased by the U.S. from France in 1803, the year of origin identified in our application. For the edification of uninformed FHA bureaucrats, the title to the land prior to U.S. ownership was obtained from France, which had acquired it by Right of Conquest from Spain. The land came into possession of Spain by Right of Discovery made in the year 1492 by a sea captain named Christopher Columbus, who had been granted the privilege of seeking a new route to India by the then reigning monarch, Isabella. The good queen, being a pious woman and careful about titles, almost as much as the FHA, took the precaution of securing the blessing of the Pope before she sold her jewels to fund Columbus' expedition. Now the Pope, as I'm sure you know, is an emissary of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. And God, it is commonly accepted, created this world. Therefore, I believe it is safe to presume that He also made that part of the world called Louisiana. He, therefore, would be the owner of origin. I hope to hell you find his original claim to be satisfactory. Now, may we have our loan?"

They got it.

Monday is the day of it: buses to Mount Rushmore, dedication of an NSPS commemorative marker, and presentations on the memorial's survey history — plus an NGS session on NSRS modernization, which is the first time I've seen them put that in front of a general audience with a date attached to it.

The afternoon splits two ways. Crazy Horse Memorial, capped at 200, covers the carving and the surveying and monitoring behind it, including a presentation from the mountain crew. Or the Sanford Underground Research Facility in Lead, capped at 55, covering that site's surveying background and a trip down to the first level below the surface.

Tuesday is the NSPS fall business meeting.

It's $200 for the celebration, and online registration closes October 14. Monday is capped at 250 and both afternoon tours cap lower, so the SURF option especially isn't going to last.

https://nsps.us.com/events/EventDetails.aspx?id=2048002

Anyone going? And if you've ever been in the Crazy Horse mountain shop or down at SURF, I'd like to hear about it either way.

Since the area has been developed with streets, the cul-de-sac has become a bit of an anachronism for access. The developer doesn't want give access to the south lot into the cul-de-sac. The cul-de-sac can't be removed because one existing property uses it for access and that property lies to the south and west side of the cul-de-sac. The developer wants the south lot to only use the existing street to the east for a driveway, however, since the lot will abut the cul-de-sac the regulations are that any building needs to be 25' from the right of way of the cul-de-sac. Also there is an existing irrigation line running just north of the cul-de-sac and out of the right of way. 

So we had a meeting with the developer, the engineer, and decided to use the spite strip blocking access to the state highway (called an outlot on the existing plat) wrap it around the south lot thereby extending the outlot to the street to the east and blocking the south lot from the cul-de-sac. Now the 5' wide strip captures the existing irrigation line, blocks the lot building a driveway that direction and allows a house to build within 10' of the cul-de-sac right of way, since it's now considered a side yard offset instead of street access. 

Sometimes it pays to use all the tools available. 

You are to create all ten tracts and write a description for a uniform width access easement.  Where does the easement description end?  At the end of the existing lane?  At the boundary line common to Tracts 9 and 10?  Or at the backline of Tract 10?  Or at some point inside Tract 10 where the client points to?  No cul-de-sac.  Just a dirt/gravel path.  Most properties will have no permanent structures as there are strip pits on both sides of the existing lane.  Someone might put in a fishing shack somewhere.

Their words: it will test "minimum competency on non-boundary content for any NCEES member boards that choose to issue such a license."

No board has committed to issuing one. But the exam is being built, and when it exists, a board that wants to license geospatial practice without boundary law will have something to license against.

I can see the argument for it. There are people doing photogrammetry and remote sensing work right now under no license and no exam at all, and a non-boundary credential is one answer to that.

I can see the argument against too, and I expect most of you will make it better than I would.

So — should there be a surveying license that never tests boundary law? And if your board issued one, what would you want it to cover, and what would you want it barred from doing?

https://rpls.com/surveyors-mark-america-250-at-mount-rushmore/#ps-geospatial

Same argument from a different angle, a couple of weeks back: Washington will let you sit for the PS before you have the years

Probably nothing to be concerned with for the Lidar topo data. However, we always like to keep things merged correctly. Static data was sent to RTX and the data was only computed in ITRF2020: no NAD83 data given. Ellipsoid heights are 2.3 feet lower for ITRF2020. We use Geoid18 to shift from NAD83 ellipsoid heights, how ITRF2020 is to be treated isn't clear yet. OPUS only shows the Ortho height that is shifted from NAD83 using Geoid18

Be careful out there, things will get very interesting going forward. 

2.3ft will be a huge problem with respect to FEMA. All data will need to be NAVD88 until FEMA maps are changed.