There is an article in PS magazine article called "GIS: The one that almost got away" that makes some very good points about how measuring is not just for surveyors.
I have sensed something in the air recently, and this article says it explicitly, that some think that GIS folks will soon be staking property corners, etc.
to wit (from the article): "GIS is encroaching on the traditional surveyors’ markets. As GIS technology improves, the GIS system is getting closer and closer to the field. Originally GIS fieldwork was done just by logging GPS points directly into the GIS, but with the advent of metadata a whole surveying data structure can be replicated in GIS. Cadastre and land registration is really a GIS application; right now the GIS is office-based but it could very easily expand into direct field data collection and into competition with many surveying systems. Utilities are also big GIS users that are rapidly expanding their GIS into field precision data collection. If you take cadastre and utilities away from surveying, the ONLY major market left for surveyors is construction, and even that isn’t safe from the encroachment of GIS. "
I get the point that others will be locating utilities, etc. But they seem to think property lines are all about coordinates. Coordinates do not necessarily define the limits of real property any more than deed descriptions.
Do they think they can ignore A.C. Mulford? Do they know that finding the real line using legal principles is the important part of the job? That it is better to find the real line than have a great measurement to a wrong line?
Do they even know there are legal principles involved? Do they know that there is evidence that must be evaluated?
The article is nonsense. It's only one persons view of how the two endeavors don't seem to coincide as well as the authors view seems to present.
It's almost silly to even respond to his comments and views.
Measuring has never been solely confined to Land Surveyors. However Boundary Survey's and other types of surveys being controlled by a state board take into account the extent of measuring and have set rules and regs to guide the licensed professionals in doing so. I don't understand how anyone could have even surmised that it is or should be one in the same.
He seems to be a possible know-it-all making what he acknowledged early in the article. General observations.
"Richard Trainer is a designer and programmer of the Cartogoo handheld GIS data collection system, and has worked in both the GIS and surveying industries for many years. He can be contacted at richard.trainer@cartogoo.com."
I believe that there is a nation wide movement to tighten up GIS coordinates. Don't know if that is a good thing for the public. My preference is to publish all GIS data available to the public with a +/- 1 meter warning, even if the coordinates were derived using survey quality methods and equipment. Maybe that would force the courts making any decisions on cases brought to litigation based on GIS data more realistic and a trickle down education of all would naturally occur because of opinions then published. Don't think Surveyors or GIS providers alone or separately can cause or enforce the respect for and need for traditional surveying for boundary issues based on established boundary law, it will take the courts to cause that recognition and acceptance, equipment providers will lobby against that happining on all fronts.
jud
I'm surprised Professional Surveyor published this.
It's full of hyperbole with nothing to back it up.
To think that surveyors will be relegated to construction work is asinine. If anything, they'll be relegated to boundary work.
To think that the result of the Leica/Esri partnership would have had any affect on GIS/land surveyor attitudes is nuts.
The topic is a worthwhile discussion, but the conversation needs to be intelligent.
It will probably create more work because we'll have to clean up the mess made by the "GIS professional" whatever that means. Wait a minute, I'm already doing that!
I agree with you 100%!
GIS is just a tool.
I wonder if 19th century surveyors worried about the newfangled "cogo" being misused?
> GIS is just a tool.
>
> I wonder if 19th century surveyors worried about the newfangled "cogo" being misused?
Not worried about GIS. Great tool, especially for surveyors.
Just wonder if they realize that finding the correct boundary is "a whole different line of work".
I wonder if a lot of Surveyors realize boundary is not just a technical exercise.
Get the Surveyors straight, then worry about the GIS guys.
Sadly Dave, that is a true statement.
It's the old story that the old guy checks the calculator with a pencil and paper and the young guy checks the hand-calcs with a calculator.
Cogo's just trig. Trig's been around a long time.
The idea of GIS is not bad, it's the fact that most implementations of it that I have seen cause more harm than good and require a whole lot of additional time for not much of a reward. For example, I've gotten several calls from people all upset that they've checked the County website and their property line is going through their house. That's because they've taken the best representation they have of the property lines, an assessor's map and half-heartedly tried to overlay it on an aerial photo.
A City I work in started requiring all land division maps to be tied to their GPS network. They started this after my map was already approved and ready to record with no mention of this requirement. When I complained, they said not to worry, they'll just plop my map in based on the nearest intersection. How in the heck are they going to start now putting new maps on some kind of GIS system when they don't have a base map of the City that's reality-based to start with? I could envision it being done but there's not enough money in the world to do it right. So what if my map is plotted in some GIS in relation to their GPS network? What good is it if it has no correlation to adjoining parcels and the previous 100 years of maps that have been recorded? I guess the answer is you have to start somewhere but shoot, somebody with a real vision of the future has to be in charge of this or there's going to be a lot of useless data collected and somebody's going to have to start over someday.
Steve,
Your post regarding setting up a proper base map reminds me of the another argument made in the article: "why didn't the stupid surveyors close their businesses and go to work for the county GIS Dept so they wouldn't get passed by? Why did they refuse to take part in GIS" ad nauseum
I imagine if the average surveyor had walked to a meeting of the GISP's and said "here I am, ready to help!" he might have gotten a cold reception. Why didn't the GISP's seek out the surveyors for their weak spots?
Some surveyors were in a position to fit right in, and GIS is better off for their input, but to say that surveyors were trying to hide from GIS not true. Most people had full time businesses to run, and could not justify a major investment without apparent return.
Congrats to the surveyors who are now in GIS, but it is false to say most surveyors ran from GIS. Many were busy trying to make a living.
Steve hit the proverbial PK on the head with his response!
In my interaction with the “GIS” professionals (and I use the term loosely) some have degrees while others are no more than CAD techs with a fancy title and then there are a few Land Surveys that are well versed in GIS.
California mandated that Land Surveyors manage the GIS in their state and I think that is a very good law.
Here in the metromess, most cities require that all plats submitted to them also have an electronic file based on SPC tied to their control monuments so that the plat you submit can be seamlessly inserted into their GIS database. While the concept is admirable the function is quite cumbersome because some of them have gone so far as to mandate what layers, colors, fonts & line types shall be used in your drawing. And since the plats are filed for record, you also get see how well versed in GPS & Geodesy some people in the Land Surveying profession are. For example; one plat states that the bearings are from “GPS Observations” WTF!? While another has coordinates to 4 places past the decimal place (1234.5678).
Until there is some kind of standardization for the submittal of metadata, you will continue to see these types of problems.
I love bowling but I can't cut grass with a bowling ball!
> As GIS technology improves, the GIS system is getting closer and closer to the field. Originally GIS fieldwork was done just by logging GPS points directly into the GIS, but with the advent of metadata a whole surveying data structure can be replicated in GIS.
>
This statement absolutely makes ZERO sense,"Metadata is going to replace fieldwork", the author must have had to rush to get the article to a deadline and made a jab at this nonsensical premise, what a tard.
Besides, metadata has been around since the begining of GIS, so what...
PS must be hurtin to publish this trash...
I love bowling but I can't cut grass with a bowling ball!
"the author must have had to rush to get the article to a deadline"
That's what I was thinking. I wonder if he really cares enough to log on here and see the responses. Probably not.
GIS is for sissies
Follow the footsteps. That's what surveying is all about. GIS is for sissies sitting around in sterile offices taking a short break from playing computer games to actually attempt to input some data.
GIS is nothing more than a governmental database that surveyors, either voluntarily or by statue, contribute most of the information. I believe it is no more than a high tech public records system. The cities, counties and state system's quality will be a reflection of the personnel they hire to maintain the system. I feel good about my chances!
GIS is pretty cool...
> Follow the footsteps. That's what surveying is all about. GIS is for sissies sitting around in sterile offices taking a short break from playing computer games to actually attempt to input some data.
I don't really see it that way Mr. Cow, I see this mentality as divisive and harmful to the surveying profession. If surveyors had embraced GIS then there would not be the major division line and perhaps surveyors could have been seen as the masters of GIS for geographic purposes. It was a chance to step up and take more control, make more money, but because of the wrong mentality this opportunity was usurped by others.
However, this usurption of these additional opportunities did not erase the traditional process and reason for land surveying.
In my experience, GIS people see land surveying as something they are not all that interested in learning, too tough and dirty, too many orange vests, and not enough respect in general.
The GIS crowd makes a huge mistake of marginalizing the land surveyor because he is seen as "John Wayne Cowboy on the way out" and they want to be "Star Trek and gearing up for the future"
This is a context issue for both parties, neither seem to have the ability or motivation to place themselves in the true context of the other.
The sad part is that due to lack of aggressive, cohesive, innovative leaderhip by land surveyors early in the game, now in the big picture we have a house divided and the best outcome has not been acheived for traditional surveyors.
The good news is that a good many state boards are regulating some GIS surveying to those with a land surveyors license.
A whole lot of GIS started in counties with an excellent saleman that sold the hardware and the software - and then got out of town PDQ. The GIS "departments" found out that they did not have diddly without data and started digitizing 1:24,000 Quad topo maps and declared that "they had a GIS!" Scrounging through the Tobin "maps" which were uncontrolled photo-mosaics, they rubber-sheeted those into their "GIS" and by using the UTM grid on the old topos determined that they could increase "accuracy" by printing more decimal points.
That's when they started calling out the Land Surveyors since their "GIS" numbers did not match the numbers on those little paper plats the Land Surveyors were getting recorded at the Clerk's of Court offices. How could anyone believe what some guy did out in the woods with a tripod and a telescope when their computerized system said otherwise?
There's a whole lot of somewhat-educated people that do not know that there is a heckuva difference between an apparent line of possession and a boundary line ...
Photogrammetry didn't replace the Land Surveyor, and neither will GIS.
Most county GIS systems are really just a computerized land records system dealing with tracking tax assessments and ownership info. And they happen to have a map to go along with it - that following the old hand-drawn tax maps, which were more for schematic purposes of generally locating the parcels than anything else.
County GIS systems have authoritative data on ownership and tax assessment. But their boundaries are not authoritative - the authoritative boundary data comes from surveyors.
Problem is, the two sides typically just keep shrugging each other off. In some communities, there are working partnerships between surveyors and tax mappers, and they have systems in place, they work together to continually improve the boundary data. But in most of the remainder of the country, all anyone does is perpetuate the problems, because nobody gets it, neither the surveyors nor tax mappers. It doesn't look like most of the respondents to this thread get it, either.
