Scott Bordenet, post: 419850, member: 10097 wrote: So, why have they put this section regarding RPA (as we call it here) in the code? It has been adjusted over the last few iterations of the code, so they are watching it...but nobody does it.
Somebody on your board has an interest in the matter (Gary Kent?).
When you report your survey by drawing, metes and bounds or any produce and give a set of coordinates or lats and longs to the client, your guarantee is that your product is within those guidelines.
I keep my raw data and any files related to correcting that information to prove what was done and how it was done.
If anyone wants to say that my reporting is not up to snuff, It is in their ballpark to prove me wrong and they must have located the same points that I have located and make a comparison of values.
0.02
Scott Bordenet, post: 419822, member: 10097 wrote: No bites? I know, this is a boring subject. I'll try one last time.
The focus of my question is this:
1. If we don't run closed traverses, or traverses that run from/to known points, to what do we constrain networks?
2. If we are using real time GPS solutions (RTK, VRS) and not base or OPUS methods, to what do we constrain networks?
3. For 1 & 2 above, how do we justify, analyze, prove compliance with codes dictated for professional practice (see description of Indiana code in original post)?
Scott,
1 more question might be, "How much money would it take for the Licensing Board to prove in a court of law that someone wasn't meeting those standards?" I believe that is the reason the TBPLS changed their standards, that is to say, It could not withstand a complaint that would make the investigation of RPA necessary.
Thanks for all the replies and input...I think I've found what I was looking for...always a good thing for a surveyor:).
