GPS, mapping, topographic surveys, construction stakeout and as builts are nothing more than mechanically repetitive mathematic exercises. Having done it once, repeating it gives one little opportunity to learn anything more. So I do not care if you have ten years of such experience in all likelihood you have less one year of educative experience. Almost any error involved is statistically insignificant and each is confined to one small point in space.
Boundary line surveying never gives you such simple solutions. The documents may be vague, conflicting or outright wrong. A small error here can be compounded over there. One must dig into the records to find relevant information. One must dig into the written record to find the directions to be followed. One must dig into the ground to find physical evidence. Having done all of the above one must dig into the mind to find the solution in conformity to the rules. It is the only experience that in fact is worthwhile experience.
I say the recent proposals can best be likened to allowing one to attend dental school and subsequently perform brain surgery.
It appears that NCEES wants the profession to conform to what it can readily test, i.e. rote mathematical skills, and not to what the profession purports to be, i.e. a search for the truth.
Paul in PA
"It appears that NCEES wants the profession to conform to what it can readily test..."
You have hit the nail squarely on the head.
>
> You have hit the nail squarely on the head.
or, maybe he squarely hit the head on the nail. just hope he's not using his head to hit it with. gud gawd, wouldn't that be a sight.
Really?
> GPS, mapping, topographic surveys, construction stakeout and as builts are nothing more than mechanically repetitive mathematic exercises. Having done it once, repeating it gives one little opportunity to learn anything more. So I do not care if you have ten years of such experience in all likelihood you have less one year of educative experience. Almost any error involved is statistically insignificant and each is confined to one small point in space.
>
> Paul in PA
So it doesn't take years of experience to get to the level where you could handle surveying something like One World Trade Center? :-S
Really?
> So it doesn't take years of experience to get to the level where you could handle surveying something like One World Trade Center? :-S
no, of course not. after one hard green year, you just wing it and figure it out as you go.
Really?
:good:
Paul, I have no clue what kind of Surveying do you do and how would it ever make you think that...I've spent 12 years in various types of surveying (after 5 year Geodesy degree) and still learning bit and pieces every day.
Nm
"GPS,mapping,topographic surveys, construction stakeout and as builts are nothing more than mechanically repetitive mathematic exercises."
Uh, excuse me while I throw the BS flag. That statement is PURE BS. Having spent some 44 years as a cartographic drafter I have yet to see any mechanical repetition. If YOU do, then YOU are doing something wrong. Each map comes with its own bag of rocks.
To me, the mechanical repetition comes on boundary surveys and sectional break downs. Geometry and algebra at its finest, yet solved by the same formulas over and over.
I find it odd that if my profession is so simplistic that I manage to get paid dang near double that of my cohorts in the field?
Don't dis my craft if you really do not fully understand it.
I also agree that this statement is incorrect.
Topo, mapping and construction staking, as well as boundary staking are all just easilly reproduced mathmatics UNTIL things start getting twisted.
Just as boundary information can easilly become more and more complex, so can construction staking. When grid lines are based on a builing not being square, or things change mid project, or any thing you encounter called 'design build'.
I agree that they are two different skill sets. Boundary surveying is heavy on research and interpretation, construction is reliant on confidence and the ability to think on your feet.
If this erroneous comment is a reaction to the recent proposal for two different licenses, I again disagree. We are in such a specialized field already, there is no need to limit us more. Separation of the licence is the first step in eliminating surveyors from construction projects all together.
Most of the smaller firms I have worked for have done both, the boundary work keeps us afloat, the construction work brings us profit.
good grief...
Paul, have a very Merry Christmas. We all love you.
I was thinking of writing a proper rebuttal, but I think this will suffice.
Bahahahahahaaaaa. No.
Oh yeah, and this:
"Almost any error involved is statistically insignificant and each is confined to one small point in space."
Pffffft. Nope.
:good:
Started to write a response...erased it.
I survey boundaries and do topo and do construction layout. I consider my self a surveyor and I make good money running a multi-faceted "Surveying Company". I do a lot of things other than boundary but I am confident and can back up the boundary/ROW maps I put out.
Why limit ourselves?
One World Trade Center ?
I would never attempt it, it is a very specific skill and ability set, little of which is on any NCEES exam or could be.
That skill set also has little that is applicable to deciding a boundary.
Paul in PA
One Can Pass The Survey Exam At 70%
There is more to learn in all areas after that also because what is known and can be done increases. Still a lot of that knowledge does not apply to boundary surveys.
I assert that repetitive mathematical skills are mechanically reused in mapping. No matter what the map looks like the required skill set varies little.
The point is that 5, 10 or 50 years of those experiences that are not boundary line experience can not be substituted for 1 day of boundary line experience.
Paul in PA
Me, I tend to agree with much of Paul's broad brush critique of the NCEES agenda vs what many consider actual professional surveying. Maybe the surveyors need a wake up call instead of going bedside with the engineering community.
I kind of like the schools of thought that would just as soon put boundary determination right along side the legal professions. Let the mappers, construction guys, GIS'ers, even John Q Public do their thing to the uninformed highest bidder. When the fertilizer hits the ventilator then the legal process comes into play and we all just went full circle about 50 yrs or so. All permitting issues notwithstanding of course.
How many times have you seen a very seasoned boundary guy totally screw up a parking lot or god forbid plans with overlapping contours. Or try and watch a very seasoned construction guy scratch his head over a couple or 3 pin cushions on one 5 acre parcel they have to stake the 5 ft building setbacks on.
Not all of us have the good fortune to have been exposed and experienced in much of it. Me, I don't do anchor bolts, interior industrial jobs, and always try and avoid certain riparian issues as well as certain mining jobs. But gimme a boundary, topo, staking on that 5 or 50 acres and it's all good.
So yes Paul, one size does not fit all. The beloved NCEES thinks it can make it happen, I think? What is good in PA wouldn't fly in NV, or other Western states. Vice versa, take a Western PLSS guy to any original 13 M & B states, or much of East of the Mississippi.... yikes.
One Can Pass The Survey Exam At 70%
> The point is that 5, 10 or 50 years of those experiences that are not boundary line experience can not be substituted for 1 day of boundary line experience.
>
> Paul in PA
Exactly! There are many different kinds of surveying. All of the boundary line experience in the world doesn't mean you are automatically qualified to perform any other type of surveying.
I don't understand your need to try and belittle every other type of surveying and act like boundary surveying is the only real branch of surveying.
In the foregoing dialogues we again had the manifestation that, like water and oil, Engineering and Surveying does not mix. In the beginning, surveying meant land boundary surveying and it was often stated that "An Engineer does not a Surveyor make". Then we had to distance our profession from interloping Engineers (construction surveyors) by expanding the title to "Land Surveying" as in the LS series. Then Registered Surveyors (RLS); then Professional Surveyors (PLS). By creeping changes in definition, Land Surveying has now also come to mean construction surveying, geodetic surveying, Photogrammetry, and GIS, all lumped into one. Fortunately our state laws and rules kept this changing definition at bay, that is until the assault by the NCEES Model Law which would have Land Surveying to include all measurements performed above, upon or below the earth. The construction surveyors et al want our license. They don't want to share it, they want ALL of it, as in "lets replace the boundary experience requirement with a four year survey degree with three credits in boundary".
Why are Engineers and Surveyors so different? Figure it out for yourselves, but it should be stated that the difference cannot be resolved.
As for surveyors who perform both et al surveys and Boundary surveys, well I have too, but we have to have a split personality about it. Like PE/LSs who ALWAYS behave and think like Engineers, our boundary work usually suffers in this combination.
So, cut Paul some slack, he is more right than you think.
Looking forward to your follow-up article on this one 😉
