got the first one of these yesterday. firm got themselves a drone.
ALTA on a fairly large, unimproved tract that has already been sliced and diced into a couple hundred single family sites and major roads and appurtenant utilities are in place.
survey comes to me with photography. photography makes it about impossible to read text and determine everything i need to, so i ask for a PDF without the photography.
here is the response: sure, no sweat, but i'll only certify to it with the photography.
sends me the photo-less survey, it has nothing shown besides boundary lines, annotation, easement lines and annotation, and text with leaders pointing to random places that represent supposed improvements not visible on the survey sans photography. in other words, the drone shots were not converted to flatwork.
i've done plenty of ALTAs based upon aerial work. but it was an exercise where we'd spend 3 days field verifying everything with random checks and measurements and shots (instead of the 2 weeks or whatever it would take to shoot it all).
this position would seem to indicate, to me at least, that no field verification of improvements was done. like curb and gutter, fire hydrants, etc, etc (of which there is plenty).
yes, i'm now in the process of getting up to speed on the absolute latest requirements and standards per various entities.
i know how i feel about this RIGHT NOW. doesn't mean i've made up my mind.
have at it.
1. Optional Item 15 does not release the surveyor from the requirements of Section 5.E.iv.
[INDENT]Evidence on or above the surface of the surveyed property observed in the process of conducting the fieldwork, which evidence may indicate utilities located on, over or beneath the surveyed property. Examples of such evidence include pipeline markers, manholes, valves, meters, transformers, pedestals, clean-outs, utility poles, overhead lines and guy wires.
[/INDENT]
2. Optional Item 15 states (emphasis mine)
[INDENT]Rectified orthophotography, photogrammetric mapping, remote sensing, airborne/mobile laser scanning and other similar products, tools or technologies as the basis for the showing the location of certain features (excluding boundaries) where ground measurements are not otherwise necessary to locate those features to an appropriate and acceptable accuracy relative to a nearby boundary.The surveyor shall (a) discuss the ramifications of such methodologies (e.g., the potential precision and completeness of the data gathered thereby) with the insurer, lender, and client prior to the performance of the survey[/INDENT]
If you as the insurer (I assume you're still review these for title company) didn't agree to this upfront, then I'd tell Mr 'I'm won't certify without the photo" that if he does certify with the photo you won't insure because he didn't meet the minimum standards.
yeah, and that's where we are. namely: me going "whoa, let's tap the brakes here for a second..." and my title-based coworkers thinking it's just the coolest thing.
from my perspective: this is coming from a decent sized, reputable firm who- in my experience- can be counted on to do good work. this very much feels like somebody testing the waters to see what will be allowed and i find myself (yet again) a lot more hesitant to give a pass then the people to whom i have to answer.
seems like this is the front end of where things may be going, and i suspect (from what i've gleaned over the past year) that it's not going to be the title industry leading the cautionary brigade.
flyin solo, post: 453280, member: 8089 wrote: seems like this is the front end of where things may be going, and i suspect (from what i've gleaned over the past year) that it's not going to be the title industry leading the cautionary brigade.
I follow Nassim Taleb on Twitter and his new book on risk coming out next year is entitled 'Skin in the Game"...it's all about the lenders. Which is actually the glaring problem with the current ALTA survey standards process. Those with the most skin in the game have little or no input in the creation of the standards of the survey they rely on to lend.
IMHO, you can use the photogrammetry to create the flat work and conventional to verify accuracies per min standards, but the map needs to stand on it's own without the photo.
Can't they provide a wet sealed full scale hard copy for your review?
It sounds like you are just guessing about the methods of collecting and verifying the data, perhaps they have met all requirements adequately. You could ask for verification if the hard copy looks lacking.
Peter Ehlert, post: 453286, member: 60 wrote: Can't they provide a wet sealed full scale hard copy for your review?
It sounds like you are just guessing about the methods of collecting and verifying the data, perhaps they have met all requirements adequately. You could ask for verification if the hard copy looks lacking.
yes, but the crux of the issue is that he will not certify to ALTA standards unless the photo is visible on the survey. as in, the photo layer is a necessary component of the completed survey.
basically- does an RPLS operating a drone qualify as land surveying? like i said, i'm willing to listen and be persuaded.
When the objects on the drawing have dimensions connecting to the boundaries, it is land surveying.
flyin solo, post: 453276, member: 8089 wrote: photography makes it about impossible to read text and determine everything i need to,...
...this position would seem to indicate, to me at least, that no field verification of improvements was done.
These seem like two separate problems to me.
Problem 1: The survey, as delivered, is partially illegible. There are certainly ways to use text and line work clearly with a photo background, so it sounds like they need to figure that out.
Problem 2: You suspect they didn't meet minimum standards.
Easy for me to say from 4000 miles away, but I think you've got two battles worth fighting.
A Harris, post: 453294, member: 81 wrote: When the objects on the drawing have dimensions connecting to the boundaries, it is land surveying.
like this? (not trying to be a smart-ass)
(that's a public user tool straight from the bastrop county cad gis, btw)
FrozenNorth, post: 453296, member: 10219 wrote: These seem like two separate problems to me.
Problem 1: The survey, as delivered, is partially illegible. There are certainly ways to use text and line work clearly with a photo background, so it sounds like they need to figure that out.
Problem 2: You suspect they didn't meet minimum standards.Easy for me to say from 4000 miles away, but I think you've got two battles worth fighting.
well, it was only the first issue that raised the second. and you're right- had the text been more legible, it likely wouldn't have even come up in the first place. but it did, and so i wonder to what extent that a registrant is comfortable certifying that, say, the boundary ties of the improvements he shows per the drone flight that he personally performed or supervised are accurate and precise to whatever limit- when do you call a bluff?
this clearly is not a question that can be answered as though circumstances are static. i mean, i know old RPLS who are still skeptical that GPS isn't just voodoo... at some point i'm sure the tech will allow for confidence comparable to what we are comfortable accepting and certifying to now with "conventional" methods. but we ain't quite there yet...
flyin solo, post: 453298, member: 8089 wrote: like this? (not trying to be a smart-ass)
(that's a public user tool straight from the bastrop county cad gis, btw)
Yes, but to get to that you accepted a disclaimer. At least I hope.
flyin solo, post: 453288, member: 8089 wrote:
basically- does an RPLS operating a drone qualify as land surveying? like i said, i'm willing to listen and be persuaded.
I would say yes if the RPLS is flying and using the data for surveying. But flying alone is not - only the application of the data.
StLSurveyor, post: 453301, member: 7070 wrote: Yes, but to get to that you accepted a disclaimer. At least I hope.
i THINK i disarmed the disclaimer- i know most of them do have one. however, that disclaimer is nice and all except for the fact that EVERYBODY EXCEPT FOR LAND SURVEYORS are increasingly using media like this and taking for granted that there is a qualitative difference in the data. hell, i've spent the better part of the last week trying to convince my dad that he can't take his beat up old tape measure and eyeball where his new boundary wall will go on a rental property, *despite how close the lines on google maps look to the centerline of the adjoining streets*.
i've considered weighing in on that whole "joining a civil firm" thread but can't quite figure out how to distill my thoughts on the increasingly common practice among P.E.s to rely upon cloud/net based data to design sites...
point being- the game is, like always, in a constant state of change. i suspect we are going to start seeing (and maybe performing ourselves) many more of these it ain't a survey without the photo surveys. which... may be a good thing. like i said, i'm here to be persuaded.
flyin solo, post: 453299, member: 8089 wrote: still skeptical that GPS isn't just voodoo...
I think it's been pretty well shown by this point that GPS is voodoo. 🙂
@ flying solo
No matter how good or bad it is
When you sign and seal it, it is yours forever
flyin solo, post: 453299, member: 8089 wrote: to what extent that a registrant is comfortable certifying that, say, the boundary ties of the improvements he shows per the drone flight
Isn't him saying he won't certify it without the photo also him saying that he's confident in the accuracy of the improvements shown in the photo in relation to the boundary? You can call into question the accuracy of CAD lines on a traditional survey just as easy as an ortho photo. If he had traced the improvements from the photo and presented the survey in the typical fashion it sounds like you probably wouldn't have thought anything about it while all along it would have been no different than just showing the photo. Either way it needs to be legible.
So, the wet signed hard copy does not have the photo overlay? And it is also illegible?
Maybe I am being obtuse.
I have done and seem many ALTAs with photo overlay, they work great... but that is Paper.
Are Digital PDFs now considered a final work product?
flyin solo, post: 453288, member: 8089 wrote: basically- does an RPLS operating a drone qualify as land surveying?
Nope, operating a drone is NOT land surveying.
Photogrammetry may or may not be land surveying - it depends on why it's being done.
However, photogrammetry for the purpose of showing the relationship between improvements and property lines is definitely land surveying where I practice.
Photogrammetry (whether from a aerial platform - Drone/UAV/UAS - or terrestrial based), total station, GPS, LiDAR, scanning, etc. are all forms of measuring. I don't believe that any law requires licensure just for measurement - it depends on what service is being provided, what is being measured.
I believe that In this situation, photogrammetry for the purpose of establishing the relationship between improvements and boundaries, would fall under the definition of land surveying in nearly every (maybe all) US jurisdiction. But that's not the issue here.
Don't get distracted by the technology used to make the measurements. FrozenNorth is on point.
FrozenNorth, post: 453296, member: 10219 wrote: These seem like two separate problems to me.
Problem 1: The survey, as delivered, is partially illegible. There are certainly ways to use text and line work clearly with a photo background, so it sounds like they need to figure that out.
Problem 2: You suspect they didn't meet minimum standards.
Just because it's an ALTA doesn't mean it doesn't have to meet Texas Minimum Technical Standards.
