All of us share one thing in common; we measure distances, angles, elevations, and whatever else is required for a certain project. No matter the project, each aspect of surveying is measured to it's precise extent. There are engineering surveyors, lot surveyors, and what I'll call general surveyors that do all of the above. From what I've read on this board and experienced in the real world it seems that there is a serious disconnect between the three types even though we all measure the exact same information. A platting surveyor will connect the dots on 35 acres, an engineering surveyor will connect the dots on a 3/4 mile bridge with precise elevations and the general surveyor will layout a subdivision with lots and a "civil engineered" plan for drainage and underground utilities. Each surveyor is qualified for each, however in the real world it seems that one over qualifies the other. In a recent article in American Surveyor, "Road Riders", I am sure some of you have read it, the author maintains that if all of the above do not do their part, that our profession will die a slow death. I feel that if each of the three different surveyors continue to out qualify each other it will contribute to the death of our profession. Measuring is an art, and artists will never agree, however it seems that we could all at least give each other the professional respect we all deserve. Just something to consider when deliberating advice to others...
I didn't see my category. I'm a Texas surveyor. 35 acres might be a hundredth of what I have to survey to find the right boundary. 😉
I always figured we had three branches, land, construction and geodetic. I am a land surveyor that can dabble in construction layout and set up gps networks. So, where do I fit?
Not all of my projects have a measurement component. Those that do are done with the care and quality required. While a certain amount of creativity is required to solve problems, the measurements are science based.
The record evidence (deeds, maps, etc.) must be evaluated using Statutory and case law. These are fact and logic based.
While it is romantic to describe our Profession as an art, it is in fact a rigorous combination of science, forensics, logical analysis and communication. A certain amount of artistic expression finds its way into our products but it is not what creates them.
Our brains work in different ways. Different in and of itself is not better or worse, just different. That is what pulls us into the various specialised branches of Surveying. My library has books on construction, forestry, geodesy, law and much more. Many of these books are from the 1800's, some from further back. The diversity in our Profession is apparent even then (as is the superior attitude within certain branches). If that in and of itself could destroy us we would be gone already. Our enemy is quite different.
The ability to apply knowledge from diverse disciplines sets us apart. It has been passed down and built on for centuries. We've stopped doing that. 1 man crews are the norm. We are not replacing ourselves. This will not end Surveying. It will change our Profession, and not likely for the better...
My .02
I tend to think my profession has a little more depth than can be described just categorically. While everything mentioned above is definitely part of what we do, the general public relies on our expertise for a lot more. I am consulted about many diverse things for my clients, such as conveyances and description preparation, particularly in the realm of right-of-way and easements. I have several trust attorneys as clients for which I review their clients' title and abstract info looking for potential ambiguities or future problems. A good amount of this work actually entails no fieldwork; some of it generates a good deal of fieldwork.
I also have a utility provider client that has a large GIS department. While I do not poke my nose into their DB management, I have been called on to "look" at some of the anomalies that pop up within their system. This has actually grown into fruitful rapport that is very educational for both of us. There is a tremendous amount of work out there for surveyors in this area, but approaching it with the attitude that their GIS is simply all wrong is counter-productive. Both disciplines need each other.
As surveyors we are multi-faceted, to say the least. But that knowledge and experience will continue to sit on the shelf and gather dust unless we can successfully market our talents. You have to remember we are almost the only profession that daily compares the written record with what is on the ground, accurately. We ARE the only ones that are legally licensed to perform that comparison. Thinking the only way to make a living in the surveying profession by owning and using equipment is similar to putting on blinders. We are capable of providing much, much more to the land-use/ management community AND there is a need for our expertise.
Waiting for the phone to ring or waiting for a knock on the door will be awfully lonely...not to mention it doesn't pay very well. Let your abilities be known. The future of our profession is up to the surveyor that can communicate to the public what we ultimately can provide.
Measurement is not the "art" part of surveying, it is science. The art in surveying is the application of professional judgment. Where that fits in with measurement is in deciding the appropriate precision and accuracy for particular applications, and how to evaluate the data once it's collected.
Since there are differences between different aspects of surveying, especially on the art side of it, it is simply inherent in the profession that we will be more qualified in some aspects of practice than many of our colleagues, and we will be less qualified than many of our colleagues in other aspects of practice.
One of the most important aspects, or responsibilities of being a licensed professional in a broad field of licensed practice, is knowing your limitations and practicing only in those areas in which you are competent to do so. If you must, hire an employee or subconsultant to oversee portions of projects for which you are not fully competent.
IMO, believing and behaving as if we are all equally competent in all aspects of practice would do far more harm than recognizing our differing levels of competence at various aspects of practice.
If what you are getting at is the ego-based competition of "I can measure better than any of the previous surveyors who have been here", then I agree with you... to a point. A following surveyor must attempt to understand how and why a previous measurement was made and take that into account when comparing it to his own measurement data. He must also understand how errors propagate within his own work. Also, understanding what another surveyor is actually reporting when he indicates a difference between a measured and record distance is important.
When a surveyor indicates 2638.95'(m)/2640'(ref.1), is he indicating agreement or disagreement? If (ref. 1) is the map of a survey performed within the past 15 or 20 years, and there was direct visibility between the monuments during both surveys, then it shows significant disagreement - someone's equipment was out of whack or a blunder was made. However, if (ref. 1) was a survey made in the 1960s and the terrain is steep and brushy, then you are comparing modern measurements to the results of transit and chain in rough country. A reported difference of 1.05' actually indicates reasonable agreement. The new measurement validates the old one. If (ref. 1) is an 1870 GLO township plat in rough country, that's amazing agreement.
The problems happen when the more recent surveyor comes along and places a mark for a property line or corner at some location other than where an existing marker, purporting to mark the same corner sits, and decides to do so on no more information than that his measurements differ from those of the previous surveyor. That's not a failure of measurement. It's a failure to understand measurement data in context with other measurement and non-measurement data that should inform the decision making process.
What has been posted here by those of you who responded is a wealth of knowledge and experience. Thank you for your responses. In my original post, I mentioned the "Road Rider" article, and in the article the author says that he cured a clients problem by tracing down old books that a younger generation just 50 years later didn't even know about. Very similar to what all of the above have mentioned, that the profession is much deeper than just measuring. My intent was not to categorize surveyors, but to "decategorize" so to speak, as to say that each is just as important as the other. There are certain fields where certain surveyors excel over others, and that is a universal truth in any profession.
eapls2708, post: 322789, member: 589 wrote: If what you are getting at is the ego-based competition of "I can measure better than any of the previous surveyors who have been here", then I agree with you... to a point.
It seems that surveyors these days have this mentality, as we see with what everyone here calls a "pin cushion" or "rod farm" and I completely agree that it is their misunderstanding of how the other surveyor arrived at the same point. This idea goes against what most surveyors are taught by their predecessors that the previous surveyor is correct and the retracing surveyor is missing something. That is, like all of the above have said, is missing these days.
Lately, in conversations though, if you or the crew are not using the latest and greatest technology you are behind and insufficient for the job. That seems to be the general moral among office surveyors and field surveyors alike which is what led me to categorize the different fields. Technology has come a long way and the younger generation, my generation sad to say, has taken to the fact that those with traditional equipment have less knowledge when in fact it is most cases completely opposite.
I guess this leads to my next question, that with so many different disciplines within the same license, should there be different regulations or guidelines for different "levels" of surveying? I know certain jobs require different tolerances and survey requirements but given those details, should we be required to segregate into different disciplines?
"...should we be required to segregate into different disciplines?"
It is probably inevitable. I'm guessing about 10 years ago the Board of Licensure began requiring P.E.s to adhere to specific disciplines. Although there was some grumbling, it seems to have worked out for the better. Meaning, of course, the public is insured to receive experienced professional services. There is no reason to not hold surveyors to the same scrutiny.
Every Board I am familiar with has a rule prohibiting practice outside of our expertise. Our first duty is simply obey that rule. The part most gave trouble with is holding others accountable. If we continue to fail at this we will see separate licenses for various disciplines.
Actually, our first duty is to protect the public, but as qualified professionals, we should know that to do so, we must not practice outside our areas of expertise.
The subject of my post was the specific rule. As with any regulation we first apply it to our own practice. The next step is to help each other apply it to the Profession as a whole.
