Kent McMillan, post: 405682, member: 3 wrote: Essentially, you seem to be arguing that the efficiencies of modern positioning technology shouldn't be used because some of the surveyors you know are unable to understand how to use it.
My solution to that would be to annotate the coordinated township plat with bearings and distances so that Larry Curly & Associates can go ahead and survey for miles from some monumented control point to the corner in question. It would be a great opportunity to thin the herd.
When did I say these issues had anything to do with surveyors?
I don't work where the SURVEYORS create these kinds of issues.
Kent McMillan, post: 405698, member: 3 wrote: Is this what the federal statute provides as to necessary surveys?
MightyMoe, post: 405702, member: 700 wrote: When did I say these issues had anything to do with surveyors?
I don't work where the SURVEYORS create these kinds of issues.
Okay, so you just object to anything that makes is easier for non-surveyors to locate land boundaries, then? Wouldn't that argue against placing survey markers?
Williwaw, post: 405704, member: 7066 wrote: https://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.nsps.us.com/resource/resmgr/BLM_DPPS_Alaska/FINAL_Alaska_DNR-BLM-DPPS_NS.pdf
Unless I missed it, the above paper fails to mention the moer obvious strategy of simply establishing reference monuments within the boundaries of the land to be surveyed, but in locations that are chosen to be accessible, stable, and suitable for GPS operations. Instead, the paper reviewed what I'd consider to be false choices, i.e. either establishing a control point via OPUS and then returning to make a survey of a tract from that new control point or surveying ties to three remote boundary monuments with NSRS coordinates published at the same epoch as those in which the coordinates of the tract corners to be monumented are expressed.
I get the sense that the whole discussion is really about asking for federal money just as a make-work project, not because there is some urgent need to know the locations upon the ground of every section corner within the protracted townships at accuracies better than autonomous positioning can deliver.
Kent McMillan, post: 405709, member: 3 wrote: I get the sense that the whole discussion is really about asking for federal money just as a make-work project
or holding them to their original commitments.
The reference monuments idea is not completely without merit, though it doesn't meet the original intent of the MOU. Our DOT has been doing this on ROW mapping projects for last decade or so and publishing coordinates on their found control and I'm a big fan of this as I have this aversion to occupying centerline monuments whenever it can be avoided. But again, aren't you comparing grapefruit and pomegranates?
Williwaw, post: 405710, member: 7066 wrote: or holding them to their original commitments.
Except, if the "orginal commitment" was Section 6(g) of the Alaska Statehood Act, there is a legitimate difference of opinion as to the meaning of terms such as "reasonably compact tracts" that take into account the uses of the land involved. The spirit of the law was surely to make an accomodation for the practical burden of spending lots of money surveying land whose likely use and value didn't justify the expense.
Kent McMillan, post: 405713, member: 3 wrote: spending lots of money surveying land whose likely use and value didn't justify the expense
Pretty sure they said the same thing of West Texas at one point in time.
Williwaw, post: 405717, member: 7066 wrote: Pretty sure they said the same thing of West Texas at one point in time.
If we were platting West Texas into tracts, a coordinate-based solution would be first choice in most areas, with a sufficient number of monumented control points to maintain the coordinate system when datums change in the future. It would redirect surveying efforts for maximum efficiency as we move into a future in which positioning technology will most likely continue to advance.
Kent McMillan, post: 405719, member: 3 wrote: If we were platting West Texas into tracts, a coordinate-based solution would be first choice in most areas, with a sufficient number of monumented control points to maintain the coordinate system when datums change in the future. It would redirect surveying efforts for maximum efficiency as we move into a future in which positioning technology will most likely continue to advance.
I see where your coming from. Hind sight is 20/20. Looking into the future a hundred years, not so much. I'll take monuments on the ground over coordinates in the ether.
Kent McMillan, post: 405713, member: 3 wrote: Except, if the "orginal commitment" was Section 6(g) of the Alaska Statehood Act, there is a legitimate difference of opinion as to the meaning of terms such as "reasonably compact tracts" that take into account the uses of the land involved. The spirit of the law was surely to make an accomodation for the practical burden of spending lots of money surveying land whose likely use and value didn't justify the expense.
These issues were addressed between the State and the Federal Gov't In 1963, 1973, and as recently as the 2012 MOU between BLM and DNR, the BLM stated ÛÏRegardless of the platting method it uses, the BLM agrees to monument the boundaries of lands it conveys to the State. Monuments will be placed on an average of every two miles along the perimeter of the selection and at angle points.Û (MOU_AK_2012_006, Memorandum of Understanding between the United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management-Alaska and the State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources Concerning Rectangular Survey Plats Tracting, signed by the BLM State Director, Alaska on August 30, 2012). The term "reasonably compact tracts" is defined therein.
My plan is for monuments on the ground, at 12 mile intervals. PLSS surveyors have had sufficient practice using GPS to locate 1/4s from Township corners now we just expand that to a two Township spread. Standards of required precision would negate most RTK and the requirement of OPUS solutions before accepting a corner eliminates RTK from the final product. Aliquot descriptions are a part of the Cadaster, but there is zero need to have every Section corner monumented (or every other Section corner) in todays GNSS world.
GNSS might even be a requirement for that future Alaska surveying. GLONASS satellites have an orbit of higher Latitude than GPS. Galileo has similar Latitude of orbits as GPS but at a much greater height above the surface give better coverage in Alaska. Then we can look at the Chinese and Japanese geosynchronous satellites for coverage over the Pole.
The majority of responders to this thread have been talking about the way we have done it in the past, when there is a much better way in front of those ready to challenge the tundra.
Paul in PA
Kent McMillan, post: 405709, member: 3 wrote: I get the sense that the whole discussion is really about asking for federal money just as a make-work project, not because there is some urgent need to know the locations upon the ground of every section corner within the protracted townships at accuracies better than autonomous positioning can deliver.
The idea that the NSPS study of DPPS and the NSPS findings are motivated by an effort to get Federal money for a make work program is really cynical and not based in fact.
There are a number of issues with DPPS some known and some unknown. We all like technology and we all strive to work more efficiently. A common theme with survey issues is the lag between when the problem occurs and when it's discovered - I would expect that many of the unanticipated problems won't be known for many years. Read the report and the letter from NGS Director, Juliana Blackwell all at http://www.nsps.us.com/page/BLMDPPSAlaska . This isn't about surveyors protecting their turf or shying away from technology.
This is about and idea that sounds good at first glance but upon DEEPER inspection is found to have a number of fundamental flaws - flaws that don't have easy workarounds using todays technology or tomorrows.
DPPS as presented either requires AK to spend the money to set the mons before anyone can use the land or it t introduces a new law paradigm where coordinates control over monuments ÛÒ how many IBLA cases address this? ZERO! How many boundary law books address this? ZERO! How many classes are available to educate surveyors, attorneys, land managers, and others on this? ZERO!
I've studied the topic in depth and while I don't know everything about it I'll post more on the various issues as I have time. Kent - look carefully at what is being proposed and think about how it might play out - I highly doubt that you'll think DPPS is a good idea after you dig into it.
Paul in PA, post: 405726, member: 236 wrote: My plan is for monuments on the ground, at 12 mile intervals. PLSS surveyors have had sufficient practice using GPS to locate 1/4s from Township corners now we just expand that to a two Township spread. Standards of required precision would negate most RTK and the requirement of OPUS solutions before accepting a corner eliminates RTK from the final product. Aliquot descriptions are a part of the Cadaster, but there is zero need to have every Section corner monumented (or every other Section corner) in todays GNSS world.
GNSS might even be a requirement for that future Alaska surveying. GLONASS satellites have an orbit of higher Latitude than GPS. Galileo has similar Latitude of orbits as GPS but at a much greater height above the surface give better coverage in Alaska. Then we can look at the Chinese and Japanese geosynchronous satellites for coverage over the Pole.
The majority of responders to this thread have been talking about the way we have done it in the past, when there is a much better way in front of those ready to challenge the tundra.
Paul in PA
AK surveyors have regularly been using GLONASS since there were first enough GLONASS satellites to use - early 2000s. It's a waste of time and money to survey without using every available healthy satellite. BLM has been using GPS in AK for these surveys since the late 1970s.
Regarding monument density - traveling 12 miles along a country road isn't too bad - or even through the mountains with a hike at the end. In rural Alaska travel is an issue DPPS makes EVERY survey for the foreseeable future a helicopter survey. And that's expensive when you are doing it one parcel at a time.
Regarding OPUS solutions - you don't get the same answer when surveying the same point with OPUS when you are a long way from your CORS stations. The first proposed DPPS plat is Group 948.
CORS stations nearest to Group 948
AB33 ÛÒ UNAVCO-PBO ÛÒ Approx. 69 miles (111k) NE of the center of the group
AB27 ÛÒ UNAVCO-PBO ÛÒ Approx. 119 miles (191k) NW of the center of the group
AB36 ÛÒ UNAVCO-PBO ÛÒ Approx. 139 miles (223k) S of the center of the group
AB27-AB36 ÛÒ Approx. 223 miles (359k)
AB36-AB33 ÛÒ Approx. 155 miles (250k)
AB33-AB27 ÛÒ Approx. 182 miles (292k)
The UNAVCO stations are on a 5 year funding cycle - You don't want your positioning methodology to rely on them.
The nearest Federally operated CORS stations are in Fairbanks - FAI (operated by the FAA and about
200 miles to the SE of the center of Group 948) and in Barrow - BRW1 (operated by the FAA and about
320 miles N of the center of Group 948.)
JKinAK, post: 405727, member: 7219 wrote: The idea that the NSPS study of DPPS and the NSPS findings are motivated by an effort to get Federal money for a make work program is really cynical and not based in fact.
My suggestion was just a likely explanation for why there was any serious discussion of surveying and monumenting every township boundary, of low-value land when the expense of surveys within the resulting townships would be significantly greater given the numbers of monuments that would have to be recovered and tied if the procedures set out in the Manual of Instructions were to be followed.
JKinAK, post: 405727, member: 7219 wrote: There are a number of issues with DPPS some known and some unknown.
Mostly, the main ones are known, though. They are:
- delivery of coordinates in same system as those given upon the plat,
- accomodation to new datum,
- effect of long-term crustal movements,
- future advances in positioning technology,
- ability of surveyors to use coordinate-based cadastral data properly,
- ability of non-surveyors interested in cadastral information to use coordinate-based cadastral data properly,
- problems arising from incorrectly located boundary corners from mistakes attributable to coordinated cadastre,
- legal status of monuments placed to represent the positions upon the ground of coordinate-based corners.
JKinAK, post: 405727, member: 7219 wrote: Read the report and the letter from NGS Director, Juliana Blackwell all at http://www.nsps.us.com/page/BLMDPPSAlaska . This isn't about surveyors protecting their turf or shying away from technology.
I read the letter, but the main substance of it was that NGS didn't have good models of crustal movement in Alaska. The obvious fix for that is to install an array of permanent reference marks across the area to be subdivided and conveyed by patent and in locations that promote their use and periodic reoccupation to detect crustal movement. I would think that Alaska could take over the periodic (meaning: every five or ten years or upon new datum) resurveying of the network of reference marks and distribution of new values.
That is, the townships are patented to Alaska (I assume), describing the lands in relation to NAD83 (2011) Epoch 2010.0, with the coordinates of various marks, including permanent reference marks, expressed in the same datum also shown upon the official plats. Then, when the new datum arrives, the coordinates of corners and reference marks will need to be computed/transformed in that new datum. To do that well will require some resurveying of the reference marks.
JKinAK, post: 405727, member: 7219 wrote: DPPS as presented either requires AK to spend the money to set the mons before anyone can use the land or it t introduces a new law paradigm where coordinates control over monuments ÛÒ how many IBLA cases address this? ZERO! How many boundary law books address this? ZERO! How many classes are available to educate surveyors, attorneys, land managers, and others on this? ZERO!
Well, considering that the order of magnitude of likely discrepancies is on the order of a few tenthos of a foot at most between coordinate and monument representing the coordinate as placed by competent surveyor, how many IBLA cases have dealt with discrepancies of a few tenths of a foot? ZERO?
JKinAK, post: 405727, member: 7219 wrote: I've studied the topic in depth and while I don't know everything about it I'll post more on the various issues as I have time. Kent - look carefully at what is being proposed and think about how it might play out - I highly doubt that you'll think DPPS is a good idea after you dig into it.
I've thought about it and I think that DPPS is a very appropriate solution for surveying lands of the sort involved, particularly in a future in which decimeter-accuracy positioning is widely available. The real action will be in simply monitoring the coordinate system, i.e. keeping up with any crustal movement and transformation to newer datums to follow NAD83. That is an appropriate use of surveying effort.
Kent McMillan, post: 405709, member: 3 wrote: Unless I missed it, the above paper fails to mention the moer obvious strategy of simply establishing reference monuments within the boundaries of the land to be surveyed, but in locations that are chosen to be accessible, stable, and suitable for GPS operations. Instead, the paper reviewed what I'd consider to be false choices, i.e. either establishing a control point via OPUS and then returning to make a survey of a tract from that new control point or surveying ties to three remote boundary monuments with NSRS coordinates published at the same epoch as those in which the coordinates of the tract corners to be monumented are expressed.
QUOTE]
Kent McMillan, post: 405709, member: 3 wrote:
I think you missed it. The report addresses establishing and using additional monumentation on page 10:
"Densification of the Monumented DPPS Corners After Some Monumentation is IN
Traveling to three bracketing original DPPS monuments for each corner within the DPPS lands will end up being an expensive proposition as the lands are surveyed in years to come. The Three Plus Method would be suitable for setting additional DPPS geodetic datum control in the Group 948 lands. These control monuments and other accepted Three Plus Method monuments could be the basis for corner monumentation densification.
Using the published coordinates (which may or may not be the published DPPS coordinate) of
stable undisturbed original ÛÏcontrollingÛ monuments as the basis of other surveys will reduce the amount of travel required to establish other corners as the DPPS lands are populated with monuments. Allowing this method of densification has the potential to save significant money
but if improperly managed will increase the potential for the propagation of poor quality work.The State of Alaska will need to devise a strategy (and corresponding rules and regulations) that ensures the integrity of the cadastral framework and reduces cost. The approach may be something such as requiring that a corner (or multiple corners) on each of the township exteriors be monumented with controlling monuments before additional monumentation in the township can occur based on the controlling monuments."
******
If BLM's misleading propaganda "The agency will now use satellite-based navigationÛÓa more advanced form of the technology that drives many smartphone applicationsÛÓto help mark, define, and establish the boundaries of State lands. This innovation will fulfill the promise of the Alaska Statehood Act in half the time, save $60 million or more for the American taxpayer, and bring major new economic development opportunities to the state." is so easily believe by a knowledgeable surveyor like Kent - how are the politicians, policy administrators, and general public every going to figure it out?The issue isn't surveying in a coordinate position. The issue is establishing defensible boundaries that protect the bonafide rights of land owners and allow for the orderly development and management of lands. There's a proven system that's been working for 200+ years and BLM wants to change that system for the last 1/5 of Alaska State lands to be conveyed. That's a change that will undoubtedly incur more than $60 million in additional cost setting monuments, changing state law to accommodate DPPS, establishing policy, educating downstream landusers and surveyors about that policy, settling land disputes, and dealing with who-knows-what problems over the next decades. I suspect the majority of that money will go to attorneys. Kent: Maybe this is a make work program sponsored by the legal community.
Kent McMillan, post: 405709, member: 3 wrote: Unless I missed it, the above paper fails to mention the moer obvious strategy of simply establishing reference monuments within the boundaries of the land to be surveyed, but in locations that are chosen to be accessible, stable, and suitable for GPS operations. Instead, the paper reviewed what I'd consider to be false choices, i.e. either establishing a control point via OPUS and then returning to make a survey of a tract from that new control point or surveying ties to three remote boundary monuments with NSRS coordinates published at the same epoch as those in which the coordinates of the tract corners to be monumented are expressed.
Kent McMillan, post: 405709, member: 3 wrote:
QUOTE]
I think you missed it. The report addresses establishing and using additional monumentation on page 10:
"Densification of the Monumented DPPS Corners After Some Monumentation is IN
Traveling to three bracketing original DPPS monuments for each corner within the DPPS lands will end up being an expensive proposition as the lands are surveyed in years to come. The Three Plus Method would be suitable for setting additional DPPS geodetic datum control in the Group 948 lands. These control monuments and other accepted Three Plus Method monuments could be the basis for corner monumentation densification.
Using the published coordinates (which may or may not be the published DPPS coordinate) of
stable undisturbed original ÛÏcontrollingÛ monuments as the basis of other surveys will reduce the amount of travel required to establish other corners as the DPPS lands are populated with monuments. Allowing this method of densification has the potential to save significant money
but if improperly managed will increase the potential for the propagation of poor quality work.
The State of Alaska will need to devise a strategy (and corresponding rules and regulations) that ensures the integrity of the cadastral framework and reduces cost. The approach may be something such as requiring that a corner (or multiple corners) on each of the township exteriors be monumented with controlling monuments before additional monumentation in the township can occur based on the controlling monuments."
******
If BLM's misleading propaganda "The agency will now use satellite-based navigationÛÓa more advanced form of the technology that drives many smartphone applicationsÛÓto help mark, define, and establish the boundaries of State lands. This innovation will fulfill the promise of the Alaska Statehood Act in half the time, save $60 million or more for the American taxpayer, and bring major new economic development opportunities to the state." is so easily believe by a knowledgeable surveyor like Kent - how are the politicians, policy administrators, and general public every going to figure it out?
The issue isn't surveying in a coordinate position. The issue is establishing defensible boundaries that protect the bonafide rights of land owners and allow for the orderly development and management of lands. There's a proven system that's been working for 200+ years and BLM wants to change that system for the last 1/5 of Alaska State lands to be conveyed. That's a change that will undoubtedly incur more than $60 million in additional cost setting monuments, changing state law to accommodate DPPS, establishing policy, educating downstream landusers and surveyors about that policy, settling land disputes, and dealing with who-knows-what problems over the next decades. I suspect the majority of that money will go to attorneys. Kent: Maybe this is a make work program sponsored by the legal community.
Kent McMillan, post: 405709, member: 3 wrote: Unless I missed it, the above paper fails to mention the moer obvious strategy of simply establishing reference monuments within the boundaries of the land to be surveyed, but in locations that are chosen to be accessible, stable, and suitable for GPS operations. Instead, the paper reviewed what I'd consider to be false choices, i.e. either establishing a control point via OPUS and then returning to make a survey of a tract from that new control point or surveying ties to three remote boundary monuments with NSRS coordinates published at the same epoch as those in which the coordinates of the tract corners to be monumented are expressed.
Kent McMillan, post: 405709, member: 3 wrote:
I think you missed it. The report addresses establishing and using additional monumentation on page 10:
"Densification of the Monumented DPPS Corners After Some Monumentation is IN
Traveling to three bracketing original DPPS monuments for each corner within the DPPS lands will end up being an expensive proposition as the lands are surveyed in years to come. The Three Plus Method would be suitable for setting additional DPPS geodetic datum control in the Group 948 lands. These control monuments and other accepted Three Plus Method monuments could be the basis for corner monumentation densification.
Using the published coordinates (which may or may not be the published DPPS coordinate) of
stable undisturbed original ÛÏcontrollingÛ monuments as the basis of other surveys will reduce the amount of travel required to establish other corners as the DPPS lands are populated with monuments. Allowing this method of densification has the potential to save significant money
but if improperly managed will increase the potential for the propagation of poor quality work.
The State of Alaska will need to devise a strategy (and corresponding rules and regulations) that ensures the integrity of the cadastral framework and reduces cost. The approach may be something such as requiring that a corner (or multiple corners) on each of the township exteriors be monumented with controlling monuments before additional monumentation in the township can occur based on the controlling monuments."
******
If BLM's misleading propaganda "The agency will now use satellite-based navigationÛÓa more advanced form of the technology that drives many smartphone applicationsÛÓto help mark, define, and establish the boundaries of State lands. This innovation will fulfill the promise of the Alaska Statehood Act in half the time, save $60 million or more for the American taxpayer, and bring major new economic development opportunities to the state." is so easily believe by a knowledgeable surveyor like Kent - how are the politicians, policy administrators, and general public every going to figure it out?
The issue isn't surveying in a coordinate position. The issue is establishing defensible boundaries that protect the bonafide rights of land owners and allow for the orderly development and management of lands. There's a proven system that's been working for 200+ years and BLM wants to change that system for the last 1/5 of Alaska State lands to be conveyed. That's a change that will undoubtedly incur more than $60 million in additional cost setting monuments, changing state law to accommodate DPPS, establishing policy, educating downstream landusers and surveyors about that policy, settling land disputes, and dealing with who-knows-what problems over the next decades. I suspect the majority of that money will go to attorneys. Kent: Maybe this is a make work program sponsored by the legal community.
JKinAK, post: 405736, member: 7219 wrote:
The report addresses establishing and using additional monumentation on page 10:"Densification of the Monumented DPPS Corners After Some Monumentation is IN
Traveling to three bracketing original DPPS monuments for each corner within the DPPS lands will end up being an expensive proposition as the lands are surveyed in years to come.
Yes, I read that bit and thought it was a false choice. What they are describing was having to go find some boundary monuments on the remote EXTERIOR of the entire tract, whereas the much more efficient solution would just be to tie to closer reference points with positions in the same coordinate system as that in which the boundary corners are published. Much different thing.
JKinAK, post: 405728, member: 7219 wrote: Regarding OPUS solutions - you don't get the same answer when surveying the same point with OPUS when you are a long way from your CORS stations. The first proposed DPPS plat is Group 948.
CORS stations nearest to Group 948
AB33 ÛÒ UNAVCO-PBO ÛÒ Approx. 69 miles (111k) NE of the center of the group
AB27 ÛÒ UNAVCO-PBO ÛÒ Approx. 119 miles (191k) NW of the center of the group
AB36 ÛÒ UNAVCO-PBO ÛÒ Approx. 139 miles (223k) S of the center of the group
AB27-AB36 ÛÒ Approx. 223 miles (359k)
AB36-AB33 ÛÒ Approx. 155 miles (250k)
AB33-AB27 ÛÒ Approx. 182 miles (292k)
The UNAVCO stations are on a 5 year funding cycle - You don't want your positioning methodology to rely on them.
The nearest Federally operated CORS stations are in Fairbanks - FAI (operated by the FAA and about
200 miles to the SE of the center of Group 948) and in Barrow - BRW1 (operated by the FAA and about
320 miles N of the center of Group 948.)
I don't see distances of that size as particularly problematic as long as the session length is sufficiently long. The way that works in practice is you park one (or two) receivers on control points for six or eight hours and as they are logging data visit control points much nearer to one or the other. You get OPUS solutions on both bases, vectors from them to (possibly multiple) rovers and end up with very good quality NAD83 coordinates on everything. This applies to post-processed solutions, of course, where radio link isn't an issue.
Then, the next day the whole setup is shifted to another area and the process repeated.
You design the survey to end up with a network of connected points with sufficient redundancy to show reliability. Only the base receivers logging data for an OPUS solution need to remain stationary for at least six hours. Everything else can use much shorter sessions.
I have found that 4+ hours of static is the gold standard in marginal forest conditions, even with short baselines. Ridgetops work best, valleys and canyons can be difficult at best.
