To really make this fun, perhaps there should be a requirement that every piece of data shown on any survey product must have about six pages of backup information provided. Take something as simple as an elevation certificate for an AE zone with a FEMA-recognized benchmark directly across the street from the site involved. Require ten separate entries for each item called out on the form. For example, the elevation of the first floor would require millimeter precision at 10 different locations within the 1400 square foot house/building with lat/long plus state plane coordinates for everyone of those 10 different locations. I think we can recognize that as a stinking load of BS.
Or perhaps an entire abstract of title must be submitted for the tract being surveyed and every adjoining tract and/or any tracts that might be involved in a junior/senior rights issue. I think we can recognize that as a stinking load of BS.
Just because you, personally, are familiar with a particular practice and find it to be enjoyable does not mean that particular practice needs to be mandatory.
Holy Cow, post: 367748, member: 50 wrote: Ah, but many people that do surveying work do not have a need to actually learn anything about GPS except how to push a button, if even that much.
Yes, they are called "technicians". There's nothing wrong with that, but professional practice is about a more comprehensive understanding.
Those "technicians" are the ones who take the licensing exam in hopes of being able to break away from their "masters" to run their own businesses. What fraction of the licensing exam dictates the examinee must first hold a degree in geodesy and a masters degree in statistics?
Holy Cow, post: 367770, member: 50 wrote: Those "technicians" are the ones who take the licensing exam in hopes of being able to break away from their "masters" to run their own businesses.
Yes, but the licensing exam is ordinarily for the purpose of demonstrating qualifications to practice a PROFESSION. That's where the larger picture comes in.
The definition of a technician in modern day surveying is a guy who sits on a point, sends some data to a government agency to calculate his positions (he may not be only a technician, but that part of his job surely is), a surveyor who surveys without GPS, and does in in state plane or not, gets the correct answers,,,,,,,now that's a real surveyor...........
Looks like these guys did a fine job. Looking at the cap makes me wonder if the center dimple was originally stenciled, the second one is probably a guy with GPS.
Again, what fraction of the overall examination process dictates the examinee already be proficient in geodesy and statistics?
The problem comes from those outside the survey profession who insert BS requirements into the surveyor's work for no other reason than it might be convenient for them someday. The client needs something rather simple but some bureaucracy has decided that simple is bad. So, the surveyor must provide information that is of no value to the client who is the one paying for the project. Cutting a two by four to a certain length can be accomplished successfully with a hand saw and a carpenter's square. But, if the bureaucracy dictates all such lumber is to be laser cut with the aid of a micrometer, the cost of doing business just went through the roof.
MightyMoe, post: 367776, member: 700 wrote: Looking at the cap makes me wonder if the center dimple was originally stenciled, the second one is probably a guy with GPS.
From looking at the 1947 plat of HIGH RIDGE SUBDIVISION that shows a tie to the section corner, it appears that the corner may have been re-established from some permanent reference marks about 1320 ft. distant using a tie that was TAPED in 1947. The horizontal distance between the punchmarks (0.03 - 0.04 ft., I'd guess) could be two different attempts to lay off the taped distance using EDM ranges. Either way, wow.
Holy Cow, post: 367777, member: 50 wrote: Again, what fraction of the overall examination process dictates the examinee already be proficient in geodesy and statistics?
I'll be surprised if the licensing examination doesn't include some questions that require a functional knowledge of concepts of geodesy and statistics related to land surveying. This would include map projections and analysis of errors.
Holy Cow, post: 367777, member: 50 wrote: Again, what fraction of the overall examination process dictates the examinee already be proficient in geodesy and statistics?
The problem comes from those outside the survey profession who insert BS requirements into the surveyor's work for no other reason than it might be convenient for them someday. The client needs something rather simple but some bureaucracy has decided that simple is bad. So, the surveyor must provide information that is of no value to the client who is the one paying for the project. Cutting a two by four to a certain length can be accomplished successfully with a hand saw and a carpenter's square. But, if the bureaucracy dictates all such lumber is to be laser cut with the aid of a micrometer, the cost of doing business just went through the roof.
The national exam I took last year had several questions pertaining to geodesy and statistics.
Kent McMillan, post: 367782, member: 3 wrote: From looking at the 1947 plat of HIGH RIDGE SUBDIVISION that shows a tie to the section corner, it appears that the corner may have been re-established from some permanent reference marks about 1320 ft. distant using a tie that was TAPED in 1947. The horizontal distance between the punchmarks (0.03 - 0.04 ft., I'd guess) could be two different attempts to lay off the taped distance using EDM ranges. Either way, wow.
Since it's a section corner, they would probably have more info than that from property west and south, although the indication is that some of it is federal. It may be fed to the west and south so there may be no surveys those directions
MightyMoe, post: 367785, member: 700 wrote: Since it's a section corner, they would probably have more info than that from property west and south, although the indication is that some of it is federal. It may be fed to the west and south so there may be no surveys those directions
I was relying upon the note on the "Section Corner History" sheet that says:
"This corner is in accordance with the plat of 'High Ridge Subdivision' as recorded in Plat Book 22"
Obviously, I'm in Texas, but I understood that to mean that the representation of the position of the section corner on that plat of record was considered to perpetuate the corner. I make no judgments.
[USER=10458]@Jones[/USER]
Of the total point value involved in the testing, what percentage of the total demanded more than a cursory knowledge of geodesy and what percentage of the total demanded more than a cursory knowledge of statistics? What level of training (high school, two year college, four year college, trade school) would have been the normal place where the level of knowledge required would normally be taught?
Does your home state have any, or at least one, school where a future surveyor can obtain the credits dictated to fulfill the educational experience portion of their expectation for land survey testing applicants? Are these courses normally offered only as a part of an engineering degree track? Or, are they specifically oriented towards survey technicians?
Holy,
If I am not mistaken there were only four or five that delt with geodesy or statistics on the PS. As far as what level the questions were, I would have to admit I have never taken a true statistics class. I chose to take calculus in both high school and college. So the only statistics were survey related in college. In North Carolina, NC A&T does have a four year degree program which can be taken completely online. I also believe there are a couple of two year schools that offer surveying programs. I took advantage of East Tennessee States boarding counties, so I was able to go to ETSU at the instate rate.
If only we had time to really track down the sources of errors out there. In this particular case, it is rather far from the office and the amount of work involved compared to what type of surveying we are doing for our client does not allow for extensive examination. I am always interested in how quandaries like this arise, but there just isn't enough time in the day to track them all down.
Kent McMillan, post: 367788, member: 3 wrote: I was relying upon the note on the "Section Corner History" sheet that says:
"This corner is in accordance with the plat of 'High Ridge Subdivision' as recorded in Plat Book 22"
Obviously, I'm in Texas, but I understood that to mean that the representation of the position of the section corner on that plat of record was considered to perpetuate the corner. I make no judgments.
The corner was replacing an existing monument with a PLS stamp, I guessing since it's blacked out. The subdivision is supportive evidence,,,,,, there is no doubt more history in the record,,,,
[USER=10458]@Jones[/USER]
Thank you for your response. Keeping abreast of current expectations is important.
I'm fairly certain the three guys at Mount Rushmore were a bit weak on certain topics that are critical for today's hopefuls.
Kent McMillan, post: 367773, member: 3 wrote: ...qualifications...
I would offer the following revision... "minimum qualifications"
typical palm beach county. Call the county department and ask them which is good.
A section corner originally set as a post or a stone,
the "point" being the size of the top of the monument,
hopefully good to one link,
somehow gains an order of magnitude of accuracy when replaced with a brass cap with a pre-cast dimple?
The point "moves" when another private surveyor comes along and sets a new dimple?
They are both on the cap.
We are back to the conundrum of reporting what we find (with our best measurement ability) vs. staking what we think we should find from our record calcs. It's a priori versus a posteriori. Are we better informed looking at the paper or the monument on the ground?
The office of the description is to help us find the monument, not to move it.
Easy, in our State, surveyors file "land survey plats". You just look at the land survey plat and it will tell you how surveyor B found the first dimple by Surveyor A, but after "careful consideration" (a true statement made by one company), set the second dimple because the Board Rules and the BLM Manual require the setting of the second monument. (or, in this case, the second punchmark). Surveyor B is proud of their work and do not hide their mathematical superiority and superior legal application of "preponderance of the evidence" (another true statement on one company's survey plats).
So, instead of a proper retracement as contemplated by law, we have continued chaos - the exact opposite of the entire concept of the PLSS.