Here is a link to a thread on Washington State's discussion on updating the definition of Land Surveying.
https://surveyorconnect.com/threads/washington-proposed-changes-to-196-29-105.321979/
In that thread, a link to a paper refuting the changes was posted. The article was interesting to me for many reasons, but the one that stood out was this continued use of the word "professional". The author refers to "GIS Professionals", "geospatial professions", and other "professions". He is specifically concerned that the new rule will "Infringe on the expertise of GIS professionals".
I am a little confused, however. Is there a Board of Registration for GIS? Is there a mechanism to pull their ability to practice GIS if they do not conform to some standard?
Is there any such thing as a GIS "professional"? It doesn't appear that there is any such thing in Washington State. Are there states licensing people for GIS now?
Mike Marks, post: 326318, member: 1108 wrote: GISP
American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing (ASPRS) maintains a certification process for both "Certified Mapping Scientist, GIS/LIS" and "Certified GIS/LIS Technologist" as well as several other mapping related professions. I have read that these certifications are more difficult to obtain than the GISP mentioned above.
Mike Marks, post: 326318, member: 1108 wrote: GISP
Are there any states recognizing this as a profession based upon this organization's authority?
The word "professional" has certain, specific meaning for a Land Surveyor. And it does't mean that we get paid for it. I know that they call guys "professional" athletes, but that doesn't make them a Professional.
I know from simply searching the DOL website that there is no such thing as a GIS "Profession" in Washington. I am curious if they exist in any state.
dmyhill, post: 326316, member: 1137 wrote: ....Is there any such thing as a GIS "professional"? It doesn't appear that there is any such thing in Washington State....
Does "professional" equal "licensed by the state"? I think not.
Here are some rules from the North Carolina Board.
21 NCAC 56 .1608 CLASSIFICATION/LAND INFORMATION SYSTEM/GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM SURVEYS
(a) General: "Land Information System/Geographic Information System (LIS/GIS)" surveys are defined as the measurement of existing surface and subsurface features for the purpose of determining their accurate geospatial location for inclusion in an LIS/GIS database. All LIS/GIS surveys as they relate to property lines, rights-of-way, easements, subdivisions of land, the position for any survey monument or reference point, the determination of the configuration or contour of the earth's surface or the position of fixed objects thereon, and geodetic surveying that includes surveying for determination of the size and shape of the earth both horizontally and vertically and the precise positioning of points on the earth utilizing angular and linear measurements through spatially oriented spherical geometry, shall be performed by a Land Surveyor who is a licensee of this Board unless exempt by G.S. 89C-25. For the purpose of specifying minimum allowable surveying standards, five general classifications of LIS/GIS surveys are established, any of which may be specified by the client. In the absence of a specified standard, the surveyor shall conform the survey to the requirements for a Class B survey.
(1) For horizontal accuracy, the five general classifications are:
(A) Class AA LIS/GIS Surveys. For Class AA LIS/GIS surveys in North Carolina, the relative accuracy shall be equal to or no less than 0.033 meter (0.10 feet);
(B) Class A LIS/GIS surveys. For Class A LIS/GIS surveys in North Carolina, the relative accuracy shall be equal to or less than 0.5 meter (1.64 feet);
(C) Class B LIS/GIS surveys. For Class B LIS/GIS surveys in North Carolina, the relative accuracy shall be equal to or less than 1.0 meter (3.28 feet);
(D) Class C LIS/GIS surveys. For Class C LIS/GIS surveys in North Carolina, the relative accuracy shall be equal to or less than 2 meters (6.56 feet); and
(E) Class D LIS/GIS surveys. For Class D LIS/GIS surveys in North Carolina, the relative accuracy shall be equal to or less than 5 meters (16.40 feet).
(2) For vertical accuracy, the three general classifications are:
(A) Urban and suburban vertical control surveys (Class A). Urban and suburban vertical control surveys include lands that lie within or adjoin a town or city. For Class A vertical control surveys in North Carolina, the vertical error in feet shall not exceed 0.10 times the square root of the number of miles run from the reference datum.
(B) Other vertical control surveys (Class B). Other vertical control surveys include all lands which are not covered by Class A as described in Part (A) of this Subparagraph. For Class B vertical control surveys in North Carolina, the vertical error in feet shall not exceed 0.20 times the square root of the number of miles run from the reference datum.
(C) Trigonometric vertical control surveys (Class C). Trigonometric vertical control surveys shall be used for vertical control for aerial and topographic mapping. The vertical error in feet shall not exceed 0.3 times the square root of the number of miles run from the reference datum. The vertical error in Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) surveys shall not exceed five centimeters relative to the referenced benchmark(s) at the 95 percent confidence level (2 sigma) accuracy as defined in Federal Geographic Data Committee Standards.
(b) Nothing in this Rule negates or replaces the relative accuracy standards found in Rules .1601 through .1607 of this Section.
(c) The Professional Land Surveyor in responsible charge of the LIS/GIS boundary or geodetic control survey shall certify all of the following in either written or digital form:
(1) Class of LIS/GIS survey. The method of measurement used to evaluate the accuracy shall be described as either statistical testing or least squares adjustment results, comparison with values of higher accuracy, and repeat measurements. The reporting standard in the horizontal component is the radius of a circle of uncertainty, such that the true or theoretical location of the point falls within that circle 95 percent of the time;
(2) Method of measurement (i.e. global navigation satellite systems, electronic scanners, theodolite and electronic distance meter, transit and tape);
(3) Date(s) of the survey; and
(4) Datum used for the survey.
(d) A certificate, substantially in the following form, shall be affixed to all maps or reports:
"I, ______________________, certify that this project was completed under my direct and responsible charge from an actual survey made under my supervision; that this survey was performed to meet the requirements for an
LIS/GIS survey [21 NCAC 56.1608] to the accuracy of Class ____ and vertical accuracy; when applicable to the Class ___ standard method used to evaluate the accuracy was _______________; method of measurement ______________; date(s) of survey ___________; datum used for survey __________; and all coordinates are based on ______________ ['NAD 83' and realization (date of adjustment of coordinate system) or 'NAD 27'] and all elevations are based on ________________ (NGVD 29, NAVD 88, or other)."
History Note: Authority G.S. 89C-10; 89C-20;
Eff. February 1, 1996;
Amended Eff. August 1, 2014; August 1, 2011; July 1, 2009; May 1, 2009; August 1, 2002; August 1, 2000.
Norman Oklahoma, post: 326330, member: 9981 wrote: Does "professional" equal "licensed by the state"? I think not.
No, it doesn't, but it is certainly part of it. A license is not sufficient, but it is necessary.
Second, I am curious about the rules in other states. He might simply be misusing terms because his state licenses and recognizes GISP as a professional license, perhaps even regulated by the same BOR as the surveyors?
If the out of state author of this paper is equating a membership in some unregulated, random group, as being the same as a professional licensed by the state, and regulated by a state mandated and appointed board, I have to disagree. It is exactly the same as if the NSPS licensed surveyors, and that is all it took to be called a "professional". I am not aware of a geospatial professional, or a GIS professional license anywhere in the United State, but my ignorance is as vast as the country...they should be referred to as technicians, if they are not actual professionals. When these terms are misused, you have simple lawmakers that might be confused, and equate the expert opinion of a land surveyor with an opinion from a GIS tech. We don't have our CAD experts give opinions. They are certainly professional. They dress better than I do. They are likely smarter.
My issue with his statement, in my state, is that this guy is making an equivalency statement that is untrue.
But I am curious about other states. Whether or not they include GIS and geospatial technicians in their professional licensing.
Below are the text of some emails from the WAGIC Listserv. Any surveyor in Washington with an interest in GIS happenings in WA should join the Listserv - simply search WAGIC and join the email list for free:
My first post in this thread has a link to documents the survey board sent me in response to my public records request. Those documents include the boardÛªs 2014 letter to the legislatureÛªs JARRC committee which attempts to justify the proposed WAC.
Although the language of the 2015 proposed WAC is different than the 2014 proposed WAC, the underlying problems are the same.
1. The board has not prepared a small business economic statement as required by statute.
2. The proposed WAC goes outside the legislatureÛªs intent as expressed in the statute that defines surveying.
I previously posted a link to my 2015 request for JARRC review. If you missed it, here it is again: http://www.propertylinemaps.com/p/proposed_WAC/2015_Request_for_JARRC_review.pdf
I have now filed a supplement to that request which rebuts the arguments in the survey boardÛªs 2014 letter. If you are curious you will find that supplement at:
http://www.propertylinemaps.com/p/proposed_WAC/2015_Supplement_to_request_for_JARRC_review.pdf
Joseph Elfelt, Owner - PropertyLineMaps.com
Subject: Re: Washington State accepting comments on changes to definition of land surveying
If you are a Washington Public organization (County or City) and would like to submit comments, King county has made it possible to submit a joint letter in response to the changes to definition of land surveying. Greg Babinski and George Horning have put together a well-researched response to the proposed definition changes for Land Surveying. Greg has also offered to compile all the responses he receives by this Friday (June 26th). I realize that is not much time but much of this has been with short notice.
I have attached a PDF with the comment letter put together by King County.
I have also included a word document that your organization can sign and return to Greg:
Greg.Babinski@kingcounty.gov
I appreciate Greg and Georges help in making it easier for the rest of us to provide comment.
Note that Greg is out of the office this week. If you have questions I can try and answer them or direct you in the right direction.
Feel free to distribute this form to others that may be interested in signing.
Thank you
Josh
In order to better understand the WA state survey boardÛªs attempt to adopt a WAC that defines land surveying, I thought it would be useful see:
1. Comments others have filed with the survey board
2. Related documents
In response to my public records request, the board recently sent me the first batch of records and indicated that more copies will be sent soon. I received this first batch in a zip file which I placed online at http://www.propertylinemaps.com/p/proposed_WAC/ELFELT.First_Installment.zip
In particular I suggest you see the file named: answer to JAARC and other docs from Rules file.pdf This file starts with the boardÛªs June 23, 2014 letter to Rep. Hudgins. You can draw your own conclusion regarding the quality of the boardÛªs answers. At about the time of this letter the board withdrew its earlier attempt to amend the WAC.
The correspondence from Garfield County is also informative since they correctly point out that the survey board is unlawfully attempting to amend the statute.
A few days ago I received a letter from Rep Hudgins in response to my latest petition to the JAARC committee. That letter noted that this committee does not meet while the legislature is in session but would consider my petition after the special session(s) end.
Instead of spending time, energy and money reinventing the wheel, the survey board should recommend that the legislature adopt the NCEES model law on surveying. This model law has been approved by national organizations for both surveyors and geospatial professionals. A key recommendation from this work is that any statute that defines surveying also include a section defining things that are *not* surveying and the model law includes a list of such things.
Representatives from the WA survey board attended the NCEES annual meeting (at taxpayer expense) at which representatives from the survey boards of all the states voted to adopt this model law. The board has informed me that it has no record and no institutional memory of how its reps voted on this hot button issue.
Joseph Elfelt, Owner - PropertyLineMaps.com
J. Holt, post: 326393, member: 84 wrote: Below are the text of some emails from the WAGIC Listserv. Any surveyor in Washington with an interest in GIS happenings in WA should join the Listserv - simply search WAGIC and join the email list for free:
---------------------- Clipped Mr. Holt's quote to the following __________________________________
The correspondence from Garfield County is also informative since they correctly point out that the survey board is unlawfully attempting to amend the statute.
A few days ago I received a letter from Rep Hudgins in response to my latest petition to the JAARC committee. That letter noted that this committee does not meet while the legislature is in session but would consider my petition after the special session(s) end.
Instead of spending time, energy and money reinventing the wheel, the survey board should recommend that the legislature adopt the NCEES model law on surveying. This model law has been approved by national organizations for both surveyors and geospatial professionals. A key recommendation from this work is that any statute that defines surveying also include a section defining things that are *not* surveying and the model law includes a list of such things.
Representatives from the WA survey board attended the NCEES annual meeting (at taxpayer expense) at which representatives from the survey boards of all the states voted to adopt this model law. The board has informed me that it has no record and no institutional memory of how its reps voted on this hot button issue.
Joseph Elfelt, Owner - PropertyLineMaps.com
I recognized the writer of the remaining quote from his post to a thread about Gmap4 on this forum in 2011. This is one of the online "property line mapping services" that charges a fee to provide property owners with a guesstimate of where their property lines and corners are located. The exchange here over four years ago indicates this individual had a lack of knowledge regarding Professional Land Surveyors background and license requirements. The more current quote indicates more research into the licensing law. However, it also shows a continuing lack of knowledge of the scope of services of many professional surveying firms.
