Georgia's is fairly simply and straight forward:
http://rules.sos.state.ga.us/submit.asp?path=d:docs1807&file=09.doc
:good: :good: :good:
Why we gained and continue with this inferiority complex I'll never know.
Exploring the task of developing useful policy is not the same thing as exploring every GPS task. It doesn't involve the development of a checklist. In means taking a serious and complete look at what can and can't be done with policy. Like it or not, GPS is the most seriously abused and poorly understood tool we use. Sitting down and trying to deal with that does not detract from the importance of boundary principals or law.
The 'standard of care' language in our Statutes is too subjective to be of any use in dealing with the measurement component of our Profession. There are States that have made good headway in pushing Surveyors ahead without specifying technique or business model. They require you to state your tolerances and how you achieved them. The language could have been written a hundred years ago and will still be valid in another hundred years.
As for 'Professional' versus 'Trade' I wholeheartedly agree. Part of being a Professional Surveyor means understanding the tools used by you and under your direction. It also involves not calling people fools when they put time and effort into helping our Profession.
Perhaps this toned down version won't go poof...
> The 'standard of care' language in our Statutes is too subjective to be of any use in dealing with the measurement component of our Profession.
The courts and licensing boards that understand "standard of care" have not had any problem using it as it should be used. The problem I've personally seen in our state is that many do not understand what it means or how to properly interpret/enforce it. You will find the same standard of care language in the rules and regulations of nearly every profession, it works quite well when properly understood and properly applied.
> There are States that have made good headway in pushing Surveyors ahead without specifying technique or business model. They require you to state your tolerances and how you achieved them. The language could have been written a hundred years ago and will still be valid in another hundred years.
True. A very good model, as I agreed with, is the NSPS statement above and the ALTA standards. Neither require stating on a survey how you achieved the precision required, that, quite correctly, is left up to professional judgment. Again, what tolerances are applicable in every situation, and do you really think that can be figured out and properly implemented? Are similar standards going to be drawn up and implemented for every tool we use? If not, why not?
> As for 'Professional' versus 'Trade' I wholeheartedly agree. Part of being a Professional Surveyor means understanding the tools used by you and under your direction.
Yes, we should understand how to use our tools. That is called training. If someone doesn't understand how to use the tools of the trade, they shouldn't be licensed, or at least should not be practicing in areas where they are not proficient; there is already a rule against this. If this is a wide spread problem, why are not the existing rules being enforced?
Let me ask this, which has caused Idaho surveyors to incorrectly locate boundaries more often, the use of GPS outside of some random tolerance, or the incorrect use and application of evidence gathering, analysis and boundary law? Read a few score of boundary law cases, the answer is painfully obvious.
> It also involves not calling people fools when they put time and effort into helping our Profession.
I certainly did not call anyone a fool. Please don't put words in my mouth. I'm not sure I know you, but from reading your posts I am quite certain you are above using that tactic.
The problem I have, as pointed out above is that many who are trying to "help" our profession seem to not fully understand the definitions of and especially the differences between standard of care, standard of practice and minimum technical standards and how they relate to the practice and regulation of a profession.
I would really like to discuss this further, send me an email sometime. I'm really a nice guy. (at least that is what my wife tells me 😀 )
As others have noted - some pretty vehemently - incorporating technical guidelines into mandatory practice standards is problematic, both because of the unpredictable nature of real-life work conditions as well as the rate of change in technological advances.
That said, the original request was for guidelines. To me it sounds like a worthwhile effort, providing the user community with a starting point for becoming confident in the use of the tools and a reality-check for the manufacturer's user manual.
I'm not in favor of giving the board another hammer to hit us with while jackleg surveyors are still practicing. I was told by a board member that as long as the plat met the minimum requirements, it made no difference what BS methods were used to determine the corner locations and it made no difference what BS methods were used to measure distances and angles. If I put out a plat, as long as it has the vicinity map, bar scale, monument descriptions, etc..... I'm in good shape with the board, even if I am grossly negligent by setting monuments in the middle of the neighbors yard, cutting his house in half. So if what is being proposed here is to fine me for occupying a point a few epochs too few, while doing nothing to someone measuring distances with stadia, forget it.
> I'm not in favor of giving the board another hammer to hit us with while jackleg surveyors are still practicing. I was told by a board member that as long as the plat met the minimum requirements, it made no difference what BS methods were used to determine the corner locations and it made no difference what BS methods were used to measure distances and angles. If I put out a plat, as long as it has the vicinity map, bar scale, monument descriptions, etc..... I'm in good shape with the board, even if I am grossly negligent by setting monuments in the middle of the neighbors yard, cutting his house in half. So if what is being proposed here is to fine me for occupying a point a few epochs too few, while doing nothing to someone measuring distances with stadia, forget it.
Tommy - well said!!!!
What many are advocating is just adding to the laundry list of what makes the survey "good". All the while ignoring the purpose of a boundary survey - to find the correct boundary.
As Lucas and others has pointed out until they are blue in the face, these misdirected attempts do absolutely nothing to eliminate the poor practitioners from the profession, as long as they conform to the "minimum technical standards" they are hunky-dory, it doesn't matter that they have repeatedly "amputated the wrong leg".
If our purpose is to truly protect the public, maybe the governing of ourselves (yep, more wishful thinking) ought to require the correct answer? After all isn't that what the public and the courts expect us to do? Just what do the landowners or the courts care how many epochs were gathered or how often and how many times a very precise redundant measurement was taken to the WRONG corner? It just doesn't matter as long as the "appropriate measurement guidelines" were followed.
How ridiculous our profession must look. As long as we jump thru the right hoops in the right order, place the approved language and symbols on our plats, and our corner records are a specified number of pages, who the heck cares if we have actually found the correct boundary/corner and our visit has become a great public calamity? Gee, as long as the calamity was created correctly and looks pretty, who gives a damn?
[sarcasm]Wow, I would look for 0.0528 or better. I guess Texas surveys = GIS grade...[/sarcasm]
Our standards just changed substantially. Our old standards had the rigorous 'Thou shall meet 1:12,000 horizontally or 0.05' per route mile vertically'. Not that 1:12,000 could be considered rigorous with today's equipment though the 3rd order vertical equivalent can be tough with a single wire level and a few hills. Now it is up to the professional to determine the correct positional tolerance for the problem at hand.
We will use RTK with redundancy for some things, never exclusively for original or retracement surveys. But if we are running topo with it, of course we will tie in and check into the monuments from the ground survey.
We have used the RTK to stake property lines with witness stakes. Redundancy, checking and then looking at the stakes afterwards. If 5/6 stakes fall in line and one is off by a couple tenths, perhaps you should adjust that one... Usually the stakes line right up which supports the solutions you have acquired with the RTK.
I have set some monuments and building corners. Monuments are set with the use of 4 offset stakes set in proper geometry around the point in question. Force the solution down to 0.01' horizontally and save the coordinate of each offset stake. Then inverse to the point and set it while using an average of the distances. You will find a hundredth or two floating from the offsets. Then you locate the monument after to that same 0.01 and see how close you got. We have traversed to many of these monuments and they have fallen within 0.02' so we are happy with the results.
The building corners in the hole are for cheap contractors. Set all the hub stakes without tacks. Then choose 2 and set tacks. Check the distance with a tape and adjust as necessary. Let the forms guys worry about the other tacks. Only a valid solution when you are not tight to setbacks as you could find a couple hundredths floating around. If you want tighter, go back to the offset method, but at that point why are you not setting the total station?
Re-establishing control on a site can be performed in a similar means as the monument. Set 3-5 stakes and tag with RTK. Then set your TS and resect using them all as part of the solution. Check into something else and it usually works out well.
Just to be redundant about redundancy. Carpenters measure twice and cut once. We don't cut so we just keep measuring.
I agree with everything you wrote.
I've become very cynical about our licensing boards. Their operation has nothing to do with quality surveying, and everything to do with protecting those that fill out a predetermined checklist.
At the end of the day we are in agreement on many points. I'll be the first to admit you hit a sensitive point with me. Most times when I try to approach this subject the response is 'we are more than measurers'. Again I absolutely agree, but when the subject is measurement let's stay there for a bit. Putting it in other terms-
Suppose I am appointed to a committee to address speeding drivers in the neighborhood. I can point out the problem with cars parking unsafely, or I can explore whether or not speeding is an issue and if we can find a tool to deal with it. I suggest the latter is the better course of action. After we finish that task I would put forth my ideas on parking.
As for specific policy, again we are in (near) agreement. I will fight tooth and nail against any standard that forces specific tools and business models. Requiring a statement similar to the ALTA specifications or Washington code would not be onerous, but may cause surveyors to look at what they are publishing. It will do nothing to stop us from certifying our perfect ties to the wrong corner, but that wasn't the task of the committee.
And once again, I agree you did not use the term 'fool' directly. I would ask you to consider what you would think if you volunteered for a task, asked for help and were told your entire pursuit were foolish. You are obviously able to communicate well. Your point would have carried more weight with me if the approach had been a bit more respectful.
I will try to get an e-mail off this week. Thanks, Tom
hey...post your own state guidelines 😛
Well, this post did not exactly go as I had intended. I simply asked for links to some guidelines that other states may have for the use of GPS in boundary surveys. To those that posted links, I would like to thank you.
Our state's regulatory board is comprised of extremely respectful, professional individuals that have the very best intentions for the promotion and protection of our profession.
When I volunteered to work with them on this endeavor, I wanted to help make our profession better.
At this point in time, this is simply a fact finding mission, to start a dialouge, and see if anything even needs to be done. If anything is done, it will be well thought out, and not be a quick process.
I think that anything done to help improve our profession is a worthwile effort. You would be hard pressed to find another individual that cares more about this profession that I do, and that strives in every way to be more professional than I do.
It amazes me how someone can take a simple question or request and take off on such a tangent as to discourage fellow professionals from posting on this forum.
During my time on this forum and the "old forum", I have learned a great deal for my fellow surveyors, and I hope that I have helped others as well.
I will quickly admit that many of you have probably forgotten more about surveying than I will ever learn, but I find myself very frustrated with some of the replies in this thread. It is replies like these that make many fellow professionals think twice about posting questions or situations that we all can learn from. There is not a single one of us that "knows it all". Each one of us has a different skill set, our own strengths and weaknesses, and areas or expertise.
I will probably think twice about posting a question next time.
> I would ask you to consider what you would think if you volunteered for a task, asked for help and were told your entire pursuit were foolish.
Been there, done that, and apparently still doing it. That is part of my current frustration.
> You are obviously able to communicate well.
Well, thanks, I'm glad you think so. The truth is I am probably a bit too rough and direct in how I communicate. Many times it seems I am misunderstood, and part of the problem is I despise typing. But I keep trying.
> Your point would have carried more weight with me if the approach had been a bit more respectful.
I'll grant you that; like I said, I'm not much of a smooth talker or typist, I tend to be a bit too direct. The major problem I had (and I didn't communicate it well at all) is "minimum technical standards", I would seriously discourage their prolific use in our profession as they are quite often misunderstood and frequently mis-used and generally are not the proper solution to many problems.
> I will try to get an e-mail off this week. Thanks, Tom
I am sincerely looking forward to it, I enjoy getting to know other surveyors. Thanks.
allenlandsurvey at qwestoffice dot net
Jimmy, I may have come off a little harsh and certainly didn't mean to. However, my opinions are based on conversations with the board members and I stand by them. Also, I do not blame the board members themselves for the broken system.
Jimmy
Looks like Kentucky's was developed with an eye on the Georgia language.
From 201 KAR 18:150 -
Section 8. Global Positioning Systems. (1) It shall be acceptable practice to incorporate the use of survey grade GPS equipment into any boundary survey. The accuracy and precision of all measurements made with that equipment shall, at a minimum, meet all other accuracy and precision standards required otherwise by law or rules under Section 7(5) of this administrative regulation. If using GPS equipment in the course of a boundary survey, the professional land surveyor shall state on the face of the plat of survey, the following:
(a) A note stating what portion (or all) of the boundary survey was performed using GPS equipment;
(b) The type of GPS equipment used, including manufacturer and model number, and whether single or dual frequency receivers were used;
(c) The type of GPS survey that was performed, including static, real time kinematic ("RTK"), network adjusted real time kinematic, etc.;
(d) A note that discloses the precision of the GPS work done, either in relative positional accuracy, or vector closure.
(e) A statement identifying the horizontal datum, the vertical datum, and the Geoid model used; and
(2) The professional land surveyor shall at a minimum retain adequate documentation, in either paper or electronic format, of raw field data, adjustment calculations and closure, or relative positional accuracy calculations or computations necessary to support the accuracy and precision of the work product.
Despite the hyperbole of several posters, this simple technical standard does not remove professional judgement from a boundary determination. All it does is require reporting in a manner as to aid anyone following your work. It is no different than the several easily discovered instances of required information gathering or reporting found in some other professions.
> Georgia's is fairly simply and straight forward:
>> http://rules.sos.state.ga.us/submit.asp?path=d:docs1807&file=09.docbr >
Having spent a good bit of time in other states and among their surveyors at large. I am not sure Georgia is a good example of anything except how to cut prices so low that the profession is seen as nothing more than a Lawn cutting business, or trash hauling.
In spite of all of the hammering going on. I think it is a worthwhile endeavor. We are regulated as far as our closure with traditional total stations, then why not the GPS Vectors and accuracy standards as well.
Actually yes we do. Maybe not concerning the methods of using our tools, but definitely in terms of measurement accuracy. I think that is the way they plan on going is to regulate some sort of accuracy standard for boundaries using GPS. Seems reasonable considering.
Accuracy standard or precision standard?
Splitting hairs aren't we? 😉 Precision standards, although we use them interchangeably all the time.