All this sudden interest in bearings
I like talking about bases of bearings, and surveying and property rights and what to accept and not accept and all that. That's what keeps me coming back to this site.
I don't like the arrogance and some of the silly insults that sometimes come,and sometimes come from me. But if we're going to argue and have different philosophies I prefer them at the survey level over the P & R level. 😛
All this sudden interest in bearings
>But if we're going to argue and have different philosophies I prefer them at the survey level over the P & R level. 😛
C&R not P&R 😀
All this sudden interest in bearings
lol....
The C & R is calculatable at the "survey level" and in fact can be made to virtually cancel itself out if you keep your legs balanced.
but with the P&R level, balanced legs, high-math calculations and all the compromise you can think of still makes the results quite convoluted and indefinite. It seems to work more on faith than science...... 😀
Bravo, Shawn
You present your side of the issue well.
Part of my reluctance to demand certain changes is that we need to allow newcomers into our profession who cannot get started if they must first invest a trillion dollars in bells and whistles. Many times the demand for everyone to meet a new mark in capability is put forth as a limiter to competition rather than a true benefit to the client. That limiter might be having to prove to the State Board that you are, in fact, continuously covered by an E&O policy of at least $10 million in order to retain your license. That limiter might be something like requiring all new monuments set to be a minimum of 2 inches in diameter and 48 inches in length, thus requiring something more than manual labor to install. That limiter might be proof to the State Board that you work out of a commercially-licensed and insured vehicle in order to retain your license (as opposed to using the family van). All sorts of such limiters can be visualized and eventually added into State requirements in the name of "better product" for the benefit of the public. However, if they are of no, or very minor, benefit to the client paying your bill, then why should they be mandated. A prime mover in pushing the concept of mandatory continuing education in order to renew one's license was the realization that this would drive many part time/ occasional/ nearly retired/ young guy license holders out of the profession, thus leaving only those who fit a certain standard. Sort of a fraternity brother type of thing. Know the secret handshake and wear a certain tie in a certain manner or you're not welcome.
Shawn, you had the benefit of growing up with your primary mentor and having access to his equipment, tools, files and years of knowledge. While that may describe quite a number of other participants on this message board, that is not the normal situation for someone in the early years of their survey experience trying to go out on their own.
By the way, you are not the arrogant one to whom I was referring in my earlier post.
Bravo, Shawn
Believe me, Holy, we see eye to eye on a lot of what you're saying. I think the degree requirement and the continuing education requirements were meant to give surveying a better professional standing, after all engineers do it. Don't we want to be just like engineers? I think it's goofy and unnecessarily reduces competition, like you're suggesting.
You are right. I'm blessed to still be mentored by a pretty good surveyor.