Jeff's articles are always well thought out, sometimes provocative, and always very informative. His recent article regarding the overlap of GIS and land surveying is an especially good article. I agree with what he wrote. I have a comment about something that I didn't see in his article.
I see no harm in people measuring things as pointed out by Jeff, but I do have a problem with people measuring things when the mathematical values of the the things measured are used by the public, and the public could be harmed by erroneous the results of the erroneous measurements.
An example might be topographic surveying. Earth and quarry volumes are serious business. Topographic surveying falls within the field of land surveying as defined by many BORs. Therefore, I believe it should be regulated under land surveying, and proper interpretation of BOR rules in many states should cover that. Drone photogrammetry operations claim incredible results for topographic work, and seem to indicate that anyone with a drone can do it. I have been doing a 4-year study comparing drone results with very intense RTK surveying on quarries and stock piles, and I have a very different opinion of the claims made by the drone photogrammetry bunch. There are conditions where it works, but there are conditions where the results are dead wrong without warning. I have identified the conditions, and they are very tricky. A model can look beautiful in 3D, and it will seem very convincing, but can contain error way beyond any reasonable threshold, even when control points are checked. A person who doesn't understand the potential disasters will no doubt provide erroneous results to an industry that also doesn't understand the potential for disaster, thereby causing financial damage, which is the primary purpose of surveying professional registration.
Big money is driving GIS. While I agree with Jeff Lucas' column, if we don't watch it, GIS will completely ransack land surveying proper, and costly errors will be made. Even if Jeff's opinion were incorrect, drone surveying and the novelty of it are out of the bag, in the hands of non-surveyors, and are unstoppable. I am not at all convinced that NSPS is doing anything about anything. Maybe someone can enlighten me about NSPS, and maybe I am missing the fruit of theri efforts. But at keynote speeches that I attended for two states, where this important topic was covered, the NSPS leadership was literally on the front row ASLEEP, literally asleep, breathing loud, and about to snore.
same problems with quad sheets and tax maps.
not trying to make light of the issues.
On the specific topic of measurement of stock piles and quarries, I have always wondered just how critical the final numbers are to the client. There must be a cost to benefit ratio to knowing a fairly precise answer to knowing a rough answer of a wilddonkey guess versus an extremely precise anwer.
Peter Ehlert, post: 366402, member: 60 wrote: same problems with quad sheets and tax maps.
not trying to make light of the issues.
I totally agree.
I don't know that we are licensed to protect people from themselves, as in the example of an unlicensed drone operator blowing a stockpile quantity.
Tommy Young, post: 366414, member: 703 wrote: I don't know that we are licensed to protect people from themselves, as in the example of an unlicensed drone operator blowing a stockpile quantity.
Licensure isn't intended to address that scenario, and even in CA -- where the definition of land surveying is very broad -- there's nothing to prevent an owner from using a drone and associated software to compile quantities on his own stockpiles for his own use. The restriction pertains to someone who provides a stockpile volume to an unrelated party, typically (but not necessarily) for a fee.
That is a strong closing comment to
make about NSPS. But you are traveling in those circles, so
I respect your opinion based on observations.
As far as drone mapping like lidar mapping, solid ground proofing by reliable land surveyors followed with experienced quality control procedures needs to be prominent parts of the project process. You can't skimp on the ground proofing and phone-in the QC.
Regarding new technologies, surveyors must adapt quickly to the applications and even develop new applications using them.
Drones will be integral to topo mapping inthe near future, cameras will become more refined along with precise positioning capabilities. Just like machine control/robots, terrain modeling control construction work at the present.
Apps will be distributed by major and minor vendors.
Typically a quarry stockpile quantity is to satisfy accounting, verify we have enough material to complete a project, or some other reason not particularly crucial to the overall scheme of things.
I agree it should be directed under the supervision of a license, but it seems to be an uphill battle.
Lucas writes of slapping math on the ground. GIS without proper application of boundary law and land surveying is the ultimate math slapping function. They have pre built the cadastral layer without most of the proper surveying and application of law. I hear the plan was for it to be tuned up later IF money was ever made available for that.
So lets consider how boundaries become established. Its landowner acceptance and reliance over time that establishes boundaries. That's why so much slapping math on the ground works and is accepted with the final result of the boundary being established. Landowners just accept what the surveyor does, use it and over time the boundary becomes established regardless of whether the boundary was properly located by the surveyor. Other than spend more money on another surveyor or going to court a big majority of landowners will just go with it, accept that the math slapping surveyor got it right, move their fences and other stuff and be done with it. I also find that a big majority of landowners actually believe in the numbers in their deed and think that ÛÏmath slappingÛ is the proper method.
Anyway, considering that the GIS parcels are already in the system [sarcasm](to be tuned at some point)[/sarcasm] it's not a stretch to think that landowners acceptance at the very low cost of them as the legal boundaries is not only possible but likely. I've already had a few run ins with landowners that believed the GIS map over what I was trying to show them (I'm not competent enough the read the ÛÏofficialÛ county GIS printout). So if landowners will accept the GIS and move their improvements to fit and rely on them over time, THEN over time they with actually establish their boundaries under the law.
SO NOW, what happens as the lines in the GIS migrate. YUP no two GIS operators can agree on the same boundary!
The real problem is the same problem as it has been from the beginning. Many landowners either don't have or will not spend the money for an actual competent survey of their boundaries. They will take any short cut available, especially sellers. The law let's them sleep in the beds they make.
I've been having issues with Google, so I can't confirm this, but an engineer told me Google has removed parcel data, if so I wonder if they have come to the same conclusion many surveyors have........
Well
This thread is certain to fracture in many directions
Peter Ehlert, post: 366402, member: 60 wrote: same problems with quad sheets and tax maps.
not trying to make light of the issues.
Exactly.
Jim Frame, post: 366418, member: 10 wrote: Licensure isn't intended to address that scenario, and even in CA -- where the definition of land surveying is very broad -- there's nothing to prevent an owner from using a drone and associated software to compile quantities on his own stockpiles for his own use. The restriction pertains to someone who provides a stockpile volume to an unrelated party, typically (but not necessarily) for a fee.
I agree with what you and Tommy are saying. The point I was trying to make was that people out there doing it for hire, claiming to the owner of the quarry that their method is as good as if a surveyor did it, and at same time topographic surveying is regulated by the BOR is the issue I have.
Frank Willis, post: 366564, member: 472 wrote: I agree with what you and Tommy are saying. The point I was trying to make was that people out there doing it for hire, claiming to the owner of the quarry that their method is as good as if a surveyor did it, and at same time topographic surveying is regulated by the BOR is the issue I have.
I'm afraid that surveyors are fighting a losing battle in trying to keep unlicensed individuals from measuring. Several years ago, when I was on the board of directors of TAPS, during every board meeting someone would mention, "How are we going to stop all these contractors from laying out roads without having a surveyors license?" I told them that the road builders association had a lot more money and guns than we did, and we had just as well give up that idea.
Surveyor's are licensed to retrace boundaries, period. Now of course to do that properly means you need to be able to measure well. Of course it only makes sense for us to market ourselves in other areas that require accurate measuring, such as utility mapping and topographic surveys. Because such surveys do not directly impact the rights of adjoining property owners, I'm not sure that those things should require a license. If someone wants to hire a drone operator to determine his stockpile quantities, no one beyond the owner of the stockiles is harmed by inferior work. Maybe the "inferior work" is plenty good enough for the application. Maybe not. Either way, it's not the job of the government to protect the owner from himself.
Tommy Young, post: 366606, member: 703 wrote: Surveyor's are licensed to retrace boundaries, period.
Not in CA.
If someone wants to hire a drone operator to determine his stockpile quantities, no one beyond the owner of the stockiles is harmed by inferior work.
No one is harmed until the owner then sends a bill to his client for the quantities computed by the drone operator, or submits payment to the lessor for those quantities extracted from the lessor's land, or submits those quantities to a regulatory agency for compliance certification.
If the owner wants to measure for his own uses, no problem. As soon as an independent party holds himself out as qualified to provide accurate measurements, then the situation changes. In CA, it changes such that licensure is required.
Jim Frame, post: 366614, member: 10 wrote: No one is harmed until the owner then sends a bill to his client for the quantities computed by the drone operator, or submits payment to the lessor for those quantities extracted from the lessor's land, or submits those quantities to a regulatory agency for compliance certification.
If the owner wants to measure for his own uses, no problem. As soon as an independent party holds himself out as qualified to provide accurate measurements, then the situation changes. In CA, it changes such that licensure is required.
How are any of the examples you listed different than if the person needing the quantities had his own drone?
Tommy Young, post: 366617, member: 703 wrote: How are any of the examples you listed different than if the person needing the quantities had his own drone?
The person wanting quantities for his own use is free to fly his drone. It's when he passes those quantities off to someone else that the line is crossed.
Peter Ehlert, post: 366402, member: 60 wrote: same problems with quad sheets and tax maps not trying to make light of the issues.
And FEMA maps. :woot:
Jim Frame, post: 366625, member: 10 wrote: The person wanting quantities for his own use is free to fly his drone. It's when he passes those quantities off to someone else that the line is crossed.
If someone was willing to accept them that way, what difference does it make?