Tommy Young, post: 366645, member: 703 wrote: If someone was willing to accept them that way, what difference does it make?
back in the dark ages we did lots of quantity topos of gravel pits and stockpiles. land owners were paid by the yard for material.
it adds up enough for them to want to pay us to drive 3 or 4 hours each way and do a 4 hour topo... then a day of drafting and volume calcs. Year after Year, it adds up.
My understanding is that quantities for quarries are required for reporting to the Fed. The quarry operator is much more interested in the numbers adding up to the summations of loads in and out than accuracy. Quarries and landfills were once poplar for laundering money.
lmbrls, post: 366654, member: 6823 wrote: My understanding is that quantities for quarries are required for reporting to the Fed. The quarry operator is much more interested in the numbers adding up to the summations of loads in and out than accuracy. Quarries and landfills were once poplar for laundering money.
perhaps times have changed, never heard of such a thing. back in the day we got recalled by either the plant operator or the land owner to verify the volumes and changes.
Tommy Young, post: 366645, member: 703 wrote: If someone was willing to accept them that way, what difference does it make?
If a couple of neighbors want to employ an unlicensed land surveyor to mark their common boundary, what difference does it make?
Peter Ehlert, post: 366649, member: 60 wrote: back in the dark ages we did lots of quantity topos of gravel pits and stockpiles. land owners were paid by the yard for material.
it adds up enough for them to want to pay us to drive 3 or 4 hours each way and do a 4 hour topo... then a day of drafting and volume calcs. Year after Year, it adds up.
And they did that because it was worth it to them to get quality.
Jim Frame, post: 366659, member: 10 wrote: If a couple of neighbors want to employ an unlicensed land surveyor to mark their common boundary, what difference does it make?
It doesn't.
Two coterminous land owners are perfectly free to set and agree to their common line.
Peter Ehlert, post: 366658, member: 60 wrote: perhaps times have changed, never heard of such a thing. back in the day we got recalled by either the plant operator or the land owner to verify the volumes and changes.
I can see that a property owner getting paid by the tuck load or ton would have a valid interest. In the case to which I refer, the quarry owner is the land owner. The reporting was in response to the Enron scandal.
Tommy Young, post: 366681, member: 703 wrote: Two coterminous land owners are perfectly free to set and agree to their common line.
Two neighbors agreeing to their common line is one thing, but when they hire an expert because the location of their common line is in dispute, they have a reasonable expectation that he will locate that line according to professional standards using professional judgment. Since lay persons are not capable of assessing such an expert's qualifications, the state has chosen to protect the public by licensing those experts in order to ensure minimal competency.
The same pertains to other measurement tasks, which is the reason that topo surveying and quantity calcs require licensure in many states.
This all sounds like the "surveyor's full employment Act" to me. Let them get hoisted on their own petards.
I may have a unique perspective on this. I'm a registered engineer, not a surveyor. I also have over 20 years of GIS experience and am a certified GIS professional. In Louisiana, the engineering and surveying board is combined. Mapping, except for boundary surveying, is considered activities common to engineering and surveying. That is, either a registered engineer or land surveyor can do any mapping work, such as topo surveys, volume surveys, elevation certs, etc. The only mapping activity that is specific to surveying is boundary surveys. I have had several "off the record" conversations with the board's enforcement agent regarding mapping work performed by non-registered firms. I personally think it's a big issue that is being ignored. Plenty of consulting firms offer GIS mapping services and are not registered as an engineering or land surveying firm. Do I think you need an engineer or surveyor to make a map showing endangered gopher tortoise habitat? No. What about a wetlands delineation? Yes and no. Don't need one to say what's wet and what's not, but what about showing that in relation to the property boundary. Maybe. Probably. How about utility data? Parcel data? Yes. Yes.
Let's face it, GIS is sexy. Esri is a billion dollar company. Their annual user conference in San Diego attracts 15,000 people. I know because I go every year. I can make some pretty cool looking maps and no one cares one bit if it's accurate to 0.01' or 10'. I think engineering and surveying boards need to reach out to GIS organizations to educate them on the LAWS pertaining to surveying and mapping. I promise you that most non-engineers and surveyors would have no clue they are violating state law by performing mapping services. Just like La differentiates between mapping that is unique to surveyors, perhaps we could carve out some low-level mapping that doesn't need an engineer or surveyor to perform. Just food for thought.
I will promise you this. Ignoring the GIS community or dismissing their work as cartoonish will only hurt the engineering and surveying industry. It's only going to get bigger and more mainstream. Hardware and software companies already know this and have developed equipment that will operate in GIS and surveying workflows. I can take my Trimble R2, pair it to my iPhone, connect it to a VRS network, and collect "cm accurate" data using any iOS app. Without proper understanding of how that system really works, you could get some scary results.
Jim Frame, post: 366688, member: 10 wrote: Two neighbors agreeing to their common line is one thing, but when they hire an expert because the location of their common line is in dispute, they have a reasonable expectation that he will locate that line according to professional standards using professional judgment. Since lay persons are not capable of assessing such an expert's qualifications, the state has chosen to protect the public by licensing those experts in order to ensure minimal competency.
The same pertains to other measurement tasks, which is the reason that topo surveying and quantity calcs require licensure in many states.
You never said anything about hiring an expert.
I find it interesting that there is no law requiring a license to set the stakes to remove the dirt from the hole, but once that hole is dug, a license is required to tell how much dirt was removed.
I don't see much point in going any further. I'm just afraid that the profession is taking their eye off the ball by trying to co-opt things that have nothing to do with property boundaries.
andrewm, post: 366703, member: 10888 wrote: I may have a unique perspective on this. I'm a registered engineer, not a surveyor. I also have over 20 years of GIS experience and am a certified GIS professional. In Louisiana, the engineering and surveying board is combined. Mapping, except for boundary surveying, is considered activities common to engineering and surveying. That is, either a registered engineer or land surveyor can do any mapping work, such as topo surveys, volume surveys, elevation certs, etc. The only mapping activity that is specific to surveying is boundary surveys. I have had several "off the record" conversations with the board's enforcement agent regarding mapping work performed by non-registered firms. I personally think it's a big issue that is being ignored. Plenty of consulting firms offer GIS mapping services and are not registered as an engineering or land surveying firm. Do I think you need an engineer or surveyor to make a map showing endangered gopher tortoise habitat? No. What about a wetlands delineation? Yes and no. Don't need one to say what's wet and what's not, but what about showing that in relation to the property boundary. Maybe. Probably. How about utility data? Parcel data? Yes. Yes.
Let's face it, GIS is sexy. Esri is a billion dollar company. Their annual user conference in San Diego attracts 15,000 people. I know because I go every year. I can make some pretty cool looking maps and no one cares one bit if it's accurate to 0.01' or 10'. I think engineering and surveying boards need to reach out to GIS organizations to educate them on the LAWS pertaining to surveying and mapping. I promise you that most non-engineers and surveyors would have no clue they are violating state law by performing mapping services. Just like La differentiates between mapping that is unique to surveyors, perhaps we could carve out some low-level mapping that doesn't need an engineer or surveyor to perform. Just food for thought.
I will promise you this. Ignoring the GIS community or dismissing their work as cartoonish will only hurt the engineering and surveying industry. It's only going to get bigger and more mainstream. Hardware and software companies already know this and have developed equipment that will operate in GIS and surveying workflows. I can take my Trimble R2, pair it to my iPhone, connect it to a VRS network, and collect "cm accurate" data using any iOS app. Without proper understanding of how that system really works, you could get some scary results.
" I think engineering and surveying boards need to reach out to GIS organizations to educate them on the LAWS pertaining to surveying and mapping."
I agree whole-heartedly, but my Board barely prosecutes complaints that are handed to them with specifically defined infractions. They do not support continuing education of their own licensees. The chances of them reaching out to ANYONE is 0.00%.
Jim Frame, post: 366659, member: 10 wrote: If a couple of neighbors want to employ an unlicensed land surveyor to mark their common boundary, what difference does it make?
In my State that is against the law...
Although I've chosen boundary surveying as the primary focus of my practice and expertise within surveying, I do not agree that the overall practice of surveying should be limited to boundary.
The ability to make measurements has been made incredibly easy by modern technology. With the expenditure of enough money to buy equipment designed to make survey grade measurements, darn near anyone can teach themselves, or get a few hours of training from the equipment dealer to be able to make fairly reliable precise measurements, at least when one considers each measurement on its own.
Its when many such measurements are used together to depict a larger picture of something that problems can become significant. That's where the expertise comes in. The trained professional knows (or should know) how to identify errors when they do enter into the data in significant amounts, how to account for various errors amongst the full set of measurements, but most importantly, how to minimize the errors that enter into the data to begin with.
Any schmuck might be able to make a reasonable claim to be able to make precise measurements and to be able to create an appealing looking map from the measurement data. But the precision reported by the equipment does not equate to accuracy of the data, and most significantly, it cannot substitute for the knowledge of what to measure and the best way to achieve accurate results.
The general public, when looking for someone to provide a measurement related service for them may or may not be aware of licensing requirements, and more to the point, may not be aware of equipment limitations and the knowledge actually required to produce good data and achieve accurate results.
Jim Frame's point was that it is not the client's responsibility to be aware of these things or to ensure that their service provider has the proper licensing or adequate knowledge to make proper use of the equipment they use or to accomplish the job that needs to be done. That responsibility properly rests with the service provider.
If someone holds themselves out as an expert, as having the advanced knowledge to properly provide the service they offer for a fee, most people looking to have such service will assume that a person in business to provide that service also has the expertise. It's that level of implicit trust that is at the heart of the violation of the unlicensed provider.
Many states, including California do not require any sort of certificate for the business in order to obtain a business license. It's two completely separate systems with no cross requirements for the Secretary of State or local government to ensure compliance with prior to issuing a business license. It's up to the licensing board to pursue enforcement against the unlicensed provider to shut them down once they find out about it. The only way they find out under the current system is if someone makes a complaint to the Board.
On the other hand, there are evermore increasing encroachments on measurement functions that were once the exclusive domain of the surveyor. If approached properly, the survey profession will be able to hold onto some portions where they are able to show how erroneous measurements by unlicensed people has caused problems (and be able to show that the incidence of erroneous results is significantly greater among non-licensees), and how those functions being performed only by properly trained and licensed people will reduce those problems. We would also have to show that our profession would be able to keep up with the demand for such services.
Tommy's right though. Even if we are able to have some victories in this area in the present, technological capabilities are advancing fast enough that many complex measurement intensive tasks will become idiot-proof even to the level of identifying mistakes and accounting for other errors in the data, either in the processing or perhaps even on the fly. Trying to protect the profession by trying to protect any but the most complex and accuracy-demanding measurement work is ultimately a losing battle.
There's a writer from California whose articles and columns regularly appear in TAS who has repeatedly said "Measurement is Dead." I don't agree with the way he worded it, but I agree with his premise and his forecasting of the relationship of the survey profession to measurement. Rather than viewing measurement as dead, I view it as having developed or rapidly developing to the point where it is almost completely independent of the need for surveyors to take care of it. Kind of like a child who increasingly is able to take care of himself as he matures, needing his parents less and less to see to his basic needs until one day he is an adult having no reliance on the parents who were once required to take care of all his needs.
Surveyors need to focus more on the interpretation, use, and management of data. The arguments regarding unlicensed providers of measurement data shouldn't be about who makes and provides the measurements, or even who makes the maps and calculations, it should be about professional oversight of these people performing the technical functions.
Tommy Young, post: 366715, member: 703 wrote:
I don't see much point in going any further. I'm just afraid that the profession is taking their eye off the ball by trying to co-opt things that have nothing to do with property boundaries.
In parts of the world boundaries is all that surveying is. In my part of the world you are required to be a licensed professional surveyor to perform many geospatial activities.
This isn't about turf - it's about protecting the public.
Our lawmakers believe that those folks licensed to perform surveys ought to be the ones providing a broad range of highly technical specialized services which happens to include boundary surveys. I suspect that they believe this because:
1. The public typically isn't qualified to determine:
[INDENT] a. what is required (boundary/geospatial products or services) to meet their needs
b. if they are hiring someone qualified to do that work
c. if the effort that they are paying for is appropriate for the task
d. if the products or services DO meet their needs[/INDENT]
2. Surveyors have core knowledge in:
[INDENT] a. measurement
b. coordinate systems/geodesy/datums
c. data management
d. interpretation of the law
e. interpretation of technical specifications
f. geospatial software
g. coordination of all of these to convert DATA to relevant INFORMATION[/INDENT]
3. Licensed surveyors are ACCOUNTABLE to the BOARD of REGISTRATION
[INDENT] Their livelihood is dependent on doing the right thing.[/INDENT]
While EVERY surveyor doesn't need to know EVERYTHING about what falls under their state's definition of surveying they do need to know enough about the services that they are providing to competently perform those services.
So keeping your eye on the ball isn't the same thing from state to state - it depends on how your state defines the ball. In my state it's not just boundaries. I believe that if a state is trying to protect the public in matters related to the cadastral framework and complex geospatial activities - they should be concerned about more than just boundary surveys.
This isn't about restricting free trade - folks doing this work can, and should, get licensed. This is about accountability.
P.S. If you want ESRI and AutoCAD and Universities and politicians and ... to listen to the survey community then the survey community should GROW. Grow by encompassing and licensing all of those folks performing the highly specialized and complex geospatial activities that are rooted in boundary surveying and geodesy. Get your state to adopt the NCEES Model Law Definition - it's what surveyors are being tested on to become licensed.
JKinAK, post: 366732, member: 7219 wrote: In parts of the world boundaries is all that surveying is. In my part of the world you are required to be a licensed professional surveyor to perform many geospatial activities.
You'd just as well get ready, because technology is going to take those geospatial activities away from surveyors, whether we like it or not. When it is proven that lay people, with the right technology, can derive proper measurements, the public isn't going to stand for some cabal standing in the way. Look at North Carolina. The dentists tried to co-opt teeth whitening. SCOTUS put a stop to that.
Tommy Young, post: 366744, member: 703 wrote: You'd just as well get ready, because technology is going to take those geospatial activities away from surveyors, whether we like it or not.
I agree, but for many measurement and analysis activities we're not there yet.
The worrisome consensus is that there is no coordinated response from our society, our State Boards and NSPS.
I wonder if NSPS monitors this or any other forum that is important to land surveyors. Or are they still snoring?
Holy Cow, post: 366405, member: 50 wrote: 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.
Same here. I used to do stockpiles for a large (many sites, several times a year) local company and more than once I was shooting the stockpiles at the same time the buckets were continuously pulling from the pile. My take on it was they wanted to ensure they could stay ahead of workflow. Like anything else I think they want to keep a margin at all times and not just add to the stock on a SWAG.
As for the accuracy of drone delivered versus conventional delivered volumes I would like to see the same site done both ways with the exact conventional shots shown as an overlay with compared elevations. Do I expect them to be identical? Of course not. But if they're even reasonably close, say within 0.2' I would then tend to think the drone delivered data would be more accurate than the conventional gathered. My reasoning for this is the drone delivered data isn't looking at only those specific points, it is looking at all points while the conventional is interpolating between points.
Disclaimer: I am not a drone owner nor a foreseeable drone owner, just trying to be open minded about the issue.
It is hard for our Organizations to be effective, when we do not have a consensus in our ranks. We are flapping our arms in the wind to believe that we are powerful enough to deny the Public readily available data sets. Lucas is correct in that the unique characteristic of our profession is determining the location of the boundary on the ground. We need to defend this with all our effort. We will not be able to control of all mapping; however, we should determine the boundary's relationship to features, such as wetlands and other elements that affect property. Everything that is relative to property boundaries should be supervised by a Surveyor. The world is being mapped as we speak. We need to map out our future before it is determined by others. Lucas is not telling what we want hear. He is telling us what we need to hear.
