Re-definition of Land Surveying

On the Re-Definition: I'm not to versed in that debate, so I tried to study rather than reply.

Not finding any info, I'm guessing that it surrounds cutting "engineering surveyors" loose on their own sites.

My State (NC) has effectively done this, but they aren't writing boundary experience out of the requirements for a surveying license.

Also, control for engineering surveys must be set by a PLS. The only catch is, I haven't found where proper control is a requirement.

I know there's been a push to eliminate the experience requirement from many types of professional licenses. Last I knew NCEES and some state boards were pushing to substitute masters degrees for taking the PE exam and a four year degrees to qualify for sitting for the PS exam.

Many of the posts here have alluded to folks practicing outside their area of expertise or just flat out poorly within it. Colleges and employers everywhere are struggling to manage the desire for 'economical' land survey solutions with the fact there isn't a generation to replace the current surveying professionals.

No doubt there's some bright spots in the current crop of collegians, however, the spots are becoming fewer and farther between.

Right, wrong or otherwise, professional educators are the solution in somebody's eyes. I personally can't fathom either PE's or PS's not satisfying some sort of experience prerequisite.

I think your supposition that the NCEES wants remove the licensing requirement for what we think of as land surveying is wrong, but I also think the track they are taking might be supporting is equally incorrect.

Steve

I've always sort of felt that boundary surveying or land surveying needed and extra boost of law, education and experience that should come in addition to the basic license. Surveyors are doing a lot of things outside of land boundaries. I'm not all that sure exactly where the license comes in there but it must as they use that experience (or want to use it) to qualify for a license (construction, engineering surveyors, topo, GIS, CAD, whatever). So you must need a license to do this stuff or they want to require a license to to it. That's fine. My solution would be to require a few years of specialized experience in boundary work to qualify for a second tier license in boundary surveying, and a second test that covered all the law and such to qualify. This would be similar to the PE system in Utah where you get the PE and then for those engaged in structural engineering a structural license if you meet the extra experience (4 years) and test.

So I'd be for a deal. I'll give you the lower requirements for the surveyor license if you'll give me the extra experience and requirements to be a land surveyor.

Very good points. Just thinking here, maybe A Geomatic Surveying License under the State Board of Engineers and a Land Boundary Survey License under a separate State Board of Surveyors.

I agree. I think that many States, Missouri included would benefit from have specific disciplines of Surveying, ie. Boundary Surveyor, Construction surveyor, Engineering Surveyor, and Geospatial Surveyor (to include mapping and GIS), etc.

I liked the article, as well as the others. Thanks

Adding other types of surveying other than land surveying to the statutory definition of surveying does not somehow automatically eliminate boundary surveying experience for the requirement for licensure.

The following all fall under the definition of the practice of surveying in Maryland and the number afterwards is the minimum percentage of a candidates verifiable experience in each practice area required to sit for the licensing exam,

Control Surveys - 12.5%

Boundary Surveys - 45%

Topographic Surveys - 7.5%

Minor Engineering - 15%

Subdivision Planning - 7.5%

Construction Surveys - 7.5%

Location Drawings - 2.5%

The standard set by NCEES and the states for passing the exams and becoming a licensed surveying is being "minimum qualified". No new licensee is an expert at anything. What a system like the one laid out above does is ensure that a newly licensed surveyor has been exposed to all the facets of his/her profession and has experience in all of them. Then, should the surveyor desire to specialize in boundary, or construction, or subdivision design and planning, rather than practice as a generalist they are free to do so.

NCEES Is Protecting A Profession, Not The Puiblic.

NCEES wants simple put it in the computer questions. Pay your money, take the test, move on. Some colleges also lean in that direction.

Most state laws at least imply the intent is to protect the public.

Considering what one learns in a few years of on the ground boundary experience, the education requirement for a PLS would have to be a Masters degree. Not an easily taught class courses.

Paul in PA

There are so many different kinds of "surveying" that "boundary retracement" should be its own discipline.

It's always a treat to set out new lines but the majority of my work is finding the old ones.

Well, the article makes mention of Lucas in a way that accepts his arguments to be true; that too many surveyors do not know how to perform proper land boundary surveying.

It also deals with problems with the licensing process that might lead to the above situation.

So, before changes are made I would look at the past and current structure of licensing to see what might be done in that regard to alleviate the Lucas described problem.

When you do this you will find that virtually all professions are designed so that licensure will be attained via what is referred to as the "3 legged stool"; a tripod if you will, that is thought to give the best support structure to an individual for professional practice.

Then look at the statistics for licensees in the differing professions. You will find that 70%-80% of licensed land surveyors attained licensure via experience only. That is far higher than any other profession (engineers at about 3%-6%).

So, if there's a problem, it would appear that it's with the experience leg of the stool.

Blame the problem on colleges and definitions of practice if you will; but the numbers say any problem rests squarely on the shoulders of practicing surveyors who are not being mentors but rather using employees for profit alone with no instruction or training in the bargain. Or, on employers on passing along the wrong information, perpetuating bad practice, and the newly licensed bipods have too little input from other sources to distinguish the difference.

I can't imagine getting licensed without boundary experience, but I can't imagine it without the surveying education I received and the exams as well. And I seriously doubt the authors contention that a new definition will eliminate the requirement for boundary experience.

As for expert witness testimony, in most states you are more likely to be disqualified if you can't show a study of surveying leading to a college degree. Experts are supposed to be able to demonstrate advanced study in their field, not merely that they have worked for a number of years.

Not a well grounded article in my view. More of an uninformed and un-researched rant that I would hope most college graduates with additional experience could do better than.

I have been in many of the meetings where the legislation was discussed. The reasoning behind it has nothing to do with 'eliminating boundary experience'. If you had bothered to approach the people working on it directly you would know that. If you brought concerns into the mix in the TWO YEARS PLUS it's been discussed they could have been addressed early on.
Choosing to wait and then print a grossly misleading 'article' that does not reflect ANY of the discussions the Board and ISPLS have been having can only be described by words that would get me banned from this site.
The point of the legislation is to include our normal duties in the things we are authorized to do. It is a recognition of what is already happening, period.

It doesn't matter what has been discussed, especially when this is the first many have heard of the issue. That's what this board is for. It is not something that is supported by most surveyors, except for the few construction surveyors who feel left out for lack of boundary experience. Eliminating the boundary requirement is a backdoor grab of surveying by engineers that has been pushed for many years. Of course they wont discuss it in those terms, just like Obama Care wasn't a tax. The people pushing this are good politicians and know that to reveal the true outcome would kill their possibility of pushing this through. Any surveyor should have boundary experience. Period. All construction is related to a boundary, therefore boundary knowledge is required. Land boundary knowledge is the most important asset a surveyor brings to the table, to leave it out of the required education/experience requirements is ludicrous.

The legislation hasn't been discussed in North Carolina because it doesn't impact you. The outreach in Idaho went above and beyond. The first objection I encountered was this twisted misrepresentation called an article.
I am all for tearing apart Legislation and adjusting out the unintended consequences. Blind siding at the last minute with half baked conspiracy theories is childish and unproductive.

Thanks Duane. For the most part I agree with your analysis.

The current laws/requirements, statutes, and the proposed changes are all available for everyone to see.

The following is from the paper work filed to start the legislative process:

"STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
RS 23249
The amendment changes the definition of land surveying in Idaho code to better align with actual practice, improve consistency with surrounding states, and reduce barriers for young professionals to enter the land surveying profession."

The bold portion is what some (including me) are having a problem with. To my best recollection, this was never emphasized as a major reason for these changes. Yes, I have been very involved with the process from the start.

Brian,
Keep in mind the statement of purpose is written by the RS/Bill sponsor and is not codified. I would like to know where he got the idea...

> Brian,
> Keep in mind the statement of purpose is written by the RS/Bill sponsor and is not codified. I would like to know where he got the idea...

To my current knowledge, we have not obtained a legislative sponsor. I can only speculate where it came from, which I won't do.

Based on what was said in the last BOG meeting, the fulfillment of last stated purpose could be coming soon.

BTW, Who are you? 😉 email me if you want.

Wow thats crazy. As we all are aware, there are somethings in this business that no school can ever teach someone. Only years of experience can.

Don't think for a minute that legislation enacted in another state will not affect you. These things tend to snowball. The push to rid boundaries from the definition of surveying has existed and will continue to exist. It was a topic of discussion in NC in years past and has been pushed for in several states. I recall this argument repeatedly on this board and the "other" board, having been here almost since its inception. It is not a conspiracy, just a well thought out attempt at a power grab by those who cant get a surveying license. There are surveyors who support this, but the majority do not. Realize, all this legislation does is allow even more unqualified people into the surveying profession, we have enough of that type already. Instead of watering down licensing, it should be strengthened, the profession needs to require more boundary experience, not less.

>
> "STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
> RS 23249
> The amendment changes the definition of land surveying in Idaho code to better align with actual practice, improve consistency with surrounding states, and reduce barriers for young professionals to enter the land surveying profession."
>

It's crazy because, as I watched several nearby states implement mandatory degrees (with emphasis on 4-years), I asked myself (and colleagues) what would happen when they effectively stopped the flow of approvable applicants.

My answer was, they'll either go back to the way it was (when have you ever seen a political faction admit error). Or, they'll lower the standards in another way, effectively diluting the beneficial shift they were trying to affect in the first place (one step forward, two steps back).

Looks like other parts of the country may already be there.

Blame the problem on colleges and definitions of practice if you will; but the numbers say any problem rests squarely on the shoulders of practicing surveyors who are not being mentors but rather using employees for profit alone with no instruction or training in the bargain.

Having started in '88, I'm not sure profit was the initial motivation. However, the pace of modern surveying (from edm's forward) definitely hindered chances to be taught anything but field procedures while you tried to keep pace with project needs (injection of the micro-processor, maybe?).

Now, I think you've got a generation of business owners that were brought up without 'culture' (a lack of mentoring and focus on speed versus understanding) and they see no need to teach (maybe they don't even recognize that teaching is possible). "You're either degreed or you're field scum."

Or, on employers on passing along the wrong information, perpetuating bad practice, and the newly licensed bipods have too little input from other sources to distinguish the difference.

Could be the outcome of this lack of 'culture'. Protocols set by those that didn't get mentored in the first place (couple of generations removed). Now, profit begins to reign. And with those fancy new pointing sticks, you better be done today!

FWIW - this is the definition of surveying in the NCEES Model law

Practice of Surveying—The term “Practice of Surveying,” as used in this Act, shall mean providing, or offering to provide, professional services using such sciences as mathematics, geodesy, and photogrammetry, and involving both (1) the making of geometric measurements and gathering related information pertaining to the physical or legal features of the earth, improvements on the earth, the space above, on, or below the earth and (2) providing, utilizing, or developing the same into survey products such as graphics, data, maps, plans, reports, descriptions, or projects. Professional services include acts of consultation, investigation, testimony evaluation, expert technical testimony, planning, mapping, assembling, and interpreting gathered measurements and information related to any one or more of the following:

a. Determining by measurement the configuration or contour of the earth’s surface or the position of fixed objects thereon
b. Determining by performing geodetic surveys the size and shape of the earth or the position of any point on the earth
c. Locating, relocating, establishing, reestablishing, or retracing property lines or boundaries of any tract of land, road, right of way, or easement
d. Making any survey for the division, subdivision, or consolidation of any tract(s) of land
e. Locating or laying out alignments, positions, or elevations for the construction of fixed works
f. Determining, by the use of principles of surveying, the position for any survey monument (boundary or nonboundary) or reference point; establishing or replacing any such monument or reference point
g. Creating, preparing, or modifying electronic or computerized or other data, relative to the performance of the activities in items a–f above

Nowhere that I can see does it lay out any experience and examination requirements

b. Satisfy the education criteria set forth below
c. Satisfy the experience criteria set forth below
d. Pass the applicable examinations set forth below
e. Submit five references acceptable to the board

It's just a template, the specifics are left up to each state (For example we basically follow the model law in Maryland but have two state specific exams - one for boundary law and one for hydrology & storm drain design.)