I came across a proposed bill to update the VT SPCS to agree with NGS's planned changes, S.154 https://legislature.vermont.gov/bill/status/2024/S.154
The first big concern for me are that it seems to want to call the two earlier systems "Vermont Coordinate System 1927" and "Vermont Coordinate System 1983" but the new system, and presumably any replacements for the new system, "Vermont State Plane Coordinate System". If people start actually writing "Vermont State Plane Coordinate System" on work products, there will be confusion about which system is intended.
The other big concern is the § 679. TRANSITION.
"The Vermont Coordinate System 1927 shall not be used for projects commenced after January 1, 2000, and the Vermont Coordinate System 1983 shall not be used for projects commenced after release of the Vermont State Plane Coordinate System by the National Geodetic Survey; the Vermont State Plane Coordinate System will be the sole system for projects commenced after this date."
The problems are the release date of the NGS 2022 system may not be one obvious date, the commencement date of a project isn't always well-defined, and a period of education, testing, and software development must be allowed between when a system is released by NGS and when professionals start using it.
Iowa has a similar problem, although because of the inconvenient way Iowa puts its laws on the web, I can't relocate where I found it. But it requires immediate use of a system as soon as NGS releases it.
As for Iowa there is a considerable difference of the meaning of the word "may" use and the word "required" to use. The wording used is meant to prevent the need for amending the code every time a new coordinate system is defined by NGS. The law shouldn't have to spell out the specifics that a professional doing a survey denotes.
i.e.
Datum: NATRF 2022
Units: feet (1 foot = 1200/3937 meter exactly: National Institute of Standards and Technology -U.S. Dept. of Commerce)
Coordinate System: State Plane 2022
Zone: Iowa Ames-Des Moines
355.16 Iowa plane coordinate system defined.
The Iowa plane coordinate system may be used for the purpose of conducting official surveys, as defined by the United States national geodetic survey or a successor agency. As used in this section, “Iowa plane coordinate system” means the system established by the United States national geodetic survey, or a successor agency, for defining and stating the geographic positions or locations of points on the surface of the earth within the state of Iowa that is in use at the time the survey is performed.
My understanding is the epoch date on the new datum will be regularly revised, so specifically dating the control datum epoch used is very important.
The law shouldn’t have to spell out the specifics that a professional doing a survey denotes.
Yup. Projections require a geodetic basis. If it's not cited the metadata are not complete.
I think the bill authors should get a clear idea of what they want the bill to accomplish. Some possible goals:
Establish an umbrella term for SPCS and indicate SPCS may be used for certain purposes, such as describing corners in deeds.
Require professionals to provide adequate metadata, perhaps by granting rulemaking authority to the boards that regulate professionals.
Require professionals to avoid outdated SPCS versions on new projects.
Specify the circumstances that call for the international foot or survey foot.
The lawmakers should be clear about what they want, and chop out any stuff that doesn't contribute to what they want.
I find it hard to believe that they can legislate that you cannot use a previous datum. Where I live a lot of the coal mines are still using NAD27. The City is using NAD (predecessor to NAD27). In fact I am going to do a monitoring project at a power plant next week that is NAD27. First time for me on that project, no metadata, but after trial and error I figured out that the SPC were NAD27.
What we are trying to do in PA is make it as future proof as possible by saying something like "whatever the current NGS realization is" (not those exact words) so that when the epoch date changes, it is not a problem.
I think "projects commenced after XXXX date" means that if legacy projects pop up, they can and should be run in their existing system. If I revive a project that I did before the switch, I'm continuing rather than commencing work.
What we are trying to do in PA is make it as future proof as possible by saying something like “whatever the current NGS realization is” (not those exact words) so that when the epoch date changes, it is not a problem.
That makes sense to me, WA is doing something similar
"The official geodetic datums to which geodetic coordinates including, but not limited to, latitude, longitude, ellipsoid height, orthometric height, or dynamic height are referenced within the state of Washington must be as defined for the NSRS...
...The provisions of this chapter may not be construed to prohibit the appropriate use of other datums, other geodetic reference networks or systems, or other plane coordinate systems. Any other such datums, networks, or systems used must comply fully with the information requirements for the Washington plane coordinate system."
The official geodetic datum of the state is the NSRS, but we can use other systems and projections, etc. when appropriate, as long as our metadata are complete. Which is as it should be.
They can't legislate what coordinate system you have to use for a project. You can use an assumed system or any state plane system or UTM or anything else you so desire.
What they can legislate is what coordinate system they will allow to be submitted to the government when that is necessary. You may then have to convert your system to meet their submittal requirements. Or they can legislate what coordinate system will be used on a project they fund or requires governmental approval to proceed.
The Vermont bill has passed the senate and been sent to the house. Lurker's comment seem to suppose that legislation will be well-coordinated between the legislature and the executive branch; surely the legislature wouldn't pass a bill that would prevent planning for a project the executive branch wants to build, right? Even if all the state agencies were willing to overlook any technicalities that would make a project grind to a halt, some projects are unpopular. There are often groups that would try to force the issue, if they realized an issue exists.
PS: I didn't notice the pun until I reread my post.
This seems problematic to me in a number of ways. What defines a "new" project? Many large industrial facilities work on their own "plant grid" system. When the modernization of or addition to the facility requires governmental approvals, is the whole plant grid system going to be required to be rotated and translated into the latest State mandated iteration?
I believe that somebody toughed on software issues above. It will take time for NGS to push out a beta version of the conversion software. When they finally do that and work out the bugs, other software producers will also take time to push out updates to their end users, and again, it will take time to work out the bugs.
The question comes in, who is writing this bill and what is the intended purpose? Virtually any coordinate system that is spatially accurate will work, as long as the details of the projection are documented on the face of the plan.
I sometimes struggle to understand how bills like these conceived and why they are drafted by a non practicing expert to begin with. I can guarantee you that extremely few, if any, State legislators who are voting on this bill will understand the subject matter in the slightest bit. If it isn't broke, why try to fix it?
"If it isn’t broke, why try to fix it?" If the existing law had never been passed, it wouldn't be broke. But the existing law will be sort of broke. § 674 authorizes either the 1927 or the 1983 system to be used in public land records or deeds. I really don't know if that was necessary, or they would have been fine in the absence of the law. But if that was really needed, and the update isn't made, the 2022 system wouldn't be allowed in public land records and deeds.
The beta version has already been released by the NGS. Many manufacturers have already been very involved and already testing and making it readY as they can to be prep. Lessons learned from the past I believe the NGS has done a pretty good job this time of getting the information out so people can be more prepared for this release vs the past new datum’s. and coordinate systems. Now there most definitely will be a learning curve. I foresee one of the biggest is the Land Surveyors that currently don’t work on a projection having to undergo a bit of education to keep unintended issues arising. Like setting 0 as a non elevation point. When you are really at a different elevation but that will be on the manufacturer side of how they handle the issue. Maybe even the engineers will learn to design on a projection who knows.
It will take time for NGS to push out a beta version of the conversion software. When they finally do that and work out the bugs, other software producers will also take time to push out updates to their end users, and again, it will take time to work out the bugs.
The NGS has always maintained the conversion software, in the form of NADCON, GEOCON, and NCAT, plus HTDP for time-dependent positioning.
While a few vendors have elected to embed this on-the-fly transformations (Trimble for instances uses HTDP and NADCON under the hood), it's rarely necessary to have in field (sometimes even office) software unless one is working with two different sets of geodetic coordinates at the same time.
I've never had a problem working in the current realization of the NSRS due to lack of conversion software. The parameters are published anyways; I've put them in my own software/script routines too.
Chris,
Nearly (if not every) State will need to change statutes to integrate the new datums. NSPS published a 'model law' that capured the most common deficiencies in existing laws. It was a good starter kit that helped a lot of us get our feet moving.
I did work to educate legislative committee members in both chambers. Quite a few legislators were engaged and informed enough to get it done. There were two flat earth questions, one of which was probably serious. You are spot on when it came to the floor debate. In the Senate we had sponsor offers from two good people. I chose likable and popular over the math phd out of fear the latter might properly explain it...
What's weird about Iowa, even though it's a relatively flat state, it's got some mass anomaly's: https://mrdata.usgs.gov/catalog/cite-view.php?cite=64
I'm on pins and needles waiting for the 2030, maybe 2035 release.
JK!!
The NGS webinar this Thursday, February 8, will have an update.
https://geodesy.noaa.gov/web/science_edu/webinar_series/progress-modernized-nsrs.shtml