The only real way with rtk is to generate two reports. First would be documentation of each shot showing some sort of data on quality control procedure used to determine the shot itself returned a good position.?ÿ Second would be a least squares report generated from the quality controlled shots.?ÿ I do this on every rtk job and it takes a minimum of 3 minutes for a quality controlled shot.?ÿ Then a couple minutes for least squares report at the end.?ÿ The first step is critical because least squares will not identify an accepted rtk shot that is incorrect due to cycle slips (multipath, etc.). Hence, without the first step you're stuck with essentially the NSPS method (remeasure with total station in order to find any bad shots in the least squares process).
The NSPS method mentioned is not practical for your purposes obviously.
The other way is just throw the manufacturer specs on each map or in the file and simply claim you did what was in your professional judgment sufficient to meet them, and buy enough E&O to cover yourself.?ÿ I'm pretty sure this is the preferred method, minus the E&O of course:)
Is there a tolerance that FL sets??ÿ
1 in 5000 for rural surveys is an old standby.?ÿ
Is there a tolerance that FL sets??ÿ
1 in 5000 for rural surveys is an old standby.?ÿ
We used to have the typical standard 1:5,000 for rural; 1:10,000 suburban etc. Now, the only thing mentioned is the statement shown.
The only real way with rtk is to generate two reports. First would be documentation of each shot showing some sort of data on quality control procedure used to determine the shot itself returned a good position.?ÿ Second would be a least squares report generated from the quality controlled shots.?ÿ I do this on every rtk job and it takes a minimum of 3 minutes for a quality controlled shot.?ÿ Then a couple minutes for least squares report at the end.?ÿ The first step is critical because least squares will not identify an accepted rtk shot that is incorrect due to cycle slips (multipath, etc.). Hence, without the first step you're stuck with essentially the NSPS method (remeasure with total station in order to find any bad shots in the least squares process).
The NSPS method mentioned is not practical for your purposes obviously.
The other way is just throw the manufacturer specs on each map or in the file and simply claim you did what was in your professional judgment sufficient to meet them, and buy enough E&O to cover yourself.?ÿ I'm pretty sure this is the preferred method, minus the E&O of course:)
Thanks Duane.?ÿ I'll certainly explore what you recommended. We used to do enough total station work to satisfy the typical 1:xx,xxx standard, and in the old days even this was never required to be placed on the map (in Florida). I'm just looking for a quicker way with only the RTK.
It's not simple with RTK (determining positional accuracy), it isn't connecting point to point so there aren't vectors between points like there is with a correctly constructed static survey. That being said base/rover RTK surveys are very accurate. I've been retracing other surveyor's work using RTK for years now and it's amazing how tight they are. It is a game changer from instrument surveys.?ÿ
To get to a positional accuracy you have to have more than one location for each point. There isn't any other way to do it. And the way is sounds in FL you can craft a statement that is a real world number.
For instance 0.12' plus 5ppm could well be supported by the numbers collected.?ÿ
?ÿ
I'd like to see an example of what the Board expects to see, given the broad language used.?ÿ ?ÿ
It's been my understanding that we have been moving AWAY from the cookie cutter?ÿ approach ( Minimum Technical Standards) to a more user defined professional standards and practices way of looking at the rules.?ÿ ?ÿ ?ÿ( But maybe we developed the MTS to combat the surveyors that were just doing it whatever way they wanted?)?ÿ
Just searched the word doc for things like?ÿ "urban"?ÿ "rural"?ÿ "minimum"?ÿ "least squares"?ÿ "statistics"?ÿ "GPS"?ÿ "RTK"?ÿ ?ÿ ?ÿ ?ÿZERO hits on all those.?ÿ?ÿ
So while it says....
(2) The accuracy of the survey measurements shall be premised upon the type of survey and the expected use of the survey and map. The accuracy of data shall be independently verified.?ÿ
What exactly does that even mean??ÿ ?ÿ
?ÿAs long as I state what my personal accuracy requirements are and what the use of the map is its a free for all??ÿ ?ÿ
I foresee lots of lame surveyors hiding behind these wiggle words when the SHTF.?ÿ?ÿ
?ÿWho is this independent verification source??ÿ How much do I have to budget to have my surveys "verified"??ÿ Isn't that what I'm licensed to DO??ÿ?ÿ
?ÿ
Just throwing out a few random thoughts.?ÿ ?ÿ
?ÿ
Once again, the inappropriate use (intentional or not?ÿ????) of accuracy vs precision, is a big hint that there is a fly in the ointment somewhere -?ÿand maybe, just maybe,?ÿthe powers that be, that draft these abominations really aren't experts in the subject matter?????????
Who knows, I'm just rambling here..........
Why is it surveyors feel that being able to express measurement statistics means you are ignorant of boundary law??ÿ
Why is it surveyors feel that being able to express measurement statistics means you are ignorant of boundary law??ÿ
Well, the stated purpose of MTS is to weed out "bad" surveys or surveyors.?ÿ So the theory is if one can't figure out how to express measurement statistics, then the professional opinion derived from the measurements is likely to be flawed as well.?ÿ If one can figure out the measurement science, then at least the evidence is reliable if not the opinion based on it.?ÿ
Because the only way to regulate the quality of a professional opinion is through licensing laws, the existence of MTS is an admission that the licensing process has not worked for a very long time and can't (or will not) be fixed.
In other words, the existence of MTS is evidence that many in the profession are ignorant of boundary law.?ÿ Whether one can comply with MTS or not is not necessarily evidence of ignorance of boundary law.
In answer to the question; I think it's frustration that MTS has not done what it purports to do.?ÿ I mean, how can we still have "bad" surveys if everyone has to measure to NSPS standards?
What MTS really is, is an attempt to standardize at least some part of the service, with the hopeful expectation that fees will be based on similar procedures.?ÿ Which theoretically will raise rates and keep "lowballers" in the market to a minimum.?ÿ From what I gather, it hasn't really done that either.?ÿ
What MTS has done successfully is make it a violation for a surveyor to perform some types of work for clients that might not need measurements at the MTS level.?ÿ Those services are now being done by others with probably worse results than if a surveyor were allowed to perform the same service.?ÿ
Because the only way to regulate the quality of a professional opinion is through licensing laws, the existence of MTS is an admission that the licensing process has not worked for a very long time and can't (or will not) be fixed.
In other words, the existence of MTS is evidence that many in the profession are ignorant of boundary law.?ÿ Whether one can comply with MTS or not is not necessarily evidence of ignorance of boundary law.
In Maryland only two regulated 'professions' have Minimum Standards of Practice: Professional Land Surveyor & Home Inspectors.?ÿ You're known by the company you keep?ÿ
I think you read my post backwards.
A lot of people treat those with solid geodesy and measurement science abilities as inferior. They seem to believe you can't be good at those AND boundary law.
The earth is flat.
?ÿ
That is all.
?
Why is it surveyors feel that being able to express measurement statistics means you are ignorant of boundary law??ÿ
Measurement precision has nothing to do with boundary law.?ÿ Land Surveyor's measure to collect evidence to the corner.?ÿ That's it.?ÿ That's all there is.
I think you read my post backwards.
A lot of people treat those with solid geodesy and measurement science abilities as inferior. They seem to believe you can't be good at those AND boundary law.
Of course someone can be good at both, but when someone brings measurment science to a boundary fight it is justified to question their boundary credibility.
?ÿ
Of course someone can be good at both, but when someone brings measurment science to a boundary fight it is justified to question their boundary credibility.
My experience is that when someone brings measurements to a boundary fight, they are much more likely to bring measurement folklore and hearsay than measurement science?ÿ ?ÿ
?ÿ
Of course someone can be good at both, but when someone brings measurment science to a boundary fight it is justified to question their boundary credibility.
My experience is that when someone brings measurements to a boundary fight, they are much more likely to bring measurement folklore and hearsay than measurement science?ÿ ?ÿ
And my experience is if you can't express measurements properly, you likely lack the ability to understand and express the more complex problems of boundaries...
"This information should be in the surveyor's report or at least placed in the file for future reference."
There is no reason to place this information on a survey of a platted lot in a subdivision. It's at your discretion to write a report containing such information. If you would like I will ask Robin Petzold, a Board member I know, for clarification.?ÿ ? ?ÿ
FL/GA/PLS
I would certainly appreciate it if you could get clarification. I thought I understood what was required, but what confuses me is why the checklist item, "Map shows survey accuracy statement"(?). I have been looking for the expected upcoming webinar that is supposed to go over various questions presented to the Board.
Thanks
ubenhavin
I will email Robin Petzold, (If you agree) with your beginning post ie:
??Problem: State requires survey accuracy statement.
Seeking solutions:
Other than having to resort to least squares, does anyone have any ideas on ways to handle this requirement, when making surveys of small lots in platted subdivisions using RTK field methods?
Thanks for any/all suggestions.?
I'm sure it will take a day or three, but when I receive a response I will pm you with it and post it as well.?ÿ
Have a great weekend!?ÿ ??ÿ
Most recorded Plats have all that information on the title page. So I don't see the need to clutter up a "lot survey" with information the recipient wouldn't understand anyway.
Why is it surveyors feel that being able to express measurement statistics means you are ignorant of boundary law??ÿ
Measurement precision has nothing to do with boundary law.?ÿ Land Surveyor's measure to collect evidence to the corner.?ÿ That's it.?ÿ That's all there is.
As someone's signature line says, correct is an identity, not a distance.?ÿ But that doesn't cover the case of missing or obviously disturbed monuments.?ÿ Then having accurate measurements to follow and making accurate measurements yourself is important to getting an accurate replacement.
And suppose you find a modestly leaning iron.?ÿ Was it set that way, or is it disturbed? If everyone's measurements are accurate you can decide if the bottom or top best represents the original position.
This is an interesting thread, ans parallels a recent question from a young engineer about why people run a survey through the distances and directions when you could just " shoot it in with GPS " and not take all that time to collect points and lines that aren't even relevant to the vault easement a half mile away......
Collectively, surveyors are the reason the past is part of the now, and will become part of the future.
Why is it surveyors feel that being able to express measurement statistics means you are ignorant of boundary law??ÿ
Measurement precision has nothing to do with boundary law.?ÿ Land Surveyor's measure to collect evidence to the corner.?ÿ That's it.?ÿ That's all there is.
Measurements are part of the evidence of corner location. Knowing how reliable those measurements are can impact the value we assign them. Seeing the care a surveyor puts into the measurement side can be an indicator of the care they put into other aspects of the survey.
I stand by my statement. If you can't measure properly, you probably can't evaluate the other (more complex) evidence and applicable law.
