There has been a move in Kentucky to make revisions to the standards of practice. The committee working on this has finalized what they intend to present for approval. Here is an excerpt that I had previously submitted comments on:
Section 8. Global Positioning Systems.
(1) It shall be acceptable practice to incorporate the use of
survey grade GPS equipment into any boundary survey. The accuracy
and precision of all measurements made with such equipment must, at
a minimum, meet all other accuracy and precision standards required
otherwise by law or rules under subsection 5 of Section 7 herein.
When using GPS equipment in the course of a boundary survey, the
professional land surveyor shall state on the face of the plat of survey,
the following:
(a) A note stating what portion (or all) of the boundary
survey was performed using GPS equipment.
(b) The type of GPS equipment used, including
manufacturer and model number, and whether single or
dual frequency receivers were used.
(c) The type of GPS survey that was performed, such as
static, real time kinematic (”RTK”), network adjusted real
time kinematic, etc., and
(d) A note that discloses the precision of the GPS work
done, either in relative positional accuracy, or vector
closure.
(e) A statement identifying the horizontal datum, the
vertical datum, and the Geoid model used.
Do other states have similar language and/or can someone explain a valid need for much of that to be on the face of the plat as opposed to in your field notes (similar to a total station survey)?
My original comments submitted when the committee was seeking review by the members were to the effect that it does not seem necessary when surveys conducted with a total station did not require a note concerning the manufacturer, model number, instrument offset, if you used a horizontal angle and a steel tape to get a quick measurement, how many times you turned an angle, did you directly occupy the corner or radially locate it from your traverse, and was your total station survey on a local or published datum.
I hope this isn't too far afield from your subject, but should there be some verbiage addressing the inspection of all lines? I have heard of surveyors on large tracts who take a GPS reading at a corner and then drive to the next corner without traveling the actual property line. Good corner results, but what's going on along that line?
Does not sound like the proper people having the proper background were on that committee, they need to be disbanded and then start over with actual practicing surveyors being in the majority. If you look closely at who is on the committee then the reason for the way that standard was written will be revealed. Need to weed out the leadership in your area.
jud
John-
In June of this year we had "Performance Standards" thrust upon us.
Then two versions of an
INTERPRETIVE GUIDE FOR INTEGRATED SURVEYS, VERSION 1.01 interpreting the 'Standards"
The comment made by JUD were apt as we have such witty definitions as:
"cadastral survey" means a survey performed by a licensed member while engaged in the practice of cadastral surveying; ("levé cadastral")
that remind me of Oscar Wilde's
"I am so clever that sometimes I don't understand a single word of what I am saying."
John-
If you have an e-address I will send you a .pdf of the Interpretive Guide should you wish.
Cheers
Derek
Maybe Kentucky is different but vertical datum and geoid models don't have much to do with boundary surveying in Oregon. And for that matter, unless you are showing coordinates at corners, neither does the horizontal datum.
Jon,
I agree with you. I don't see the purpose of including most of that information.
What problem is the Board trying to solve? Has the mis-use of GPS equipment on boundary surveys become a problem in Kentucky?
- Doug
You have hit the nail on the proverbial head. Fast, fast, fast....that's the name of the game. Minimum time onsite followed by maximum bill possible.
Last winter we had a call to do a survey for a former client. This required a section breakdown and a thorough study of any potential surveys in this and the eight adjoining sections. We had some prior knowledge of what we were up against, but, thought we would be generous and do it for only $1500 to $1800. We never heard back. Last week, my rodman bumped into him at a social function. The former client explained that he had called another company who quoted over $2000. He then called a third company based out-of-state and nearly 100 miles distant from his property. They did it for $400 and he thought that was high as they were only onsite for less than an hour. if they actually did anything close to a survey, they must have taken quick shots at the four "apparent" quarter corners then set something at the perfect center, then set the basic rectangle he wanted from that corner. You couldn't begin to do the research necessary to do the job correctly for $400, let alone the nearly four hours of travel time involved.
Mr. Graham,
I would be interested in reading that information. Please send to jlp @ mchsi . com
Thanks
Jon
Mr. Bruce,
I don't believe they are trying to solve any problems created by using GPS during the course of a boundary survey.
It is more of an attempt to integrate the possibility of using GPS in the first place.
This is going to be the first time the standards formally recognize the use of GPS as a method of performing measurements on a boundary survey.
Mr. Mayer,
I could not agree more with your assessment.:good:
