Ruel del Castillo, post: 441182, member: 137 wrote: I worry a great deal about my chosen profession lately.
Our firm reviews final maps for a number of public agencies so we get to review a lot of surveyor's boundary work products. Some of these boundaries are so poorly thought out and woefully under researched that I want to just give up. Some of them don't even know that they don't know. Really sad. I've tried to explain to some of these surveyors what's going on, but it's like talking to a brick wall. The next boundary is just as screwed up....and these are simple, straightforward boundaries.
Who taught these people to survey? Who were their mentors? They should be hanging their heads in shame!
This seems to get worse and worse with every passing year.
If I retire, then I won't have to care anymore, but the problem is, after 50+ years, I can't stop caring about what I perceive to be a real problem.
This may seem to just be a rant, but this a real problem for the future reputation of surveying.
You hear a lot of this doom and gloom stuff but I think it's a regional thing. In the area I work the quality of surveying is way better than it was 50 years ago when they allowed civil engineers to practice land surveying. If it is truly getting worse overall, it's probably a problem with the state licensing people too easily.
Mark Mayer, post: 441212, member: 424 wrote: I practice in 2 recording states. In both my surveys are subject to review by county staff before they can be recorded. I'm currently dealing with 2 surveys, one in each state. In both cases the reviewer has bled all over my survey, but in neither case have they said a single word about the results of the actual survey. They rarely if ever do.
One requires that I change references to "iron rods" to "steel reinforcing bars". Because reinforcing rods are steel, not iron. All these years I've been screwing that up. The other wants me to change a portion of my title block from "being a portion of" to "located in the". And so it goes.
Yes, that has become a problem in CC hasn't it? We decided to just state "rebar" which is accepted. I sent an email to the County surveyor about mapping monuments which were called 1/2" iron rods in a previous survey, and stated I would call them the same to make sure it is clear we are tying a previous survey monument (he agreed). Our problem now is the crew called the monument a brass cap and the red ink stated it was bronze not brass. Now we need to be metallurgists in addition to being historians, computer experts, and hole diggers.
Howard Surveyor, post: 441427, member: 8835 wrote: Now we need to be metallurgists in addition to being historians, computer experts, and hole diggers.
Kent's study of different deformation patterns on rebars over the years comes to mind. Are we going to need to identify the foundry and date of manufacture on these things next? A lot of times you dig up a bar and it's encrusted with dirt, rust , etc., I wouldn't want to swear in front of a court that it was, indeed, a reinforcing rod if I didn't know that is what everybody has always used.
I am in full agreement with [USER=11972]@voidintheabyss[/USER] . We have guy with the stamp who never make it to the field to even see the work they are signing for, and where that used to just be a handful of the licensed surveyors, it is become the accepted practice of incoming licensed surveyors. I am of the opinion that maybe we need schools for surveyors, something more like a trade school, such as the barber school format. Where you are not allowed to get your license to cut hair until you have done so under the direct supervision of a licensed barber for a certain period of time, with exposure to a minimum of a certain number of requirements. This format is also used for the Emergency Medical Field. They don't turn out students who just have book knowledge, they turn out students who got their hands dirty doing the real work that is needed to do a proper job. This could be done after a degree has been reached in whatever other field, but I am meeting way to many RPLS who are not even skilled enough to set up a tripod, yet claim they can survey.
The more accurate and detailed a monument description, the easier to follow the footsteps. On the flipside, including inac
Monte, post: 441437, member: 11913 wrote: I am in full agreement with [USER=11972]@voidintheabyss[/USER] . We have guy with the stamp who never make it to the field to even see the work they are signing for, and where that used to just be a handful of the licensed surveyors, it is become the accepted practice of incoming licensed surveyors. I am of the opinion that maybe we need schools for surveyors, something more like a trade school, such as the barber school format. Where you are not allowed to get your license to cut hair until you have done so under the direct supervision of a licensed barber for a certain period of time, with exposure to a minimum of a certain number of requirements. This format is also used for the Emergency Medical Field. They don't turn out students who just have book knowledge, they turn out students who got their hands dirty doing the real work that is needed to do a proper job. This could be done after a degree has been reached in whatever other field, but I am meeting way to many RPLS who are not even skilled enough to set up a tripod, yet claim they can survey.
That is a shame to hear. In the States I hold Licenses that can only happen if several License holders commit fraud.
Williwaw, post: 441195, member: 7066 wrote: Cream floats to the top and dregs to the bottom where the low baller thrives on an indifferent public fixated on the lowest price for a service of underappreciated value.
I think this one sentance sums it up and says it better than I can.
The most productive mentoring I have received as a party chief was while working as a one person crew.
I do not think that the shortcoming in mentoring is a function of crew size but stems more from the separation of field crew from the finished product and office staff from the field.
thebionicman, post: 441438, member: 8136 wrote: The more accurate and detailed a monument description, the easier to follow the footsteps. On the flipside, including inac
That is a shame to hear. In the States I hold Licenses that can only happen if several License holders commit fraud.
I have no idea how that happened...
clearcut, post: 441222, member: 297 wrote: Much of my work seems to be trying to resolve the problems created by surveyors in the 1950's - 1970's.
I'm unconvinced there are lessor percentages of capable surveyors today than there were in those prior decades. Field crews are much smaller now, but doesn't necessarily equate to level of mentorship quality compared to then and now. In fact, those 1950-1970 surveyors who created so many problems "mentored" multiple 4-man crews and spawned forth many bad practicioners.
Just as there were and still are both great doctors and quacks in medicine, fair attorneys and sharks in the field of law and good and corrupt politicians, so goes it for surveying.
Reminds me of talking to a police captain I know. He readily admits his view is jaded as a result of seeing a large percentage of bad apples on a daily basis. Regardless of how many good and conscientious citizens he encounters, his encounters with the bad apples has left him with a bad view of society as a whole.
While noble it may be to want a survey profession comprised entirely of only 100% "competent" surveyors. I don't believe it is practical especially considering the almost entirely grey area of boundary surveying. Few boundary resolution issues are codified and most case law deals with title issues not boundary resolutions. Quoting an old acquaintance: "in all my year's of surveying, I've never had 2 boundary surveys that were the same". I find that to be mostly true and much complicated by the absence of statute or case law on numerous boundary retracement principles and the often encountered conflict between boundary resolution and title resolution. Considering such a grey area of practice, such an ill-defined industry standard makes for difficulty in stating the metric as to what constitutes competency. I might "know it when I see it" but then I remember that much of my early boundary resolutions based on reading Curt Brown's books are not always in keeping with what today I feel is the most correct answer to the same situation. Was I incompetent then. Am I now in some other surveyor's eye given a certain situation. Are you in mine?
I'm reminded of reading a not long ago license disciplinary proceeding against a surveyor. The board and its expert witness found that a certain survey procedure was akin to incompetence. However the judge found for the defendant and his expert witness (who happened to be a county surveyor), who stated that the survey procedure was in keeping with the "industry standard" for the region.
"...who stated that the survey procedure was in keeping with the "industry standard" for the region."
I see this too - the 'standard" of practice is declining rapidly...
Monte, post: 441437, member: 11913 wrote: I am of the opinion that maybe we need schools for surveyors, something more like a trade school, such as the barber school format. Where you are not allowed to get your license to cut hair until you have done so under the direct supervision of a licensed barber for a certain period of time, with exposure to a minimum of a certain number of requirements.
New Zealand has a system a little like this.
Registration requires firstly a four year degree - then a minimum of two years practical experience - then an examination and presentation of a number of projects.
It is not a perfect system - the length of the process puts off many - we do still get some turkeys slipping through - its almost impossible for a tech to gain registration - and foreign surveyors will probably not have their education or experience recognised.
Mark Mayer, post: 441212, member: 424 wrote: I practice in 2 recording states. In both my surveys are subject to review by county staff before they can be recorded. I'm currently dealing with 2 surveys, one in each state. In both cases the reviewer has bled all over my survey, but in neither case have they said a single word about the results of the actual survey. They rarely if ever do.
One requires that I change references to "iron rods" to "steel reinforcing bars". Because reinforcing rods are steel, not iron. All these years I've been screwing that up. The other wants me to change a portion of my title block from "being a portion of" to "located in the". And so it goes.
Got a redline back recently where I had some record values shown in (one of these states)... Plat was from 1909, and a recent survey from 2013. I showed the plat angle of 90?ø12'35.2" (of which it was) and referenced both the Plat at that angle and the 2013 survey, which stated that he (2013 surveyor) held that angle. However the 2015 survey did not show the bearing out to the 10th of a second, so the reviewer told me that I had to show the plat angle as 90?ø12'35.2" and the 2015 angle as 90?ø12'35". Because the 2013 surveyor didn't show it to that precise of a number, though he 'held' the plat angle, I have to show them separate. Oh and one surveyor showed a monument as a set rebar, and another says found iron rod... County reviewer assumes that they must be separate monuments... Well they wouldn't say that outloud, but they act like it.
ppm, post: 441517, member: 6808 wrote: Got a redline back recently where I had some record values shown in (one of these states)... Plat was from 1909, and a recent survey from 2013. I showed the plat angle of 90?ø12'35.2" (of which it was) and referenced both the Plat at that angle and the 2013 survey, which stated that he (2013 surveyor) held that angle. However the 2015 survey did not show the bearing out to the 10th of a second, so the reviewer told me that I had to show the plat angle as 90?ø12'35.2" and the 2015 angle as 90?ø12'35". Because the 2013 surveyor didn't show it to that precise of a number, though he 'held' the plat angle, I have to show them separate. Oh and one surveyor showed a monument as a set rebar, and another says found iron rod... County reviewer assumes that they must be separate monuments... Well they wouldn't say that outloud, but they act like it.
Fussing over the minute details of the math and such has nothing to do with whether the surveyor correctly located the boundary. I suppose when most understand the math and few understand the law, that's what you get, worrying over a tenth of a second in angle which probably can't really even be measured with normal equipment and procedure. Sure you can calc it out to 10 decimals and grade the answer to that precision, but do you rally have that's important, NOTHING!
