Nathanial
you funny dude!
Finally we have a winner
> As surveyors, I think that we need a better response to this. It's not up to the public to sort this out without our input.
BINGO
That's the reason the article was in Professional Surveyor. The author isn't "some geek driving a desk", some "IT guy who was grandfathered in as a GISP because he knew ArcGIS" or some "wannabe surveyor".
They guy who wrote the article was the former Director of Capital Development for a suburb of Orlando. If you do any work with DOT's, he wrote the book on transportation GIS. He's also the former president of USIRA who's out their lobbying state and local governments on GIS issues while ACSM and NSPS argue back and forth about who's responsible for all the money they lose at the national conference each year.
More importantly, he (and those who hold the same opinions) are working their way up the management ladder in your local and state planning and public works departments and being hired as consultants on land use management. The next update of your local zoning and subdivision regulations will more than likely be written by someone who holds the exact same beliefs. Heck, I applied for a municipal surveyors job in 2008 and the interview "committee" was the Director of Public Works (the person the surveyor would report to) the Director of Engineering (who the surveyor would have to work closely with), the City HR Director and some snot nosed 23 year old GISP from the Planning Department who was one year out of grad school.
The article wasn't published with the actual belief that the profession of surveying doesn't exist any more. It was published so surveyors would understand just how widely held those beliefs are and how they are becoming more entrenched in the land use community especially among those who make write and enforce the regulations and codes that those of us who work predominantly in land development have to abide by.
I want to be the first to tell you: The surveying profession no longer exists.
.
Everything else is pure science and math. Why the heck should we have state legislatures regulating science and math? Why should we allow state regulatory restrictions to keep us from being able to practice in adjacent jurisdictions?
Land Surveying isn't being replaced by GIS, the reason being is that Land Surveying is not about math and pure science. It's about evaluating the evidence to the corner. Land Surveying has to consider the human element in boundary lines, it's (land surveying) more like a cross between engineering and the law. There is very little relationship between GIS and Land Surveying.
Sometimes the truth hurts a bit.
People must not confuse the ends with the means. GIS is just a tool. Without the domain expertise of getting the job done correctly is not the same as knowing how to use the tool. Knowing how to swing a hammer is not the same as knowing how to construct a well-built home.
Surveying represents the in-depth domain expertise in how to research boundaries, how to recover and evaluate evidence in the field, how to process and analyze that information, how to represent it and so on. Sure, there is a technical aspect of mere field measurement, which any well-trained technician can do, but there is also the very important component of professional judgement which is what separates the PS from the techie - and this should not be forgotten. While GIS tools, in the hands of a GIS-savvy surveyor can be used quite effectively for some parts of the process, GIS does not, can not, and will not, in and of itself, replace any of that domain expertise that surveyors possess.
Well stated Gunter!
I really like this part: ". . . Sure, there is a technical aspect of mere field measurement, which any well-trained technician can do, but there is also the very important component of professional judgement which is what separates the PS from the techie - and this should not be forgotten. . . ."
That oughta stir up the expert measurers!
Keith
> People must not confuse the ends with the means. GIS is just a tool.
Yup, just like machine grading right?
> Surveying represents the in-depth domain expertise in how to research boundaries, how to recover and evaluate evidence in the field, how to process and analyze that information, how to represent it and so on.
Yeah, thats pretty much what every surveyor clings to is this tired attitude. In my state, what you describe represents 20% of the defined practice of "professional surveying". The remaining 80% has seen infiltration by GIS or other 'tools' for some time.
> GIS does not, can not, and will not, in and of itself, replace any of that domain expertise that surveyors possess.
again, just like machine grading, right? The likelihood of traditional land surveying services being accomplished by GISers is hopefully slim, but when all you do is trumpet about 1 aspect of surveying, while other facets have been subjected to practioners wielding 'tools' for some time, you come across as a bit sanctimonious. The alarm the article presents is real - of a certainty, the complacency your attitude presents isn't enough to hang your hat on anymore.
I'm not at all complacent. Unlike many other surveyors, I have been already been using GIS tools for quite some time, and I'm one of the rare few who is eating the GISers' lunch instead of the other way around.
What surveyors need to recognize is that mere location of things on the surface of the earth is too broad, and surveyors generally don't have any chance of competing in this era of GPS ubiquity and easy access to free GIS software like Google Earth, QGIS and so on. At this point, ANYBODY can capture a latitude and longitude (though of dubious quality) in the field or from an aerial photo, and make maps from it. Surveyors already lost that battle years ago, whether they even realize it or not.
BUT, where those locations start to have some serious legal ramifications and consequence, i.e. property boundaries, municipal or other boundaries, rights-of-way, locations of buildings or other improvements relative to setbacks, ALTAs and so on - anything which *might* end up in court, anything where it's going to take more serious professional knowhow on techniques, accuracy, correlation of records and what's found in the field, understanding of proper retracement, and so on - that's what's likely going to end up the domain of the licensed professional and separate the boys from the men, where it comes to GIS and "easy" mapping technologies.
another GISP weighs in...
http://www.profsurv.com/magazine/article.aspx?i=70854
the part about surveying instruments being unnecessarily complicated I found comical - but that is who we are up against
That is some article...
Neither article gives enough acknowledgment of the legal aspects and specialized knowledge of boundary surveying. And a person needs to know what it is their equipment is doing for them when they push the button.
But otherwise it is hard to argue with their points.
It seems like anyone with a mapping grade receiver is doing GIS. It is funny to find out how someone got into the GIS thing; their manager had this new GPS thingy and they didn't know what to do with it when one of the more tech savvy staffers volunteered to take charge of it.
A GIS guy doesn't need to know about coordinate systems? What!
That has to be the most idiotic statement of the century!
As the GIS community has never yet had to deal with the general public as clients, they have not yet entered the world of surveyors. That world is the world of liability.
The GIS community still does not understand the difference between their one sigma world and the five or six sigma world of the surveyor. Until they do, they will deride and despise surveyors. Let's get some of these GISP's to lay out some interstate bridge piers and abutments for us. Let's send them out to "fix" some old surveys which do not quite close mathematically. Then let's introduce them to the world of lawyers.
2 sigma world... take it easy.
I can understand the statements about making measurements. Surveyors don't have any exclusive domain there. With all the technology available to almost anyone making a measurement is not a hard thing to do. Even laymen can figure out how to make measurements, probably before long anyone with a smart phone may be able to make a GPS measurement to the cm level.
So I'd say that if surveyors are hanging on to making the measurements that battle is long lost.
But what I see lost in the articles is the problem with boundaries. There are millions of boundaries not very accurately described in the record. There are millions of parcels that don't have established corners markers. You just can't go make an accurate measurement because there isn't anything certain in the record to measure from. You just can't go lay it out from the record because the record is poor.
ALSO landowners have rights that neither surveyors or GIS have authority to disturb or even resolve. Millions of boundaries will need to be adjudicated either by agreement between the landowners or by the courts. There needs to be a professional of some sort to work this out. I don't foresee that the GIS folks can do this and it takes a very experienced specialist in the survey world to do it. It can't be done by even the most precise measurement possible by a surveyor or GIS professional. The legal location of the boundary has to be worked out before it can be measured and mapped with precision (if that's what society wants).
So that's where GIS needs surveyors, not to make precise measurements or even draw the maps, but to work on the adjudication of the boundary locations. This has to be done with the landowners, one at at time, on the ground. The expertise is more of a legal nature dealing with property rights and boundary law than a scientific one making mathematical measurements. Measurement technology might be making the problems worse instead of resolving them. Mediation skills, a word processor and knowledge of boundary law is what is really needed. I think that there are plenty of GIS folks that realize where the problem is and where surveyors come into the picture. Surveyors should jump in where they are sorely needed. Some are and have a great future.
Pleasing surveyors is much like pleasing farmers and hunters.
A fine ideal, but will never happen.
Rick
The definitive button pusher - just wants to measure things; doesn't care (or believes doesn't need to know) about prism constants, ppm correction, earth curvature correction, etc - no diff if using a device he could understand, like a tape. Doesn't want to know about temp corr, sag corr, slope corr, etc.
Its the diff between somebody off the street processing a crime scene vs. actual CSI's. One knows & understands the importance (requirement really) of legally defensible standards in their work, the other is unconcerned about it.
Menus, Menus, Menus
It's all a matter of perspective.
I've got engineer support folks who can't figure out how to add a data layer in ArcGIS (even though I've showed them perhaps a half dozen times), yet can navigate Civil 3D's menu systems with their eyes closed.
I, on the other hand, would like to AutoDesk application interface developers out behind the woodshed and beat them with rubber hoses...
Just sayin 🙂
Early field devices were usually victims of limited memory and display technology, and the programmers had to make the most of what they had. In the old days the programmers were often brought in at the back end of the product development, after the hardware specs had been set. Sort of like IBM developing an 8086-based desktop computer, then going looking for an operating system.
Just compare a TSC1 to a TSC2. Time, and technology, march on.
It's not just the measurement issues.
What about datums, reference frames, ellipsoids, so on and so forth?
In my experience a lot of people operating GIS are from other disciplines such as Biology. They are great biologists probably but they don't really understand their fancy GIS except what they use it for. To them latitudes and longitudes are GPS coordinates and are sort of a natural entity. We understand they are an arbitrary coordinate system invented by man and they have to be realized by physical monuments on earth. As they say the devil is in the details.
