Topo work is technical, primarily measurement of what already exists. It can be a very complicated process. And yes it can waste a lot of money in a poor plan design were the needed precision is not met. But there is most always a licensed professional or higher authority that set the quality of work required and selected the person or firm to do the topo and makes use of the product. A professional should have the option to hire whoever they think is competent to provide the necessary precision, rather than be compelled to hire a licensed surveyor. There is a difference between technical and professional. And the difference is not a degree of complication or salary level.
I have a son who does technical work in the software field. He doesn't have a license of any kind, nor a collage degree. He works from home and bills 40+ hours a week at $150 per hour. Headhunters track his availability. There is nothing wrong with technical work.
Not sure that anyone said there was anything wrong with technical work. Good for your son. You should be very proud of him and it's evident that you are. But software engineering and coding is quite different from surveying, so I don't get the comparison even though it is a good example of high-value technical work.
You make part of my point for me with this: "But there is most always a licensed professional or higher authority that set the quality of work required ..."
Specifying a set of standards to perform the work to is inadequate without the continuation of professional oversight at the other end of the work. The professional also needs to ensure that the standard he or she specified was actually followed. The professional needs to be involved with, either directly or in a supervisory capacity with the QA/QC of the topo work and mapping.
The personnel selection process you speak of is where the professional hires the unlicensed employees that often comprise the field crew and CAD staff. The professional also sees to it that the office and field technical staff are properly trained and then that they adhere to what they were supposed to have learned.
In the area where I used to practice, there was a local company comprised of a couple of guys. One taught himself how to use a total station and data collector, the other taught himself how to use AutoCAD & Softdesk. They would crank out topo maps and get a local structural engineer (grandfathered in for survey work before the state figured it was a good idea to ensure they were competent at it) to stamp the maps for $100 or so.
Their maps were some of the most aesthetically pleasing around. On small unimproved or lightly improved sites, their maps were mostly technically adequate. But sometimes they weren't and they had no competent professional oversight to determine if their maps were adequate for the job. It got them in trouble several times.
You are correct that technical competence will suffice on a topo map most of the time. The same can be said for boundary surveying, or construction staking, or most any other aspect of survey practice. In a well staffed, well trained and well run survey organization, most of the time, professional review will find no fault, error or omission in the work of the unlicensed technical staff. Professional involvement or oversight is for those times that technical competence alone is not adequate.
I've seen enough poor survey work get distributed due to being performed by marginally competent unlicensed technical staff and lacking adequate or competent review, that there is no convincing me that there is no need for competent professional level review and oversight. When someone argues that professional oversight is not required for some aspect of survey practice, I generally suspect that they are among those who turn out work that is adequate most of the time, but sub-par much of the time.
Professional involvement and review is essential for the QA/QC aspect of survey practice, and for assigning responsibility when that part fails due to the lack of properly exercising responsible charge.
That's a great assessment. I see many examples of what you described in the UAS surveying world. There are many technically competent pilots and folks quite skilled at processing lidar, extracting specific features for planimetric details and other complicated and tedious tasks. They'll put together a CAD surface with an impressive relative accuracy that's a few feet off the site specific datum. I've also found that very few technicians prioritize accuracy tests in the client's area of interest. Meaning, they don't think about blunder busting the same way a professional does. A dozen GNSS shots on top of a landfill or at subgrade is cheap insurance that you have absolute accuracy.
If more people had to directly contribute to the payment of liability insurance premiums, there would be more blunder busting occurring.
Really? If you take one down to the recorder they'll straight up refuse to record it?
Correct. I have never seen a recorded topo in any of the states or counties I've worked in.
Just because you haven't seen them doesn't mean they do not exist. Most auditors in Washington state WILL record a topographic survey. The largest impasse you are going to encounter is them not knowing where to record it. You will have to let them know it is a survey, and pay the hundreds of dollars to record.
The principal reason you do not encounter topo maps in Washington state is there is not a legal obligation to record in most cases. If you just collect surface data and do not set any survey markers, there is no obligation to record.
Anything along the Columbia River for the dam projects are recorded topos. County and municipal landfill sites are another expected place to find recorded topo surveys and old (pre-Fema) Flood Fight Maps. I will say that the majority of recorded topo surveys I find actually predate the Survey Recording Act. Once there was a method to charge folks to record Survey Maps, it appears that most topo surveys stopped getting recorded with the auditor.
Also, a small technical detail, is that the County Engineer's office still is technically a depository of public records. There are some documents "recorded" that do not go through the recorder's (Auditor's) office. These are typically limited to county roads and bridges and such, but much of that work is still done by private parties under government contract.
Engineers can "certify elevations" for flood certificates I guess? But I don't see how they can actually do a flood certificate without running afoul of PLS definition #1.
This varies by state, but in Washington State, this language was written specifically for Hydrographic /Hydraulic engineers. In short Land Surveyors wanted nothing to do with flood elevation certs when they were subject to tidally influenced areas, as it clearly needed a much higher level of sophistication. I have had a few civil engineers try to perform Flood Certs and needed to explain this to them.
Most auditors in Washington state WILL record a topographic survey.
It has been said that you can record a dinner napkin if you pay the fee. There are restrictions on document size which would limit the recordability of what I think of as a topographic survey. Technically, one could record an exhibit map.