Just for fun
"The quickie-dickie surveyors typically aren't that bright ..."
Yes, right, of course, there's the problem.
It's not really mathmatical masturbation, is it?
Hey, I never thought it was.
Really.
Don
Just for fun
> "The quickie-dickie surveyors typically aren't that bright ..."
>
> Yes, right, of course, there's the problem.
The problem is compounded by RTK since it seems to be a surveying tool tailor-made for the unbright. Quick + plausible deniability = SUCCESS would be the standard equation. The RTK manufacturers probably contribute significantly to that through the folks they have have pushing their products and describing the ways those products perform in the most glowing terms that the gullible tend to accept as a statement of fact.
Loyal
Very similar to what I'm seeing. A big C change was introduced with RTK, but maybe it's cause we generally work in the big open spaces;-)
The Goofii and the Doofii
> Seems Gofus and Dofus don't need any tools of any sort (even evil-grand-conspiracy-tools) to screw up a survey.
So, how were you thinking that Survey No. 2 ended up oriented within a few seconds of Grid North on average without the use of GPS? There is no survey of record in the vicinity with that bearing basis. That fact alone pretty much insists upon GPS when a quickie-dickie company is involved. Astro observations would be entirely implausible as a theory.
Since post-processed GPS solutions are so completely unlikely for the obvious reasons, the only real candidate is RTK and almost certainly network RTK. There is no alternate plausible explanation, sorry.
The Goofii and the Doofii
>The majority of RTK and RTN use is non-boundary;
I consider that example of Survey No. 2 to be non-boundary as well. :>
I have put on my asbestos underwear, so I am ready for the response...
But my first reaction is that both surveys fall withing the specs for a rural survey in my state (1:5000), which could be interpreted to mean that if they got within half a foot in the middle of the half mile, they are ok. (I don't see it that way, but I know that many do.)
Now, 1:5000 is meaningless for RTK. Also, no one here would admit to being ok with missing a foot every mile with our current equipment....
But, it seems entirely plausible that a land owner with a half mile long line might not give one thought to half a foot off in the middle, and he might be perfectly happy to pay a surveyor 10% of what you charge, in order to get that line staked to the nearest half a foot.
Is that how my shop works? No.
But there are lots of shops that do work that way, and I suppose they provide a valuable service to landowners.
-David
PS I have been absent during youth football season...nothing else really happens from August through October for me.
Identifying RTK surveys
> I am interested in how future surveyors will identify and deal with the enormous FUBARS that similar use of RTK is leaving to posterity. Probably a small book of case studies of RTK FUBARS would be useful.
This would be fine, but what would be of even greater use, in my estimation, would be for you to use your extra time, and excellent research abilities to write a book entitled: The Appropriate Use of RTK: How to be professional with a black box.
I am serious about this. If you really want to destroy bad RTK, make a good faith effort to build the good first. If you then find that there is no good, you will have far more credibility. The book can be written, the question is whether anyone would be able do what you would preach in such a book. If they do not, at least it is from the perch of a "promoter" that you could throw stones, and not out of the hole of a "doubter". Your shots would be much more effective.
dmyhill - 1:?????
"positional tolerance is a professional judgment based on the type of equipment the registered professional land surveyor is using."
What a quaint little idea - professionals using professional judgement.
Most of the rules could be eliminated if professional judgement ruled the day. Of coarse, you need professionals to exercise professional judgement. With a bunch of rules dictating everything, the chances of developing professionals with judgement is severely limited.
dmyhill - 1:?????
The thing we seem to be seeing is that professionals will be professional with or without standards, the warts will be unprofessional with or without standards.
dmyhill - 1:?????
"What a quaint little idea - professionals using professional judgement.
Most of the rules could be eliminated if professional judgement ruled the day. Of course, you need professionals to exercise professional judgement. With a bunch of rules dictating everything, the chance of developing professionals with judgement is severely limited."
Leon, that's quite profound.
Dave
Identifying RTK surveys
> That is an excellent idea Kent!
I have a grandaddy RTK FUBAR story from Washington State that I am willing to contribute to any volunteer author. It involves a stone on a riverbank in heavy timber, a fence line, a boundary by acquiescence claim, a certain practitioner from Chehalis, $40k in attorneys fees on one side alone, and the Washington State Court of Appeals.
Waiting For The Story
Well, c'mon Mark, let's hear it. You're a pretty fair wordsmith.
Dave
Identifying RTK surveys
> > That is an excellent idea Kent!
> I have a grandaddy RTK FUBAR story from Washington State that I am willing to contribute to any volunteer author. It involves a stone on a riverbank in heavy timber, a fence line, a boundary by acquiescence claim, a certain practitioner from Chehalis, $40k in attorneys fees on one side alone, and the Washington State Court of Appeals.
I love the case study already. The premises are great.
dmyhill - 1:?????
With a bunch of rules dictating everything, the chances of developing professionals with judgement is severely limited."
I'm sorry, I just don't see the correlation.
Are you saying that because there are rules, intelligent people will be unable to make sound decisions?
Don
dmyhill - 1:?????
> > But my first reaction is that both surveys fall withing the specs for a rural survey in my state (1:5000), which could be interpreted to mean that if they got within half a foot in the middle of the half mile, they are ok. (I don't see it that way, but I know that many do.)
>
> Maybe in WA, but as of August of 2013 Texas did away with the [Ratio + 0.10'] style of tolerances, and the new wording looks like this:
>
> Texas Administrative Code
>
> TITLE 22 EXAMINING BOARDS
> PART 29 TEXAS BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYING
> CHAPTER 663 STANDARDS OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND RULES OF CONDUCT
> SUBCHAPTER B PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL STANDARDS
> RULE §663.15 Precision and Accuracy
> Survey measurements shall be made with equipment and methods of practice capable of attaining the accuracy and tolerances required by the professional land surveying services being performed. Areas, if reported, shall be produced, recited, and/or shown only to the least significant number compatible with the precision of closure.
>
> Source Note: The provisions of this §663.15 adopted to be effective September 1, 1992, 17 TexReg 5544; amended to be effective August 28, 2013, 38 TexReg 5503
>
> So the question is now "what tolerances?"; at least in Texas.
>
It is good to get rid of that. I wish that it was simply a requirement to acknowledge our expected tolerances on our survey.
dmyhill - 1:?????
Conforming to a bunch of rules or specs doesn't really require professional judgement. Assuming that developing judgement requires experience with actually using judgement, how does one get that experience in an environment where the use of professional judgement has been eliminated and replaced with rules and specs.
Case in point, technical specs for survey measurements. If it's 0.xx feet + xx ppm as shown by some least squares analysis and error ellipse from some technical manual or procedure, where is the professional judgement as to whether the position meets the needs of the client or locates a boundary where it's legally is established. There is no professional judgement there, it's just plug and chug the data until it meets the chi squares test with the proper tweaking of the numbers.
