Who believes their: tools, methods, judgement
:good: :good:
Right on Gavin!
worst case grid to ground error in Iowa is about 115 ppm. fyi
Who believes their: tools, methods, judgement
:good: Great post Gavin! In my experience, measurement has rarely even been discussed in the court case. It has almost always come down to evidence and it's evaluation. That being said, I still like redundancy in my measurements and the ability to back them up if necessary.
Doug
Who believes their: tools, methods, judgement
> I have no problem with using repeatability to check GPS work. And if ever taken to court over any measurement I stamp, and they start to question the tools, I will simply demand that someone disprove the measurement. If my measurement stands, then it did not matter what tool, or combination of tools was used. If they prove my measurment was wrong, then that was my fault in not properly watchingand evaluating the outputs from those tools.
The point is well taken and I concur that as the measurement goes and fails, so follows the surveyor. I too would find it hard to believe that any council would waste time attacking the technology when there is a true folly in the measured outcome. Of course, if you dont understand your GPS then the odds are pretty high that you will screw something up.
But even so, in order to discredit a professional and to confuse a jury or judge, a savvy trial attorney might entertain the prospect of questioning a surveyor's understanding of the tools they are using. We all know that this might be an irrelevant point in the case but if you can be made to look incompetent through the lack of understanding your own tools...
I have been told stories of a surveyor who was discredited simply because he did not do his own complete section breakdown. Was this necessary ore relevant to the job or outcome? Probably not.
The more I understand about the emerging technologies, the more I realize how little I understand about emerging technologies and I say this with a background in electronic theory and communication technologies.
> Sometimes I fear we surveyors are haunted by demons of our own invenetion
My demons are an industry following a road of simple solutions and tools which appear to give us instant answers. I see the apathy surrounding far too many other elements of our profession in order to undercut the competition and I fear GPS is swiftly becoming another tool to cut bigger corners.
Who believes their: tools, methods, judgement
But even so, in order to discredit a professional and to confuse a jury or judge, a savvy trial attorney might entertain the prospect of questioning a surveyor's understanding of the tools they are using. We all know that this might be an irrelevant point in the case but if you can be made to look incompetent through the lack of understanding your own tools...
Are you really a Professional if you don't understand the tools you are using? Why would anybody go to court without at least researching how their equipment works. It would appear to me that if you are using GPS, you should have a "working knowledge" of what it is you are doing and what it is your receiver is giving you.
And if you you are a Professional because you were bestowed some "Quasi-Judicial" Function, then why don't you engage the Lawyer head on, don't waste your time with the minutiae of discussing measurements.
Around here, the minute you're in court you're fair game. Your calibration certificate and procedures will be the first to be challenged and it will go on from there. Nobody is interested in your legal opinion and if you choose to show legal background while on the stand...brace yourself.
Around these parts Surveyors usually testify as to their measurements.
I notice that some guys like to label others "Technician" and "Button Pusher"
Just Sayin
Ralph
Who believes their: tools, methods, judgement
Here are some Schools of thought on this:
I think that Dennis is spot on to a certain extent. I've taken a couple of College courses from Dennis and I would have to say he is on the extreme end of this debate.
Here's the definition I actually subscribe to, it is actually more along the science than art.
To me it doesn't matter what area of Surveying you are practicing (boundary, construction, geodesy etc.), I would strongly suggest you become well versed in the measurement aspects of it. I believe a good-competent Boundary Surveyor should have the ability to blend the best of both these Worlds and not try to portray them as diametrically opposed or trivialize the technical aspects.
Cheers,
Ralph
Who believes their: tools, methods, judgement
Your calibration certificate and procedures will be the first to be challenged and it will go on from there.
Just because you know how to use proper procedures or calibrate your device, does not mean you know the first thing about how it works.
I can calibrate my plotter and use all the procedures for making it plot correctly, and even be a professional plotter! But that does not mean I have any idea how the darn thing works.
I certainly have a good understanding of the principles involved in using GPS, but I doubt many understand the math involved in geoids, ellipsoids and the different ones available and why they are. They just know what ones they should use and most likely have learned to check which ones give the best/correct results under differing circumstances.
That does not make me unprofessional. The tool does not define me, the results of my use of it does.
I think Tangent's point is that even though GPS can be used successfully as a tool without knowing how to build one and without having a decent knowledge of geodesy, going into court might pose a risk.
I respect Gavin and would certainly hope that what he says is how it would come out, but this is one of the reasons I myself have not fully engaged with RTK.
Who believes their: tools, methods, judgement
> Your calibration certificate and procedures will be the first to be challenged and it will go on from there.
>
> Just because you know how to use proper procedures or calibrate your device, does not mean you know the first thing about how it works.
Speak for yourself, I've been interacting with surveyors on these forums for the last 15 years and I've learned a great deal from some of them. The guys I know wouldn't break a sweat when it comes to this stuff. Because they've taken the time to educate themselves and develop professionally
>
> I can calibrate my plotter and use all the procedures for making it plot correctly, and even be a professional plotter! But that does not mean I have any idea how the darn thing works.
>
This is another weak subterfuge and a sign of the same myth and insecurity that some surveyors choose to perpetuate.
> I certainly have a good understanding of the principles involved in using GPS, but I doubt many understand the math involved in geoids, ellipsoids and the different ones available and why they are. They just know what ones they should use and most likely have learned to check which ones give the best/correct results under differing circumstances.
>
Who said you have to be a Geodesist? You don't have to explain Kepplerian orbits. I doubt you will be cross examined on Spherical Triangles or the direct/inverse problem.
> That does not make me unprofessional. The tool does not define me, the results of my use of it does.
There we go again, the same BS "It's just a tool", until you are called to the carpet and asked to explain it's use
>
> I think Tangent's point is that even though GPS can be used successfully as a tool without knowing how to build one and without having a decent knowledge of geodesy, going into court might pose a risk.
>
Why wouldn't a Competent Surveyor have a basic understanding of Geodesy, Particularly since he/she is using it to arrive at some result and formulate a Professional opinion. This is especially true of PLSS Surveyors.(because it seemed to me that when I was studying that stuff North/South lines were converging/diverging. That Sir, is geodesy)
> I respect Gavin and would certainly hope that what he says is how it would come out, but this is one of the reasons I myself have not fully engaged with RTK.
Fair enough, I can accept that as a valid premise. Nobody says that you couldn't arrive at similar results with a transit and a chain. The point being that pressing buttons and claiming that it's irrelevant to your ultimate mission is "Silly and preposterous".
Ironically, some appear to be from the School that you are a professionals because you can determine boundaries, yet bozo down the block is willing to pimp himself out for a tenth of your price and you wonder why?
I'll tell you why, it's that overall elitist attitude. The one that says "I'm licensed, I'm a professional and I don't need any further Education or training"
But you'll hear the never ending complaint about the "Low Baller", yet he's the epitome of that school of thought.
BTW this is not directed at you or Tangent directly or personally, I don't know either of you so I couldn't and wouldn't say anything about you or your work. My position is that the Laissez-faire attitude being displayed is probably doing more harm to this profession than any single thing I can think of. Just my opinion.
Ralph
where is this at ?
> I am curious how well GPS would stand up to traditional surveying in a court of law were the minutia of measurement to become a factor in a dispute.
>
>
> Quote from 1972
> I am curious how well a distance meter reading would stand up to traditional surveying in a court of law were the minutia of measurement to become a factor in a dispute.
>
> Just sayin'
:good: :good: :good: :good: