Let's be clear since this is a grid discussion. It's doubtful anyone is ground surveying with GPS. With total stations, chains, distance meters and proper procedures, yes it's possible. But it would be rare that anyone is doing it with GPS.
Even with my total stations the DC is "correcting" everything to a surface distance, a surface of my choice that simulates a ground distance but is really a grid distance.
@murphy?ÿ
In rural areas the survey that is not used by the landowners to follow our footsteps would be the exception rather than the rule. You are right though, that five feet is probably good enough.?ÿ
The problem may be more philosophical than practical in most situations, but people buy land on the face of the earth not on an abstract grid. The other consideration is that even 1,000 years from now, a ground distance and geodetic bearing will be retractable. One of the infinitely many grid creations may not be.?ÿ
Yeah, but no one is surveying "on the grid" with GPS either. All our GPS data is being corrected to either a an abstract grid or the real surface of the earth.?ÿ
Unless we are totally incompetent our distances and bearings as reported on the ground should be repeatable by anyone with no other information other than that the distances are ground distances and the bearings geodetic (or even?ÿ assumed bearings based on reported basis).?ÿ
The first rule should be to label what the measurements are - sufficient metadata.
I tend to think recorded surveys should be on a plane that is a close approximation to ground distances, but agree that SPC is probably close enough for interested landowners to find monuments. That does not excuse a lack of metadata for later surveyors to figure out what was actually measured.
Deed distances should be ground distances.?ÿ Plain and simple.?ÿ No mention of metadata or any other garbage needs to appear in the deed.?ÿ Deeds should be as simple as possible.
2000.00 feet is 2000.00 feet not 2000.15 feet when calculated by means of (insert two paragraphs of gibberish as read by anyone not a surveyor)
@holy-cow it??s all gibberish to most people.
degrees feet and inches?
2000 feet and 15 inches?
when I bring my engineer??s tape to school workday it just about blows their minds that it only has 10?.
@rover83 I couldn??t agree more, but don??t you think that with that sentiment we should be more forgiving of people who apparently have no issue mixing up grid and ground in legal descriptions and are off 6? in a mile since they obviously didn??t get the proper mentoring or experience to know any better?
The difference is that by the time one is obtains professional licensure, the presumption is that they are trained and educated enough to recognize when they don't know something, and either bow out of the process or seek additional instruction. We are required to abstain from practicing outside of our areas of competence, by our code of ethics and often by statute as well.
The licensure process is structured to test fundamental competencies, of which grid vs. ground, plane coordinate systems, geodesy, and grid distortion is a part.
If a licensed surveyor is writing descriptions or recording surveys and clearly doesn't know what they are doing with regards to those concepts, I'm inclined to be far less lenient with them as opposed to a crew member with no formal instruction or certifications being fuzzy on how to run a proper traverse. The licensee should know better than to put their stamp on something they don't understand. (Our licensure process could be more rigorous too, but I digress.)
I think it's less of a technical question than an ethical one. The years spent preparing for licensure are supposed to impart a respect for one's own limitations and a duty to continue learning and growing as a professional, in addition to all that technical proficiency. I have seen quite a few surveyors who stopped learning once they got that license.
I think you underestimate land owners, and over estimate the importance of tenths, inches and seconds.?ÿ
@rover83 In the early part of my career I spent countless hours learning math, programming and law on my own time. Over 40 years in and I still do that. I spent this morning having my coffee and getting knee deep in my latest addition to the library.
We should mentor and show appropriate patience, but this is called a profession for a reason. If you intend to succeed you have to put in the work...
Right. The four year degree programs cover computations fine, but new surveyors are mostly on their own with the law, and how it relates to what they should do with their?ÿ computations.?ÿ?ÿ
@scrim that??s great, if the monument still exists. But what if the monument is destroyed? How will a new corner be set?
Here are my computed CSF's for the last 3 CENTRAL INDIANA surveys: 0.99995392, 0.99995193, and 0.99994979.?ÿ
In a half mile, this equates to ground to grid differences of: 0.123', 0.126', and 0.133'.
In 1000', this means ground to grid differences of: 0.047', 0.048'. and 0.050'.
Given these differences (*), I just don't think using a metes and bounds call (low in priority of calls for evidence) will make much of a difference if I am writing my descriptions properly.
I think of it in these ways: (1) If I can get someone to within a tenth or two of my (or someone else's) monument and they can't find it, it really doesn't matter what I use (grid or ground) as they clearly have some other greater problem. (2) Not being able to repeat a measurement (mine or someone else's) to within 1:21,120 (.125:2640) does not make me or them a bad surveyor.
(*) I suppose the only time this should really matter is when the grid to ground differences causes "too much" error or confusion...and that is another subject entirely.
I might consider working in a state coordinate system if the scales are that small. I don't have those types of factors however. .02' per 100' is more like what I'm used to as a small adjustment. Sometimes it gets to almost .1' per 100'.
