Murphy, post: 345991, member: 9787 wrote: Lack of unity of terminology is quite far down the list of reasons why people don't trust us. People mistrust surveyors because we represent change. Everyone goes about their day and deals with the typical BS then they go home to their castle and find stakes and flagging and someone threatening long their held beliefs. I try my best to avoid technical jargon when speaking with anyone other than another LS. I view it as my duty to clearly and concisely explain my actions to my clients and this rarely involves technical terms. As every human is a product of their particular experiences, finding the best way to communicate is an enormous challenge that many don't seem to fully appreciate.
We are given the task of applying logic and reason to situations involving people who don't act rationally or logically. A better education in philosophy would benefit our profession as it would help PLSs to understand that perfect is the enemy of good.
I have to disagree. If a professional can't communicate the legal and technical aspects, then they only build on the initial mistrust. If I don't show special knowledge to the client or neighbors then I'm just another guy with an opinion no better than theirs except I'm charging for it with no apparent reason.
Duane Frymire, post: 345993, member: 110 wrote: I have to disagree. If a professional can't communicate the legal and technical aspects, then they only build on the initial mistrust. If I don't show special knowledge to the client or neighbors then I'm just another guy with an opinion no better than theirs except I'm charging for it with no apparent reason.
Duane,
I think Murphy's point bears more on the ability to communicate some of the abstract terms that we deal with regularly in a manner that is suitable to the intended audience. This doesn't mean "dumbing down" so much, as it is assuring an understanding founded on the salient points for a specific set of circumstances.
I certainly deal with this aspect as a County Surveyor, when discussing the entire gamut of survey issues with engineers, architects, attorneys, developers, landowners, elected officials, title officers, bankers, realtors and the like.
we are not all Boundary Surveyors, nor do we all possess good communication skills. It is simply not a job requirement for all of us.
that combined with the varying State and local laws, his point may be quite valid.
I'm of the old school that realizes that we render professional opinions based on the evidence we are provided, and uncover on our own through due diligence to render said professional opinion. Then the check is in the mail.
90% of most property owners do not know what they own, they just think they know based on realtors, fences, access routes, GIS'ers, google, etc. Then the pesky neighbor comes along and disagrees. I love those jobs.... it's as close as I'll get to solving world peace, and it does educate those ignorant folks we call clients. Plus I'll do everything in my head to keep their problem out of court, where the judge does have the ability to ruin your solution to world peace.
Can't wait to retire, but then I'll be pushing daisies. Still leave my footsteps though for the next ...... professional
Happy Thanksgiving all. Maybe my lowly Lions will beat those birds
[sarcasm]
Too bad boundaries aren't manufactured on an assembly line. Then we could just all adopt the manufacturer's terminology, work from their technical manuals, make sure the boundaries on the ground are within spec, and fix them if they're not.
Oh wait, a lot of surveyors actually do survey that way.
[/sarcasm]
Good post Duane. I agree that a common training requirement would be a good thing, and that most of the training provided (as through degree programs) is heavily weighted on the math & science at the expense of the legal and practical. But that can spin us off on another topic.
I look @ it like this: The property owner wants his property corners staked. S/He wants it for a reason, like to be able to build a fence on his line. They don't want some bearing and distance staked that may or may not be the actual property line. They don't need to hear "only a judge can determine your corner". If they wanted some math laid out on the ground they could hire some guy good with a calculator and theodolite to lay it out and tell them "I can't promise this is the corner because I'm not a land surveyor" type bologna. Any of you guys that want to "pass the responsibility" don't go getting mad @ some jack-leg non-licensed surveyor staking the "not-a-property-line" out on private property.
You are a professional land surveyor. When someone sees a property line staked by you they expect a professional determination. Yes, some court can state that you were wrong, but that's just their opinion. The court should have listened to their experts more closely. The fact is you are the expert. You put your ass on the line and you stamp to it. If someone wants to dispute it and spend thousands on lawyers that's their problem. The lawyers should be calling you and asking what the real deal is. You can put all these disclaimers on your plats, but the clients are still going to use it as a property plat. Put your big-boy pants on and figure it out.
I agree with parts of this statement and disagree with others. I agree that the lack of common terminology can be a hindrance to a landowners confidence in what he's told by a surveyor, but also believe that lack of commonality can be otherwise overcome with clear communication. Not dumbing down, but making the complex understandable with plain language.
I disagree that our task is to apply logic and reason to situations involving people who don't act rationally or logically. Certainly we do come across such cases, but I think in the vast majority, we might confuse "logic and reason" with "technically and legally correct."
It has been my observation that most people do have some manner of identifiable and understandable logic behind their actions in establishing boundaries or occupation. Even when one is intentionally occupying beyond the boundaries of land they have title to, there is usually some identifiable though dishonest logic.
Where landowners establish a line where they have a reasonable belief for the location, whether established mutually, or by one landowner, the reasons can usually be pulled out of the evidence fairly readily. You can usually determine where they started from and/or how they measured.
A line location established by mistake, or one where the landowners never made a real attempt to establish it in the correct position can present problems after the properties have changed hands and there is no one left with direct knowledge to say "it cost too much to get it surveyed, so we just put up a fence halfway between the houses." With such a statement, the rest of our job becomes easy. Without such a statement, we sift through what we've found, maybe look for something we've missed, and eventually come to the conclusion that the fence is just a fence for lack of any corroborating evidence that it was placed in a reasonable attempt to mark the correct boundary.
It's pretty rare to run across an instance where one party or the other acts totally irrationally with regard to establishing their boundary. That type of person is the one who will do things simply to irritate his or her neighbors - pull stakes, move irons, claim contrary to all other evidence that the line has always gone toward that tree over there.
The concept of irrational behavior in establishing boundaries needs to be separated from how they may act if someone informs them that the line is somewhere other than where they thought it was. The idea of gaining or losing land in the survey lottery can make otherwise rational people lose all sense of reason.
I also agree that perfect is the enemy of good. One way I've seen that in our profession is when a surveyor comes along in 20xx with his GPS/GLONASS, and total station that has least readings of 3" & 0.005', and is following a section breakdown done in the 50s or 60s. They find an interior 1/16 iron that is a foot or so from their calculated position and reject it, even if it is from the first survey to divide the section (reasoning that only the GLO survey can be considered to be an "original" survey, ignoring that had the GLO set interior corners, the 1/16 mon likely would have been several feet from its mathemagically correct position). They don't take into account the terrain, the vegetation and other conditions when the previous survey was made, or the fact that it was done with a 30" transit and steel tape. Under many conditions, that iron 1' from the 20xx calculated position is well within the expected positional errors of a survey of the 50s or 60s. But because it's not in its "perfect position, it's not good enough for our recent expert measurer.
Peter Ehlert, post: 346011, member: 60 wrote: we are not all Boundary Surveyors, nor do we all possess good communication skills. It is simply not a job requirement for all of us.
that combined with the varying State and local laws, his point may be quite valid.
So, you're saying it is okay for the non-boundary surveyor to locate a point using RTK but communicate it as merely located. If pressed, you say located with GPS to avoid confusing the client. If asked how accurate you say accurate enough. In construction I can call grade stakes wooden elevation modules or anything else I can come up with to avoid the technical term?
I don't get the unwillingness to recognize that there are certain basic things all surveyors involved in boundary surveying should know and be able to communicate. This is exactly why there are problems in this area of surveying. Even surveyors don't believe there is special knowledge required in order to practice boundary surveying. Any other endeavor or area of surveying sure; but boundary's? No worries, after screwing them up for 20 years with a license you will finally learn about them and all will be good, then you can go on the lecture circuit and explain what you finally learned as if it is something new. I don't think the public is being served well by that traditional model that sends so many to court battles. But I certainly agree with Murphy's setup of what surveyors must deal with in a land boundary situation. And philosophy and sociology are certainly worthwhile electives. But no need for law studies in the area of land boundaries. Sorry, I'll just never get it I guess.
eapls2708, post: 346067, member: 589 wrote: I agree with parts of this statement and disagree with others. I agree that the lack of common terminology can be a hindrance to a landowners confidence in what he's told by a surveyor, but also believe that lack of commonality can be otherwise overcome with clear communication. Not dumbing down, but making the complex understandable with plain language.
I disagree that our task is to apply logic and reason to situations involving people who don't act rationally or logically. Certainly we do come across such cases, but I think in the vast majority, we might confuse "logic and reason" with "technically and legally correct."
It has been my observation that most people do have some manner of identifiable and understandable logic behind their actions in establishing boundaries or occupation. Even when one is intentionally occupying beyond the boundaries of land they have title to, there is usually some identifiable though dishonest logic.
Where landowners establish a line where they have a reasonable belief for the location, whether established mutually, or by one landowner, the reasons can usually be pulled out of the evidence fairly readily. You can usually determine where they started from and/or how they measured.
A line location established by mistake, or one where the landowners never made a real attempt to establish it in the correct position can present problems after the properties have changed hands and there is no one left with direct knowledge to say "it cost too much to get it surveyed, so we just put up a fence halfway between the houses." With such a statement, the rest of our job becomes easy. Without such a statement, we sift through what we've found, maybe look for something we've missed, and eventually come to the conclusion that the fence is just a fence for lack of any corroborating evidence that it was placed in a reasonable attempt to mark the correct boundary.
It's pretty rare to run across an instance where one party or the other acts totally irrationally with regard to establishing their boundary. That type of person is the one who will do things simply to irritate his or her neighbors - pull stakes, move irons, claim contrary to all other evidence that the line has always gone toward that tree over there.
The concept of irrational behavior in establishing boundaries needs to be separated from how they may act if someone informs them that the line is somewhere other than where they thought it was. The idea of gaining or losing land in the survey lottery can make otherwise rational people lose all sense of reason.
I also agree that perfect is the enemy of good. One way I've seen that in our profession is when a surveyor comes along in 20xx with his GPS/GLONASS, and total station that has least readings of 3" & 0.005', and is following a section breakdown done in the 50s or 60s. They find an interior 1/16 iron that is a foot or so from their calculated position and reject it, even if it is from the first survey to divide the section (reasoning that only the GLO survey can be considered to be an "original" survey, ignoring that had the GLO set interior corners, the 1/16 mon likely would have been several feet from its mathemagically correct position). They don't take into account the terrain, the vegetation and other conditions when the previous survey was made, or the fact that it was done with a 30" transit and steel tape. Under many conditions, that iron 1' from the 20xx calculated position is well within the expected positional errors of a survey of the 50s or 60s. But because it's not in its "perfect position, it's not good enough for our recent expert measurer.
Yes, and the lack of commonality in terms can't be overcome by good communication because they go hand in hand. It is reflective of a lack of knowledge, and if you don't have the knowledge you can't properly explain the outcome using legal and technical terms. You can explain in layman terms why your new pin is 1' away and is the correct one and make it sound good to the average client, so that they believe they have a case in court. Hence, the new pin 1' away from the original and the ensuing court battle that shouldn't be.
The study of law is built upon the foundation philosophy. Memorization of statutes and an occasional glance at abstracts of court opinions is much better than nothing, but it's like learning CAD without an education in geometry and trig.
I certainly don't advocate ignorance of language, I just haven't experienced a lack of commonality of terms. Most of my clients have never spoken to another surveyor. However, I've gotten to the point of communicating with Realtors and attorneys with pictographs as their terminology doesn't often mirror surveying lingo.
I've always liked that people describe the same thing in different ways. It reinforces the fact that our experiences make us all quite different. It doesn't scare or concern me that some surveyors spit tobacco, cuss, and never wear a pair of pants that don't have stains on them because I am confident in my ability to show others the value of my service. I view the push for uniformity as a greater threat to me and the profession because it restricts my ability to help my clients by providing a fictional definition of what constitutes a good survey. Regulation and licensing, though necessary, make it quite tempting to stake deed math and quite risky to man up and make a tough decision.
Duane Frymire, post: 346118, member: 110 wrote: So, you're saying it is okay for the non-boundary surveyor to locate a point using RTK but communicate it as merely located. If pressed, you say located with GPS to avoid confusing the client. If asked how accurate you say accurate enough. In construction I can call grade stakes wooden elevation modules or anything else I can come up with to avoid the technical term?
........
absolutely not.
I wrote in response to "If a professional can't communicate the legal and technical aspects, then they only build on the initial mistrust. If I don't show special knowledge to the client or neighbors then I'm just another guy with an opinion no better than theirs except I'm charging for it with no apparent reason. " so don't extrapolate it to the absurd.
communication skills are lacking by many, and there is no such thing as a "universal truth"
Yeah, you'd think there was a better way to gain the knowledge for boundary surveying than wondering around the wilderness for 40 years bouncing off the issues. I don't think it would be that hard to teach to the young "land" surveyor, certainly better than having to undo the myth's before gaining what's really required. Still in the big picture of "Geomatics" land surveying is a small subset, probably not the most lucrative, certainly with potential liability and directly dealing with landowners constitutional rights.
Land Surveying is a big responsibility and it seems like for the most part surveyors don't want to step up to it.
That's why boundary surveying needs to be taught in law schools, not as part of civil engineering. And the tests need to concentrate on law, not calculations.
That will never happen because boundary surveys would cost too much and a resolution would be less attainable. The Engineer, on the other hand, can read a 1/2" thick book which lays the problem out in simple terms and principles therefore allowing a quick and definite solution that most won't question. Now the project can be built quickly and efficiently allowing for profit to be made.
If Surveys were really done following extensive evidence gathering and legal procedure as some advocate then it would take years, not days, to get a boundary resolution, if it is attainable at all. The property owners should agree but that is just not part of the American culture. Americans always want more than they have, they certainly don't want to give up possession that they have.
Dave,
I don't think its near that big a deal. I believe that a one year program like a masters after the basic ÛÏGeomaticsÛ degree would get it done if properly thought out and structured.
I'll relate back to my own experience. I got a specialized engineering degree in irrigation engineering from Utah State. The program was actually a masters degree program of special coursework in the subject. Most of the students had already got their B.S. in engineering (mostly civil and from all over the world). Utah State did have a B.S. program where you completed the first 3 years of engineering and then did the year of irrigation with the masters students. That's what I did, the first 3 years civil and then the 4th year irrigation but I only got a B.S. Looking back I sort of wish I'd done the 4 + 1 and completed the extra year of civil work but we all look back and might have done some things different. Anyway, one of my courses in the program was a Water Law class and it was taught by an attorney and I really liked it.
Something similar could be done with ÛÏGeomatics.Û You could basically take the 4 year program and add the fifth masters year. You would make sure that to the B.S. level they got some undergraduate law like a year of Business Law. I'd clean up or adjust some of the boundary courses being taught at the undergraduate level, maybe tweak the texts a bit. The masters year would be a concentrated program that taught boundary law and some basic stuff needed to understand it and apply it. You could offer a specialized 4 year program that weeded a year out of the 4 year undergraduate program and let the students that really wanted to be land surveyors get that in four years by not getting the full ÛÏGeomaticsÛ education. Every state wouldn't need to offer the Masters in boundary surveying, probably a few programs would suffice. People interested could get the regular Geomatics from their state and then get the Masters from one of these programs. The Masters program should probably be done at schools with a Law School (and library) and in conjunction with the law school's assistance. I don't think you'd need to get admitted to the law school to get into the program.
I don't think that getting land surveyors to do what should be done for boundaries would really send the cost and time into the stratosphere as you suggest. If a student isn't handicapped by ill equipped mentoring to begin with, understanding boundary law really isn't that tough. A certain amount of reward for being in the profession needs to be there to keep the quality of practitioners needed. I for one don't think the cost of a land survey should be kept low by allowing worthless and damaging work to be done for the public. I just ain't buying into that one!
Bill93, post: 346156, member: 87 wrote: That's why boundary surveying needs to be taught in law schools, not as part of civil engineering. And the tests need to concentrate on law, not calculations.
Not exactly true. In addition to teaching a two sequential boundary law course for an AAS in surveying, I taught business law for AAS in accounting, and constitutional law for AAS in criminal justice. Lots of majors have law courses. They should have someone with a law degree teaching them rather than an engineering degree. No need to turn boundary surveyors into lawyers but I can't think of any other occupation where law courses are more appropriate at the undergraduate level.
LRDay, post: 346189, member: 571 wrote: Dave,
I don't think its near that big a deal. I believe that a one year program like a masters after the basic ÛÏGeomaticsÛ degree would get it done if properly thought out and structured.
I'll relate back to my own experience. I got a specialized engineering degree in irrigation engineering from Utah State. The program was actually a masters degree program of special coursework in the subject. Most of the students had already got their B.S. in engineering (mostly civil and from all over the world). Utah State did have a B.S. program where you completed the first 3 years of engineering and then did the year of irrigation with the masters students. That's what I did, the first 3 years civil and then the 4th year irrigation but I only got a B.S. Looking back I sort of wish I'd done the 4 + 1 and completed the extra year of civil work but we all look back and might have done some things different. Anyway, one of my courses in the program was a Water Law class and it was taught by an attorney and I really liked it.
Something similar could be done with ÛÏGeomatics.Û You could basically take the 4 year program and add the fifth masters year. You would make sure that to the B.S. level they got some undergraduate law like a year of Business Law. I'd clean up or adjust some of the boundary courses being taught at the undergraduate level, maybe tweak the texts a bit. The masters year would be a concentrated program that taught boundary law and some basic stuff needed to understand it and apply it. You could offer a specialized 4 year program that weeded a year out of the 4 year undergraduate program and let the students that really wanted to be land surveyors get that in four years by not getting the full ÛÏGeomaticsÛ education. Every state wouldn't need to offer the Masters in boundary surveying, probably a few programs would suffice. People interested could get the regular Geomatics from their state and then get the Masters from one of these programs. The Masters program should probably be done at schools with a Law School (and library) and in conjunction with the law school's assistance. I don't think you'd need to get admitted to the law school to get into the program.
I don't think that getting land surveyors to do what should be done for boundaries would really send the cost and time into the stratosphere as you suggest. If a student isn't handicapped by ill equipped mentoring to begin with, understanding boundary law really isn't that tough. A certain amount of reward for being in the profession needs to be there to keep the quality of practitioners needed. I for one don't think the cost of a land survey should be kept low by allowing worthless and damaging work to be done for the public. I just ain't buying into that one!
Amen!
Murphy, post: 346121, member: 9787 wrote: I certainly don't advocate ignorance of language, I just haven't experienced a lack of commonality of terms. Most of my clients have never spoken to another surveyor. However, I've gotten to the point of communicating with Realtors and attorneys with pictographs as their terminology doesn't often mirror surveying lingo.
I've always liked that people describe the same thing in different ways. It reinforces the fact that our experiences make us all quite different. It doesn't scare or concern me that some surveyors spit tobacco, cuss, and never wear a pair of pants that don't have stains on them because I am confident in my ability to show others the value of my service. I view the push for uniformity as a greater threat to me and the profession because it restricts my ability to help my clients by providing a fictional definition of what constitutes a good survey. Regulation and licensing, though necessary, make it quite tempting to stake deed math and quite risky to man up and make a tough decision.
Again I agree with your premise, but not what you deduct from it. Virtually all available evidence shows that licensing schemes containing a common core of basic knowledge have increased the competency of professions and trades that have adopted them over the last 150 years. Surveying is the lone holdout profession and it shows in the number of court cases that continue to be generated over pretty basic issues that shouldn't be a problem.
Peter Ehlert, post: 346122, member: 60 wrote: absolutely not.
I wrote in response to "If a professional can't communicate the legal and technical aspects, then they only build on the initial mistrust. If I don't show special knowledge to the client or neighbors then I'm just another guy with an opinion no better than theirs except I'm charging for it with no apparent reason. " so don't extrapolate it to the absurd.
communication skills are lacking by many, and there is no such thing as a "universal truth"
Peter, I think you're proving my point. Why is it absurd when talking about other areas of surveying, but not land boundaries? There are (maybe surprisingly to some) universal truths in law just as in mathematics. The devil may be in the details but you can't get there if you start in the wrong place. A "deed line" or "placing the deed on the ground" should mean the same thing to any surveyor offering services to the public. Good communication skills are a dangerous thing in the wrong hands and lead to improper decisions at the trial level, many of which are never appealed for economic reasons.
But I'll let it go now. Good discussion.