Some of us got a little side tracked in another post, but it was an interesting (at least to me) discussion about surveying as a stand alone state board and various interests that can influence the statutory language which could impact surveying as a profession.?ÿ Much of that centered around engineering as that is a common board for surveyors to be combined with.
All that brought to mind a question of how are your state boards and/or professional societies working with any of the organizations that involve GIS professionals?
Those groups could be serious players in any initiatives to change language around surveying and especially mapping if they were to go that direction.?ÿ Many don't want the burden of licensure, but some want in the arena defined by statute as land surveying.?ÿ Some states have addressed it to some extent, but there seem to be many surveyors who prefer to not see the potential power the large number of GISers could have.?ÿ For example, we have an organization within Kentucky for mapping professionals called Kentucky Association of Mapping Professionals (KAMP).?ÿ They started well after our surveying society, but have exceeded our numbers easily because they have a bigger group to draw from (included licensed surveyors).?ÿ Fortunately, they have had leadership who understand well the distinctions between mapping professional and land surveyor.?ÿ But all it takes is one leader with less understanding to cause issues.
I'm just going to read this one, i promise. Mostly. ?????ÿ
?ÿ
Colorado Doesn't:
?ÿ
The State Board of Licensure for Architects, Professional Engineers and Professional Land Surveyors regulates and licenses architects, professional engineers and professional land surveyors. The Board's mission is to safeguard life, health, and property and to promote public welfare. The Board does not regulate or require registration of architect, engineer, or land surveyor firms.
Board activities include examining and enrolling engineer and land surveyor interns, examining and licensing architects, professional engineers and professional land surveyors,investigating complaints about each profession, and disciplining those who violate the law and/or Board's Rules. The Board is made up of 13 members: three from the architect and land surveying professions, four from the engineering profession and three public members.
I'm just going to read this one, i promise. Mostly.
?ÿ
Dude - jump in and opine, pontificate, and expound.?ÿ Even if someone disagrees with your statements, you should feel free to express them.
Some states have conflict between licensed land surveying and unlicensed GIS work (occasionally this ends in sensational news headlines).?ÿ Some states have worked collaboratively to define the line and keep things clear from going astray.?ÿ As you pointed out, good leadership in the societies is important.?ÿ You can see the results of Oregon resolving this issue years ago, https://www.oregon.gov/geo/Pages/task_force.aspx
?ÿ
There are various national mapping organizations representing mostly GIS interests.?ÿ Here are a few: MAPPS, NSGIC, and URISA.?ÿ?ÿ
I used to try to have a mutual respect for GIS techs. I realize that they have a process as well to become certified and even sometimes claim as "GIS Professional." that's great but rarely will the individual get sued for any error in their work. But surveyors, engineers and architects most assuredly will....
?ÿ
I have seen too many individuals who are passionate about GIS matters (mainly government cadastral related employees but sometimes those in municipal utility mapping roles as well) who try to get into surveying or study up for the exams and eventually just give up either before an exam or after an attempt or two. And while it's sad, I'd rather somebody who's going to give up that easily not be responsible for the public's health/safety/welfare.
?ÿ
But yet in my opinion those same GIS individuals will be some of the very first ones to step into a surveying related matter as well because their glorious ARC GIS software and the deeds or maps recorded told them an easement or boundary is supposed to be EXACTLY there and they can give you coordinates too! Heaven forbid you the surveyor come up with something that differs as well, even if the evidence from the field points to the contrary or if said coordinates were on a different datum lol. The worst is when you put a lot of effort in to a map and they just draw some haphazard lines on the GIS and the owner happens to pull up the GIS and chews you out for it like you intentionally had them draw it wrong haha. Then you have to patiently explain the difference between a licensed professional and somebody who's not
@protracted Thanks for the link.?ÿ That looks like some really good, cooperative work between the groups.
@ncsudirtman I think your tale really draws attention to why there needs to be the kind of discussions and working together to achieve an understanding as Protracted pointed out Oregon has done.
It is a similar problem to the writing of property descriptions that lawyers used to do in Kentucky not too long ago.?ÿ After a few meetings, an agreement was reached between the surveyors and the attorneys and they spread that discussion among their members.?ÿ It took a bit of time, but it seems a very rare occurrence to hear of a lawyer preparing a new description of property that isn't a referent description.