Contractor available for ground truth data collection

message edit ..."and I have fairly thorough high order NGS control database and probably have a good idea of the best control available for your project"

Jim Archer, post: 385516, member: 11991 wrote: message edit ..."and I have fairly thorough high order NGS control database and probably have a good idea of the best control available for your project"

Don't we all (i.e. the IDB)?

Jim Frame, post: 385518, member: 10 wrote: Don't we all (i.e. the IDB)?

I suppose. Maybe I am in the wrong forum :). Anyway, I think my database is specifically applicable to aerial mapping project needs for a variety of reasons. But first, what about all of the points in the database that are lost, disturbed, or unsuitable for GPS? I don't know of any database of the NGS control points that are completely current in that regard, surely you cannot make that determination from your database alone? I'm assuming "IDB" = NSG survey control database, no matter the method of access? More to the point however, I suspect that we on the aerial mapping side of things look at control a bit differently than you might as a land surveyor. And I'm not talking about aerial mapping for land surveying applications, but rather mapping, where the data aquired is the data that is to be the final product, lidar, imagery, etc. etc. A purely aerial mapping project.
So typically for anything other than an RTN ground truth survey, if we are using a control point we need to be able to setup and run a static session on it, or it is of no use to us. Traditional surveying is not an option for a variety of reasons, it's GPS or nothing. So with just that criteria alone here are some scenarios (from personal experience) that can completely disqualify an otherwise perfectly good high order NGS point (as described by the datasheet) for an aerial survey: a) next to a high fence or trees, brush, guardrail that prevents tripod setup, etc., not all of these details are current or even noted at all on the datasheet, b) on a bridge abutment, most are suitable for static but some aren't and you don't know until you get there, c) at a municipal airport that for an endless variety of reasons cannont be occupied same day, a grumpy airport manager deny's access for valid or invalid reasons, some simply will not let you setup in the infield regardless, etc., etc., d) the datasheet said "set on a rock", monument was on a rock 5 feet high with a roughly 3' total diameter, my co-worker was actually able to get a tripod over it, but could not stand anywhere to look through it to get setup properly, e) any point that is buried even slightly may not be found! (aerial crews typically don't carry mag locators, the nature of mobilization prohibits it, everything you use in the field needs to be shipped on a commercial flight, that is most often the mode of transportation from one project to another).
So, even that is a very incomplete list. Much of what makes aerial mapping fun and interesting is that occasionally a problem comes your way that you could have never imagined the prevous day, hour, or minute. And, unfortunately, often the "surveying" parts of the project are so basic and simple as to be the most boring part of the job (lots of static occupations).
Anyway, if you know how to make even some of the determinations required from the NGS database alone I'd love to hear more,

In California, the work you're describing would require being licensed or working as a subordinate under the responsible charge of a licensee.

Ric Moore, post: 385579, member: 731 wrote: In California, the work you're describing would require being licensed or working as a subordinate under the responsible charge of a licensee.

A license should cover BOUNDARY surveying. I know most state's regs cover everything up to measuring the width of a sidewalk with a ruler, but that doesn't make it right.

John Hamilton, post: 385614, member: 640 wrote: A license should cover BOUNDARY surveying. I know most state's regs cover everything up to measuring the width of a sidewalk with a ruler, but that doesn't make it right.

Here's a good map on it. http://www.asprs.org/a/society/divisions/ppd/State_Licensure_Map/State_Licensure_Map.html

Thanks for that link. Interesting map. As many of you know, I do a lot of work similar to what the original poster is offering. I won't go into details, but most of the work I do of that nature is exempt due to being military and federal. I have done LiDAR and photo control in all 50 states.

I will say this, I do not panel existing control UNLESS I also survey it. Too much trouble, often more difficult than setting a new station or picking an ID. I will actually charge more to go out and target an existing control network than to survey from scratch, but the contracting agencies (usually a county) think it should be cheaper. The problem is that often monuments are not in good locations for a panel, or not photo-identifiable. However, if I come across an NSRS station that can be easily paneled (like at an airport), I will put a target on it but also occupy it to verify position/elevation.

Jim (Archer),

You seem to have a great passion for what you do and that is commendable, but you are over-complicating something that we do every day.

I could go on ad nauseam, but I have to parallel what John is saying. Every aerial mapping project is site specific so the control database you have may not be at all applicable to the specifics of the flight mission. With the advent of ABGPS, I can set up 2 base stations anywhere, preferably on a photo identifiable point or even a randomly set control point and collect data that can be post-processed to OPUS and tied to the ABGPS. Now I just go out and have redundant RTK ties on all of my site specific panels.

To simplify what would be a rather long explanation, if I am required to set up on an NSRS monument, it will already have been approved by the NGS for static occupation (HARN, FBN, CBN,etc) and as John said, the cost will go up significantly.

John Hamilton, post: 385614, member: 640 wrote: A license should cover BOUNDARY surveying. I know most state's regs cover everything up to measuring the width of a sidewalk with a ruler, but that doesn't make it right.

I'm curious as to why you believe this? Not trying to be argumentative, just want to understand your rationale behind this belief? Is just because that's what you are used to where you practice? Or something else?

John Hamilton, post: 385639, member: 640 wrote: Thanks for that link. Interesting map. As many of you know, I do a lot of work similar to what the original poster is offering. I won't go into details, but most of the work I do of that nature is exempt due to being military and federal. I have done LiDAR and photo control in all 50 states.

I will say this, I do not panel existing control UNLESS I also survey it. Too much trouble, often more difficult than setting a new station or picking an ID. I will actually charge more to go out and target an existing control network than to survey from scratch, but the contracting agencies (usually a county) think it should be cheaper. The problem is that often monuments are not in good locations for a panel, or not photo-identifiable. However, if I come across an NSRS station that can be easily paneled (like at an airport), I will put a target on it but also occupy it to verify position/elevation.

My question would be who insures your work. I have yet to find and insurer that will insure an unlicensed individual providing the service described. Ultimately that's what it all boils down to. If you can't provide a COI then good luck.

Ric Moore, post: 385665, member: 731 wrote: I'm curious as to why you believe this? Not trying to be argumentative, just want to understand your rationale behind this belief? Is just because that's what you are used to where you practice? Or something else?

In the state I live in, if you don't have boundary experience on your application, forget about being accepted to take the licensing exam. You can have 30 years of geodetic experience, they don't care. Or you can have 10 years of strictly boundary experience and in their eyes you are a fully qualified surveyor. I first applied after 20 years of doing engineering surveying, teaching classes, etc. I was rejected because I didn't show boundary experience.

Geodetic surveying, engineering surveying, topo, hydro, etc can all be "book learned", although of course experience helps. Boundary work does require "book knowledge", but also a lot more that can only be learned through experience and mentoring. I believe that is what a license should reflect, that you have the additional knowledge and skill to do boundary. Otherwise, why not just give a license when one graduates from college?

John Hamilton, post: 385942, member: 640 wrote: In the state I live in, if you don't have boundary experience on your application, forget about being accepted to take the licensing exam. You can have 30 years of geodetic experience, they don't care. Or you can have 10 years of strictly boundary experience and in their eyes you are a fully qualified surveyor. I first applied after 20 years of doing engineering surveying, teaching classes, etc. I was rejected because I didn't show boundary experience.

Geodetic surveying, engineering surveying, topo, hydro, etc can all be "book learned", although of course experience helps. Boundary work does require "book knowledge", but also a lot more that can only be learned through experience and mentoring. I believe that is what a license should reflect, that you have the additional knowledge and skill to do boundary. Otherwise, why not just give a license when one graduates from college?

In my experience it is boundary work that can be book learned and the other stuff gained through experience. But I guess that's why I argue there should be book and experience, not one or the other. And I agree, most States put way too much reliance on boundary "experience".

I agree, Duane, a person fresh out of school is not a finished product. I worked on a survey crew before I went to school (well, after I went a while for electrical engineering, then geology, then legal studies...). I graduated 30 years ago, and I am still learning. Once I stop learning it is time to put me in a nursing home.

I have come across some smart-ass newly graduated college kids over the years, thought they knew everything when they had really only begun to learn.

I believe there are some countries (Mexico, maybe?) where graduating from an accredited school gets you a license right away. I believe you need work experience first.

Also, another thing I have realized over the years of dealing with many civil engineers is that a really good work experience for a CE is to work a summer or two on a survey crew. Many of them graduate with a four year degree and not a single survey course. Not to make them surveyors, but rather to better enable them to deal with surveyors and survey data they receive. When my father went to school for EE in the late 40's, EVERY engineering student had to take a basic survey course, and EVERY CE had to go to survey summer camp. When I got my first job as a survey tech he gave me his Breed/Hosmer book.

Ron Lang, post: 385923, member: 6445 wrote: .... I have yet to find and insurer that will insure an unlicensed individual.....

Were you shopping for insurance before you were licensed? I do not see why an insurance company would deny anyone coverage that can pay their premiums.

Roadhand, post: 385956, member: 61 wrote: Were you shopping for insurance before you were licensed? I do not see why an insurance company would deny anyone coverage that can pay their premiums.

Generally it's just harder to come up with the money. A licensed professional gets professional liability insurance, whereas other types of contractors must put up a bond (usually via an insurance company). But putting up a bond is usually so expensive only companies can do it rather than individuals. I've worked through larger companies where they add me to their bond or insurance for the duration of the project.

Roadhand, post: 385956, member: 61 wrote: Were you shopping for insurance before you were licensed? I do not see why an insurance company would deny anyone coverage that can pay their premiums.

Yes, I had a drafting business that I could not obtain liability insurance for because at the time I didn't hold a license. I could get general liability, but nothing related to the actual product I produced.

John Hamilton, post: 385942, member: 640 wrote: In the state I live in, if you don't have boundary experience on your application, forget about being accepted to take the licensing exam. You can have 30 years of geodetic experience, they don't care. Or you can have 10 years of strictly boundary experience and in their eyes you are a fully qualified surveyor. I first applied after 20 years of doing engineering surveying, teaching classes, etc. I was rejected because I didn't show boundary experience.

Geodetic surveying, engineering surveying, topo, hydro, etc can all be "book learned", although of course experience helps. Boundary work does require "book knowledge", but also a lot more that can only be learned through experience and mentoring. I believe that is what a license should reflect, that you have the additional knowledge and skill to do boundary. Otherwise, why not just give a license when one graduates from college?

Ok, I appreciate the clarification. I don't disagree with you statements here. In California, we look for broad-based experience at a responsible role level to qualify for licensure. One with only boundary experience or only construction experience would need to broaden their experience before qualifying.

John Hamilton, post: 385950, member: 640 wrote: I believe there are some countries (Mexico, maybe?) where graduating from an accredited school gets you a license right away.

That's true.

Most civil engineer college programs includes 2 or 3 surveying courses.

Ric Moore, post: 385665, member: 731 wrote: I'm curious as to why you believe this? Not trying to be argumentative, just want to understand your rationale behind this belief? Is just because that's what you are used to where you practice? Or something else?

I do much the same type of work as John and maybe the OP too and John and I have actually discussed this if I remember correctly. EXCEPT for boundary work all other work product that is usually encompassed under each of the 50 state surveying codes varies very little if at all from one jurisdiction to the next. I am currently licensed in five states, not so I can do boundary surveying in them, BUT because it looks good on RFP's and most west coast states where I live in particular want to fine anyone who utters the word surveying without the license.

I am a big proponent of a license in any US state should be good for ALL surveying and mapping activities in any other state EXCEPT boundary and heck that changes so much even within a state I wouldn't venture more than a county or two if that was my bread and butter. I can guarantee you in the state of California, a boundary survey anyplace north of Redding isn't even the same animal as say one done in Los Angeles, there really is that much difference even though the state is the same and the law is supposed to be the same. On the other hand, is a topo survey any different in those two areas? Is a contour line any different in California than Florida?

Like it or not, technology and market demand has far outpaced surveying laws and much of the stuff in those laws while historically was surveying is now often done with no license by non surveyors and technology anybody can buy. It seems we as a profession could retain some control over who is doing this work by being a little more open to the idea that setting a geodetic point in Brookings, OR is no different than in Crescent City, CA across the border, an artificial political boundary in the sand that makes no difference to the work product. Instead we have created a protect the turf attitude among the 50 states that has created an artificial shortage of qualified folks (PLS's) and it has become a free for all with technology and market demand unleashing a ton of folks who look the other way as long as they can afford the technology. I foresee a time when the tide is going to be so big that the market and the courts are going to steamroll the Boards and win based on archaic land surveying laws that will be found to be nothing more than a protection of the license turf rather than a protection of the public.

How many USGS topo maps, NGS Geodetic surveys and so forth were done in CA with CA PLS's? I venture to say few if any, yet this type of product is required to have a PLS. Is that for protection of the PLS or protection of the public? I would dare say most of the geodetic work produced by NGS is something few PLS's could really do at least until recently anyway (due to technology) and yet this is considered land surveying in most states.

I think if we want to embrace progress it is time for a national surveying license and the states can still issue boundary surveying licenses to cover state specific laws. I think if we embrace that idea we may as a profession retain some oversight, otherwise I think we become boundary surveyors only by default and eventually maybe even electronic records (GIS) may even become good enough to replace that.

SHG