What is Surveying?

[Gromatici]

"8726. Land surveying defined
A person, including any person employed by the state or by a city, county, or city and county within the state, practices land surveying within the meaning of this chapter who, either in a public or private capacity, does or offers to do any one or more of the following:
(b) Determines the configuration or contour of the earth’s surface, or the position of fixed objects above, on, or below the surface of the earth by applying the principles of mathematics or photogrammetry."

So, if someone uses LIDAR to "determine......position of fixed objects...on the surface of the earth by applying the principles of mathematics" isn't that surveying? Total stations and Lidar use "principles of mathematics" to come up with coordinates. To me that means anyone who is using those instruments is surveying. If this was not the intent of the law, then it's wording needs changed.

Lets illustrate it this way: Boy Scout group is hired by a lumber company to determine the heights of trees by using the inclinometer on the compasses they have. According to Sec. 8726(b) they are surveying and in violation of the law. Doesn't that seem ridiculous? However, that's the way the law reads! What about underground utility location companies: are they not "Determin(ing) the position of fixed objects.......... below the surface of the earth by applying the principles of mathematics"?

We've previously discussed "as-built" companies and how they should not show relationships of buildings to property lines. However, show they even be showing the building dimensions and heights since they need to use "principles of mathematics"? Maybe if they are working for an architect, then that would fall under his license, but CA state law is specific stating that those offering Land Surveying Services shall have a PLS as an officer of their company.

So, here is what I'm getting at:

Are we trying to preserve our licensing rights for just boundary determination, or all of what we do as surveyors? Given the technologies out there, it's only a matter of time before developers and others with resources will do their own topographic maps instead of hiring us. Scanners and other methods will replace us. Is this acceptable, or inevitable? Right now the wording of the law seems to indicate that it falls under the practice of Land Surveying, so these companies should not be offering services unless under the direction of a Licensed Land Surveyor.

[E_Page]

Eric,

Not all of your examples really fit. With tree heights, I believe a forester can do as you describe to estimate board feet and not be in violation. I very much doubt that Boy Scouts would be hired for such an activity, although they might be given the opportunity to do so as a learning (merit badge) activity. If the owner/logger proceeds on the Boy Scout results, they are accepting the risk of working on questionable numbers and should be aware that they have nobody to blame if the numbers are wrong.

With your LIDAR/photogrammetry example, most companies that provide these services but have no licenses on staff claim to be working under the license of their LS and CE clients. Pretty flimsy, IMO, but BPELS and most in the profession turn a blind eye to this. I don't know what they claim when their client is not a licensed professional.

Simply using a measuring tool, even the advanced ones in common use today which do a lot of the math for us, is not a violation in and of itself. Since the user, in most cases, has no control over the math used, and has no control over the results beyond altering the input (measuring to different points, more or less observations, etc.), they are doing technical and not professional work.

My concern on the use of surveying tools by non-surveyors is that there is no professional determining the methodology for how thy will be used.

I'm in complete agreement with you when it comes to these "as-built" services. They try to dance on the edge of the licensing laws, but IMO, they are in violation, even when their client is a licensed architect, CE, or LS.

§8729(a)(1) is pretty clear that a company offering to provide surveying services must have someone legally authorized to survey (PLS or pre-82 CE) as an owner, partner, or officer in charge of the surveying.

I don't see any wiggle room there for one company to claim that they are working under the license of a client.

One of my concerns, when it comes to boundaries, is that it is common practice for foresters to "flag the boundaries" for the loggers. Now a few, very few of these foresters know as much or more about boundary surveying as many surveyors do, which reflects as poorly on the surveying profession as it reflects well on these particular foresters.

But the bottom line is that they are not licensed surveyors. For every forester marking boundaries who knows what they're doing, there are probably 10 that don't.

I don't know what we do about the foresters. Marking the boundaries is something they see as incidental to the other work that they do. We would have the law on our side if we were going to make a concerted effort to stop the practice, but I doubt that we could either get it enforced or get foresters to accept that it's something they should not be doing.

With the as-built companies, they have no such basis of legitimacy. They are simply knowingly violating the law with impunity, trying to justify their activities on slim technicalities.

I wish BPELS had more teeth and resources to deal with this problem. Along those lines, have you seen the proposed legislation in Michigan regarding unlicensed practice? I'd like to see something similar incorporated into our law.

[Gromatici]

I've been trying to get someone to fess up and say what you did: "BPELS and most in the profession turn a blind eye to this". I agree. I understand the whole photogrammetry issue. There are many companies out there providing this service for surveyors, and we certainly wouldn't want to stop that, but why haven't we addressed it in the law? Photogrammetry is old technology. We've got a lot of exiting new stuff, and if we turn a blind eye to everything then we'll all see one another on the side of the road either insane or begging for money to buy a beer.

The reality is that others are pushing new technologies and not us, so are we going to turn a blind eye until we negate any oversight we may have or will address it. We certainly don't have to invent the new technologies, but HOW they are applied, WHEN and the APPLICATION should be left to us, the experts.

As for boy scouts, that was more satire, than reality. I just want to encourage discussion about where surveying is and is not.

Another state you made I agree with: "My concern on the use of surveying tools by non-surveyors is that there is no professional determining the methodology for how thy will be used."

The public always thinks that the latest technology is better and more accurate. The space shuttle does a remote sensing "survey" from outer space and it makes the news. The public thinks that they can use that data for their project. They have no idea! That's what we are here for.

Foresters, carpenters, GIS firms, and even irrigation companies are out there with new technologies “surveyingâ€￾ and are probably saving their clients some money but it’s also a ticking time-bomb of problems.

[dmi]

Eric, Evan,

I have found BPELS have been very responsive to me. Perhaps, they get inquries that are difficult or near impossible to prove up based upon what has been submitted in the complaint.

What I find amazing is that local agencies will allow submittals signed by engineers that are not licensed to practice surveying. I believe that local agency education could go along way to stopping this and other types of behavior.... you know public agency destruction of monuments....


one can only hope

[E_Page]

I didn't mean to imply that BPELS turns a blind eye to anything other than th photogrammetry/lack of in-house license issue.

I agree, they do try to respond to legitimate issues, and can only act upon the information that is provided to them.

The CEs surveying without a license to do so and the local agencies accepting this work from them was a big issue in El Dorado County a couple of years back. Nancy and Ric came to speak to the local SAGE group on the topic.

End result was that the local engineers resented being informed that some of them were performing work that they were not licensed (and often not knowledgeable enough) to perform, the local agencies paid lip service for a short period of complying with State law, and everything went quietly back to business as usual.

[dmi]

I know I addressed Evan and Eric,but really all I was doing is chiming in with my limited experience.

keep up the good work gents.....

[goodgps]

Good / great points ! i have often wondered about such things, especially when clients are allowed to do their own surveying for/and to create tentative maps. "ouch" !

Ever notice how PGE ?tells? people that the property line is the power pole ?
or fence builders and carpenters "layout" buildings on the property line without locating the actual corners.

People will spend thousands of dollars on building permits, architects/ engineers but want a very cheap survey. I agree, its time to really define surveying as a profession rather than a unwanted necessity.

But then how do you "crack down" on the poor schmuck who just wants to build a fence near or on his property line to keep thieves out, or protect his kids / pets from traffic. Should we slap a fine on this guy or his fence builder ? I changed my water heater but I'm not in the plumbers union.

Garth Goodman

[dmi]

A properly executed survey has value and the surveyor performing that survey ought to be fairly compensated in relation to the value of the survey, that is completed by the licensed profession. How about a little empathy directed toward the professional land surveyor, trying to put food on the table and take care of his/her family by toiling in their chosen profession?

I tire of the endless barrage that places downward price pressures on professional services, while everything else seems to go up, up and away.

If it is worth doing, its worth doing right and sometimes that means hiring a licensed professional.

[goodgps]

HIP HIP hooraaaaay !

I just told my wife that i would scarf pieces of an old flannel shirt to sew over the elbows of a "still fairly good one"

I met with a guy about a lot line adjustment. I'd given him an embarrassing low price. He wanted it cheaper and was sure he could find it elswhere.
When he leaves (without contract) I look into parking lot to see brand new Mercedes-Benz. $#!+

I'm taking a stand from now on. When a fence is incorrectly built or buildings dont meet setback etc etc and somebody wants a very cheap survey to " get things back on course" FOOEY
When clients do their own tentatives to save money . . . FOOEY

We mitigate conditions . . . We help them avoid design pitfalls . . .
We pass a real darn nasty test to practice our profession. So the next time a client tells me "watchout " " I took surveying 101 in college so I'll be watching you" . . . .you know what I'm gonna tell him . . .

(help me.....) finish out the scentence collegues . . . .

"goodman"

[Gromatici]

Garth, plumbing is a trade, and Land Surveying is a Profession. I think people can't really take a stab at surveying like they could if they wanted to do thier own remodleing. There are too many variables.

Actually I have no problem with owners "surveying" their own land. If there is a monuments here and there and they want to build a fence between them, that's their right. That's why we set monuments, so people know were their boundaries are! I can self medicate or do my own surgery if i please. I'd be stupid, but it's my right. Sometime they may get it right, other times it's too complicated or difficult. I have no problems with people trying to use the monuments we set to build fences or whatever.

What I'm talking about is someone advertising a service. Many times they tell their clients that they will save money by hiring them to do "as built locations" or scanning a site instead of hiring a Land Surveyor to do it conventionally. Maybe saving money never comes up, but they are purporting to provide topographic data using 3D camera, lidar or some other technology as a consultant, not an owner.

[goodgps]

Oh I see,

I have a former non-licensed employee who markets himself as a consultant for tentative mapping and land planning.
Maybe the land planning part is ok, but he rents survey equipment and makes a "somewhat" correct survey to use as he prepares a tentative plat.

I think this kinda business just aint right ? When he gets called on his action, he seems to find some retired professional to quickly "rubber stamp" his work. Clever creature.

How does this relate to the Sheriffs office who take a scanner to an accident scene ? Is law enforcement excempt ?

"good"

[E_Page]

Yup. Law enforcement is exempt for conducting accident investigations.

[Gromatici]

Law enforcement is the perfect example of this situation. The LAW stipulates only licensed land surveyors perform such surveys, but Law Enforcement sees the need and usefulness of the new technology of total stations and mapping. In addition, the public can save some money in taxes by having the officers perform such surveys. So a few years ago, we CHANGED the law to reflect the practice and made law enforcement exempt.

Instead of turning a blind eye to every new technology and practice we should either:
1. Enforce the laws.
2. Changed them to address the new technologies and practices like GIS, scanning, LIDAR and so forth.

[dmi]

Eric,
What are we going to do call BPELS everytime someone pulls out pocket tape?

With the squeeze on public budgets these days, privatizing and outsourcing are very popular and if you want, you could go and market to local area PDs and show them how cost effective it is to have you do the accident surveys.

We are only held back by our lack of imagination of how and where we can render our professional services.

[Edward Reading]

What about Biologist locating their wetland delineations with a mapping grade GPS?

[E_Page]

Is the biologist relating the wetlands to a property boundary? Is the biologist dimensioning the lines and claiming or implying a significant degree of accuracy?

[Edward Reading]

Evan,
Yes, I'm sure that eventually they are shown graphically relative to property lines, although they are not dimensioned.

[goodgps]

Biolgists usually use quad sheets and assessment plats to layout their little vernal pools and beetle habitats. Those guys who track insects, however, like to use geographical coorinates when tracking killer bees, locusts etc.
I guess if you think about it, the whole world is a great big property line.

Perhaps Land Surveying is more related to "Real property" based upon deeds and official holdings of "someone" Usually there isnt a grant deed written for a vernal pool, or a killer ladybug colony.

[E_Page]

I think the test would be the level of precision that they are showing and any claimed or implied accuracy.

If their showing their delineations and the property lines only graphically, or if their showing dimensions to the nearest 10' and put the +/- on each dimension, there's no issue.

At what point they cross the line (the pun wasn't intended, but there it is), I guess, is open for debate.

Edges of wetlands and other similar features don't have very well defined edges, so to equate showing the relationship of such a nebulous feature to a property line with showing a dimension from a corner of a building to a PL, IMO, is not a good comparison.

The spirit of the law, I think, is to keep non-surveyors from giving clients something by which they would be able to take with them onto their land, and be able to find a discrete location and believe that they have found or established their boundary.

I can't think of an instance where I have seen this able to be done from a wetland delineation. But I can think of several (perhaps several dozen) times that I have seen site plans prepared by unqualified persons with which a landowner, armed with the plot and a tape measure, could go out and establish the line as depicted on the drawing.

I think that makes a big difference and goes to the spirit of the law rather than a broad interpretation of the letter of the law. After all, it's pretty unreasonable to think that only surveyors can use PLs as lines of reference. We establish or retrace those lines so that others may use them as reference.

[RasterMaster]

I beg to differ! PLS Act 8726 (n). Only the LS can claim accuracy on a map. This was established for our GIS friends.

With a lot of what is stated above I think some should become involved with these new and exciting toys. ie: GIS, LiDAR-air or ground and all of the sweat GPS stuff.

The way I see it is..... Any body can go do this type of work but if it claims to be cal coord. or it claims an accuracy then an LS needs to be included.

In closing, I feel the Board dose an excellent job enforcing our laws and complaints.

Get involved and be a part of the solution.

RasterMaster

[Gromatici]

I hope no-one thinks I'm complaining about the Board. What I'm trying to do is understand the letter of the law and how it is actually being enforced, or the "spirit of the law". The law has some interesting language, yet I don't see anyone turning in Photogrammetrists. There are laser scanning companies that work as sub-consultants to surveyors. Is that O.K.? If that’s O.K., why can’t there be “Stakingâ€￾ contractors for Land Surveyors? According to the letter of the law surveying “Determines the configuration or contour of the earth’s surface or the position of fixed objects above, on, or below the surface of the earth by applying the principles of mathematics or photogrammetry."- Sec. 8726.

It seems to me we are focusing on boundary surveying, which we should always have control over, but we're slowly loosing our grip on topographic surveying to technology we are not using and others have no idea of what they are producing like airborne LIDAR. I've used it for hydrology studies, but I know I can't provide it for design so I have to ground survey around the proposed bridge. I'm able to make these judgment calls because it's within my area of expertise as a Licensed Land Surveyor.

There is a local winery manager that hires an irrigation company to provide him with a topographic map of his winery. They drive around with a GIS grade GPS unit on top of an ATV and TGO or some other program creates contours (this is not his property, or theirs, by-the-way.)

GIS is action! I don’t know who these people are, but someone figured out how to use the technology and provide it to someone who knows it not as accurate as hiring a Surveyor, but doesn’t care. They will never get turned in, because I don’t know who they are, and the client likes the price.

Just because they aren’t using a Total Station, or even showing the boundary lines, doesn’t mean it’s not surveying as defined in the law.

I don’t have a problem with the photogrammetry issue, since it seems like that has basically been grandfathered in and they do work closely with us. However, look what happened with machine control. That’s a good example of how the technology and those behind it were overstepping their area of expertise and needed the reigns pulled back. Many in the trades simply view the surveyor as technicians and if you have the same toys as them, then you can do it yourself.

[RasterMaster]

I just dont see the logic, sorry! We provide the site with control and the dirt guys take off. No different than them using a hand level base on one of our offsets or driving around the site in auto control based on our control.

The winery, who cares if the guy grades his site however he wants but if court action is going to take place he is doomed but I dont see this as a violation of the law.

PS. LiDAR is being used for design!

RasterMaster

[E_Page]

So Raster, you take issue with ANY statement of accuracy and believe that 8726(n) should be followed to the letter of the law?

Let me rephrase:

Rather than showing dimensions to the nearest 10' with a +/-, let me state it as showing a rounded dimension with some other indicator that actually represents a lack of reasonable accuracy by which a layperson might reasonably think they can determine where there lines are.

On a typical residential lot or small acreage, that may be to the nearest 10'. On large acreage, that may be the nearest 100'.

However shown, there is a point at which a reasonable person could not interpret a drawing as accurately showing the property lines.

But now let's look at 8726(a). Your last post contradicts the logic of your earlier post, which implies that the letter of the law should be followed.

You seem to state that just providing control to the contractor from which they can proceed with machine guidance is just fine. Or that providing the skeleton of staking (offsets) from which the grade hops work to set other stakes is OK.

How does that not fit into "Locates, relocates, establishes, reestablishes, or retraces the alignment or elevation for any of the fixed works embraced within the practice of civil engineering"?

The control set by the surveyor does not do that. But the contractor is doing that by use of an automated system driven by GPS.

The offsets set by the surveyor fall into that description. But those are apparently only a portion of the stakes actually needed by the contactor to build one of those fixed works if they are coming off the surveyors stakes to in turn set other stakes.

If you're going to see such a large amount of leeway in one sub-section in order to get to the spirit of the law, you can't argue the letter of the law without considering the spirit of the law in another sub-section of the same section.


Addressing Eric's other examples. I would have a problem with with an unlicensed Scanning (for topo) contractor if they are not working under the responsible charge of an LS and an LS is not directing, or at least reviewing and approving the methodology by which the tools are used.

Same goes for a staking contractor or any other rent-a-crew scenario.

I would also have a problem with any of these types of companies (including photogrammetrists) providing these services to clients lacking the appropriate license if they do not have an appropriate licensee in house. 8726(j) is pretty clear on that point, IMO.

Personally, I'm not an expert in photogrammetry. I can calc a proper fly height, figure target placement, and perform ground checks, but my knowledge of that technology doesn't go much past that. When I have something flown, I hire a company that does have an LS overseeing that portion of the work.

[RasterMaster]

Well Evan, I will agree that we simply disagree. I just dont see it that way or I just dont understand what you are saying.

As far as the photo thing, the LS that has set the control is on the hook. I have seen maybe 10 topos with a stamp on it! and I have see thousands of topos.

RasterMaster

[Gromatici]

"I have seen maybe 10 topos with a stamp on it! and I have see thousands of topos."

That is a powerful statement, and an omen for us.

Let me say this first: When I first brought up this subject, I wanted to focus on the actual words of the law. What did they mean? How should we interpret them literally? How should we really interpret them? “Spirit of the lawâ€￾ is a phrase that I like. It has many applications. However, I wanted to explore how to apply it without using judgment. It seems ridiculous.

Then I wanted to discuss when to apply it and when not to. Photogrammetry is an example of where consultants are hired to provide contours to us after we have provided control. It’s a good relationship and works well. Is that the relationship we want with the new technologies, or do we want to be producing them ourselves? What is the relationship between us and the public and other service providers? The time is coming when a cell phone will be accurate down to millimeters once the cell towers are accurately surveyed down to millimeters and there is demand for such accuracy. Today’s carpenter uses laser levels, but tomorrow it’s the cheap robotic instrument.

LIDAR: I'm aware that it can be used for design, but in my example it was free LIDAR with no break lines. Because it was 1 meter sampling and had no break lines or a drawing, we could not use it for design. In addition, we received metadata that told us the horizontal and vertical accuracies, and seemed to indicate a "surveyor" did the ground control but nowhere could we find proof that a Licensed Land Surveyor was involved. The company that provided the "survey" ;) was known, but I have no idea if they have LS's on staff. Maybe we should inquire?

What if the company providing the LIDAR does not have PLS's on staff? Do they fall under the same tent as photogrammetrists in that they simply are contracted by us to do the work? What if they are doing everything themselves? Photogrammetrists also work for Engineers, so we can't really expect them to have PLS's on staff. I'm not changing my views here, just trying to understand what we're trying to protect. Is it really preventing people from using principles of mathematics to locate fixed works, or is it our comfort level?

There are certified photogrammetrists. Why can't we just address that in the law?

I'm much more concerned about how we have just handed over "machine" control to contracting companies. Why is it a guy doing "staking services" was punished by the Board, but we've all basically signed over the staking to contractors and those who build 3D models out of Engineering Plans? The Board has taken a stand that a PLS must oversee the control and project. I guess at some point, we can't lay everything out, so we set control and set other features that ENABLE the trades to layout things themselves. When you read the letter of the law however, it appears that everyone is in violation. I wish it were simply clearer. I wish it address more the principles we should apply. Trades aside, (and lets face it, we wouldn’t want to layout everything because some plans are just horrible or we are not trained to understand them), what are the new technologies we should be overseeing?

Once again, I'm not pointing the finger at the board, but I'm pointing the finger at us. I think it has to do with our comfort level. We're comfortable using total stations and GPS. We're not comfortable using LIDAR (airborne and ground based) so we are letting others innovate. Sometimes it simply has to do with money, which we never seem to have enough to invest in new technologies, but sometimes I think it has to do with using our license as a crutch. WE are licensed so you have to use the technology we're using!
Everything changes, and we have to keep up with the change. I think GPS and scanning is the future.