Civil Eng C06XXXX OK to do create topographic map?

[PipeSetter]

Can a Civil C06XXXX create a survey map?
No corners were set but the map is entitled "Topographic Survey"
Some proration was done on the lot dimensions as well
it is part of a permit set of drawings for a new house

[Ben Lund]

PipeSetter,
6731.1 of the PE Act states:

6731.1. Civil engineering; additional authority
Civil engineering also includes the practice or offer to practice, either in a public or private capacity, all of the following:
(a) Locates, relocates, establishes, reestablishes, or retraces the alignment or elevation for any of the fixed works embraced within the practice of civil engineering, as described in Section 6731.
(b) Determines the configuration or contour of the earth’s surface or the position of fixed objects above, on, or below the surface of earth by applying the principles of trigonometry or photogrammetry.
(c) Creates, prepares, or modifies electronic or computerized data in the performance of the activities described in subdivisions (a) and (b).
(d) Renders a statement regarding the accuracy of maps or measured survey data pursuant to subdivisions (a), (b), and (c).

Short answer: Topographic survey’s are within the PEs purview. I believe most would say showing any boundary information on a topographic survey falls under the definition of land surveying because it relates fixed works to boundary location (even if it is record information rotated/translated onto some control). Certainly making boundary decisions as to when to prorate and what monuments to hold and ignore is beyond the definition of engineering.

[PipeSetter]

I'm sending a copy of the map to the board with the complaint form.
They can decide if its a survey.
proration and dimensions from buildings to property lines sure
would be called a survey to me.

[jcoffey]

PipeSetter -

I agree with the assessment that proration and dimension tie to existing building constitutes a survey of the boundary.

How about just calling the engineer and asking him/her about it? If you have a copy of the plan hopefully you have contact info as well? Or send a letter to the address on file at the board. Why not cut right to the chase and clean up this behavior - he/she may not realize that what they are doing is practicing surveying without a license. Better to stop it now before they keep doing it. You can still file a report with the Board.

John S. Coffey, PE, PLS
San Diego, CA

[land butcher]

I know of a PE that bought a scanner to do topos.

[Ben Lund]

I was told by a colleague that 1/2 of those that passed the 2010 PLS exam were PEs.

EDIT: Regarding those that have an LS license issue date of 7/16/2010, there were 76 passing of which 22 were PEs which would make PEs 29% of the total passing.

[E_Page]

Ben, to me that stands to reason. How many of the balance were Fresno grads?

EDIT: Thanks for the facts. So, almost 1/3 of this years licensees may not primarily practice land surveying for a living, yet, they can pass the test. Anyone wonder what that means? It seems as though "The simplistic survey classes which are required in their Civil Engineering Program" may be just enough. Maybe the balance (80%) of the qualified accepted candidates would benefit from a couple of the same classes.

For what it is worth,

Dave Woolley

Dave, I gotta disagree with your conclusions. The survey classes in engineering programs, where they exist, are generally woefully inadequate for preparation for the LS exam and probably for the LSIT as well.

I would be willing to bet that if one were to query those 22 PEs who passed, you will find that they took their exam preparation study more seriously than others (with or without PE) who failed, and/or also had significant relevant experience.

The qualifications to take the exam in the first place are another topic worthy of lengthy discussion. In the case of the PEs, they have already shown that they already understand the level of effort that is required to pass a professional level test.

I don't subscrbe to the notion that because someone is a PE, that they are or will be a better surveyor than a surveyor who is not also a PE. A PE who undertakes the effort required to attain a second license and endeavors to recognize that a survey problem is not an engineering problem has a probability of being an excellent surveyor.

pointing to numbers of complaints does not necessarily translate to technical ability as a surveyor. Most complaints are contract related rather than technical in nature. It's likely that the number of complaints is indicative that generally, surveyors are poorer business people.

I agree that there is much poor practice going on, and much is unarguably by those with only a single license. IMO, this is indicative of inadequate qualifications requirements w.r.t. training and experience AND poorly set cut scores on the exam. I know of some who have taken the exam several times and finally passed as much by luck in guessing and low cut score as by slightly more than meager ability. I also know of engineers who were qualified to take the exam on very little experience which could not be considered responsible experience.

In my experience, over 30 years and across several states, is that a survey map by a PE may be generally be cleaner and more precise than average, but when following the survey on the ground, a PEs survey will be more likely to have missed or ignored pertinent boundary evidence. Set monumentation will often have been accomplished in a less careful manner. While there would appear to have been considerable care put into preparing the documentation, there is generally less care put into the fieldwork.

I'm writing in generalities here, there are plenty of PEs who were/are also fine surveyors. But where the authority to survey was an incident of having a CE license, an attitude of surveying being a minor subset of engineering, being able to be accomplished by undertrained, low paid engineering techs and displaced ditch diggers (don't let those guys wearing boots and jeans in the front end of the office!) was very prevalent, and it showed in the work.

IMO, engineers should be permitted to practice surveying, as long as they meet the same qualifications as anyone else authorized to practice surveying, both in terms of experience and examination.


BTW, I'd like to see the stats of OIT grads vs. Fresno grads on the exam. My money is on OIT!