As Built Utility Surveying

[CBarrett]

What made this guy/people so anti-surveying? Costs? Personal conflicts? Ignorance? Political relationships?

[Peter Ehlert]

Ego

[Steve Martin]

What made this guy/people so anti-surveying? Costs? Personal conflicts? Ignorance? Political relationships?

I believe the attitude was formed well before I started with the agency and ultimately relates to poor communication and not having a seat at the management table.

I had a senior engineer once insist he needed topo for his as-built drawing (which was not included in the original survey request for the project). He told me it would take us about a half day to survey it. I reviewed the site and consulted with the original Party Chief. It was a weeks' worth of field work due to trees/vegetation and having to get into a number of private backyards. So there is often a disconnect understanding what it takes for us to do a survey with those in senior management.

There was also some technology enamoration. A belief that if he gave his engineering staff a GPS rover, they could get the work done faster than the trained, equipped, and licensed survey staff.

At the agency where I used to work, the survey section is placed under the Construction Division, even though less than 20% of the workload originates in that Division. We could have easily been under other Divisions that we performed more work for. As a Survey Supervisor, I managed more staff than many Engineering Managers. A seat at the management table could have gone a long way to heading off the disconnect.

There was another effort underway at the same time to eliminate Engineering Drafter (CAD) positions and replace them with Engineering Designers. In practice this involved promoting the most experienced Drafters to Engineering Designers, and then hiring my Survey Technicians into Engineering Designer positions. Because of the Engineering bias, the Engineering Designer positions were at a higher pay scale than Survey Technicians. This made a significant difference to early career surveyors with families. The hiring work units found my Survey Technicians to be the best qualified in open recruitments because of the AutoCAD training we gave them and their experience on similar water projects.

[CBarrett]

I hear you about the disconnect, I just had a meeting addressing something similar.
A public agency engineer kept insisting that we are not performing by not giving him ROW based of off Tax Assessor's maps... I told them I am not putting an AP map info on final engineering plans, for you to determine if ROW take is needed. Show me the deed or fire me (in a bit softer more diplomatic language of course). Then after couple of days of discussions and phone calls etc... he pulled his own ROW people into the meeting and it turns out that the process I outlined we have to go through was the same as what they have to go through in house (title search). He was in a position to manage, spec and contract out a process with which he is very unfamiliar. So now they are ordering title searches.

[Steve Martin]

Yes, it is hard to get through to those who think they are superior and know better.

Attached is one of their proposed process papers if anyone is interested.

The pdf "Attachment A" really deserves a good answer from BPELSG

[DWoolley]

For the folks that do not have access to read the documents posted by Steve Martin - which are pure gold to understand the mindset of those that wish to circumvent the land surveyors - I have cut an abridged version:

"Engineers, designers, and inspectors may prepare design drawings and record drawings for new cut-to-fit small diameter pipelines under the direction and authority of a licensed civil engineer. This work may be performed with the assistance of a GPS device to capture coordinates of various existing features or desired or actual locations of new facilities but must ultimately include check shots to at least three fixed, accessible tie points prior to completion of the record drawings.
…
Prior to construction, pipeline construction supervisor or other field worker may use a GPS device to stake key points indicating where pipeline ought to be installed.
…
• After construction, inspector or other field worker may use a GPS device to capture asbuilt coordinates of pipeline, valve or other object. Other non-engineers and non-surveyors may use GPS data or GPS devices to aid in the mapping and field location of existing underground utilities for purposes of maintenance or underground services alert markings.

• Mapping staff in the office may use data provided from post-construction inspection to plot the as-built location of the pipe on maps. Maps are for [the agency] internal use and are not represented as survey information;"

And there it is for all to see. This is not a unique situation i.e. engineers shot calling and punking the always willing surveyors. Factor in the unfunded pension liability for the signatory firms and the engineering companies will exit the land surveying business. Read the quoted section above, it is in black and white - they are stating they will perform their own construction staking and as built topography and mapping. This is the market I have been advocating for the land surveyors to capture.

Again I ask, what do the surveyors under 50 think they will be doing in the coming years? When the work dries up, who you gonna call? BPELSG? Pffft. We cannot expect others to do that which we are unwilling to do ourselves.

Thank you, Steve Martin for sharing the information.

As a community, it is probably best to wait our turn in the kill room and not bother looking around the corner.

[mic drop].

DWoolley

[Jim Frame]

And there it is for all to see.

I didn't read the source documents, but from Dave's excerpts I'm not understanding the problem. It seems to me that the work described, if truly performed "under the direction and authority of a licensed civil engineer," conforms with the authority granted to civil engineers under §6731.1.

[LS_8750]

Hold onto your precious 8726(6)(A) dear land surveyors.

[David Kendall]

I didn't read the source documents, but from Dave's excerpts I'm not understanding the problem. It seems to me that the work described, if truly performed "under the direction and authority of a licensed civil engineer," conforms with the authority granted to civil engineers under §6731.1.

They're pushing the envelope by systematically eliminating LS oversight from the equation. Essentially the corporate policy allows for the surveyors to establish the control network only, then the engineers can take it from there. My favorite excerpt is the conclusion paragraph:

the advent of GPS devices has made it easier for the designer of new fixed works under responsible charge of a licensed Civil Engineer to locate existing fixed works without using an established survey control network. The survey control network may not need to be established or include extensive data on existing fixed works and the designer may also selectively require the collection of less data on existing fixed works in order to complete the design. GPS devices simply allow for greater efficiency in locating existing fixed works by personnel under authority of a licensed Civil Engineer while maintaining the authority of the licensed Land Surveyor to establish the survey control network. Maps created with or without GPS are for EBMUD’s internal use and are not represented as survey information; if provided to others these maps come with a disclaimer that their accuracy should not be relied upon

While I find this mentality somewhat depressing, I'm not too surprised. I bet most large engineering outfits do the same thing. Engineers are a dime a dozen. Licensed surveyors are harder to find and tend to complicate matters that engineers perceive as simple.

This policy will probably work fine for 9 out of 10 projects. It's that last one that's going to require intervention and could get expensive. Not much different than what the title insurance companies are doing by cranking out worthless reports then simply paying the damages when a conflict arises

[CBarrett]

So, if we want to protect reach and influence of Land surveying, what other avenues can we take? Is legislation the only "front for this battle"?

I am going to make some guesses here, and would like the rest of you to chime in with additional avenues, and commentary about what kind of effort is needed for each.

Educational - get more involved with education of engineers and utility locating people. (I know I know, why would they listen to anything we say - we would have to find a way)

More liaisons with relevant associations? (could tis effort lead towards more joint effort work, as opposed to opposing camps kind of relationship? Maybe "Polyanna"... but the thought exercise of what it would take may lead to new better ideas)

Since we share the board of registration with engineers... (Yes, I don't know the inner workings of it yet), what is their stance on the subject?

[hellsangle]

Educational - get more involved with education of engineers and utility locating people.

Unfortunately . . . they will have to learn via the "School of Hard Knocks" . . . when, as Mr. Kendall points out - they get hit with an enormous law suit.

How many times have you seen an engineer in attendance of an OPUS Manager presentation by NGS?

How many times have you seen an engineer in attendance of GPS seminars at our State Conferences?

I would say you can't legislate "education" . . . but it may already be legislated: 6701. “Professional engineer,” within the meaning and intent of this act, refers to a person engaged in the professional practice of rendering service or creative work requiring education, training and experience in engineering sciences and the application of special knowledge of the mathematical, physical and engineering sciences in such professional or creative work as consultation, investigation, evaluation, planning or design of public or private utilities, structures, machines, processes, circuits, buildings, equipment or projects, and supervision of construction for the purpose of securing compliance with specifications and design for any such work.

Crazy Phil's two sense

[Steve Martin]

It seems to me that the work described, if truly performed "under the direction and authority of a licensed civil engineer," conforms with the authority granted to civil engineers under §6731.1.

That is certainly what the former Director of Engineering thought Jim.

There is a difference though. I'll attach a BPELSG letter that goes into it.

Basically 6731.1 lacks a key authorization found in 8726 (6) Geodetic surveying.

Relating a survey to known geodetic datums or using a methodology that takes into account the size and shape of the earth, falls under the practice of Land Surveying.

Then there is always Board Rule 415 Practice Within Area of Competence.

This is an organization that does not blink an eye about putting an Engineer with no geospatial background in charge of geospatial initiatives and would not even consider a Land Surveyor for such a position.

They even had Civil Engineers running the IT Department. Big time Engineers' cult.

Edit: I get "Error parsing server response" when attaching the BPELSG letter. PM me with your email address if you want a copy of it.

[David Kendall]

Basically 6731.1 lacks a key authorization found in 8726 (6) Geodetic surveying.

Relating a survey to known geodetic datums or using a methodology that takes into account the size and shape of the earth, falls under the practice of Land Surveying

As I understand it, if they locate and map these fixed works on an assumed local coordinate system and datum then it can be considered engineering. If they are doing this on the state plane or other network system and relating this project to the next one down the road then it becomes land surveying.

The GPS magic wand reference indicates to me that they are likely mapping on a larger scale (for internal use only)

GPSing around
Crews have been using a mapping tool for the last few months that can record the
exact coordinates of pipes, fittings, couplings, covers and any other important
points to within a half an inch or less using satellite technology. Called Trimble,
the system records the global positioning of important District infrastructure so
that maps are available for future needs. Construction Inspector Jorge Martinez
and Senior Pipeline Designer Danny Dacumos demonstrated Trimble at a worksite
in Oakland (shown right). In the photo below, Jorge was able to get map coordinates
to within 1/8 of an inch of the pipe location.

This is a good example of the future to come under the new mapping requirement for public utilities. I can't see how they will be able to maintain that it is for internal use only if it is a (presumably) public GIS but we shall see.

I still maintain that our reactionary proposal for new accuracy statement legislation should be trying to address utility mapping and not all survey documents as suggested. The maker of this would be setting himself up to fail. On the other hand, specifically targeting utilities would engage a much more powerful lobbying force than ours.

[DWoolley]

I still maintain that our reactionary proposal for new accuracy statement legislation should be trying to address utility mapping and not all survey documents as suggested. The maker of this would be setting himself up to fail. On the other hand, specifically targeting utilities would engage a much more powerful lobbying force than ours.

BPELSG has a saying "they don't make rules for tools". In the instant example, this means they do not regulate the use of GPS. This is precisely as it should be.

One advantage the land surveying community has over the carpenters, plumbers, inspectors etc. is the understanding of the functionality of the equipment. Albeit, this is no longer entirely true [pop quiz, what does GPS measure?...answer is....time - about half the class just failed]. The land surveying community, understanding measurement in theory, can quantify their accuracy with whichever tool we use. The engineers are not trained in the dark arts of datums, reference frames, epochs, etc. - neither are most surveyors, but we can fake it until we make it. Hence, the accuracy statements. The statements would actually be better applied to the construction aspect of land surveying than underground utilities. RTK/RTN GPS does not meet most published construction specifications. A signature and seal as to the accuracy would keep those folks limited to grading. The beauty is the engineers are represented by ASCE and ASCE has written a document that specifies accuracies of the work, requires signatures and seals on the work, and recognizes the work as being in the domain of the land surveyors. Being engineers, clearly they didn't stop to consider their intended audience's reluctance to embrace fire, calendars and the wheel.

David Kendall, let the others with a "powerful lobbying force" fight their own fight. Land surveyors are not formidable because they are accustomed to being slapped by anyone with hand and then, being grateful for the welt. I have found most potential adversaries do not have very much fight in them. In my experience, it is a question of endurance over time. Let our adversaries earn the title of boogeyman - if you're scared of the dark, buy a flashlight and go looking for the fight.

DWoolley

[Steve Martin]

pop quiz, what does GPS measure?...answer is....time - about half the class just failed
DWoolley

I would say you measure Code & Carrier phase with GPS Dave.

There was an old LS question that asked that very same thing. I believe what they were looking for was a distance to the satellite as that was generally the over-simplified explanation of how GPS works at the time. In reality it takes some sophisticated software to infer that distance. The same goes for time.

[DWoolley]

pop quiz, what does GPS measure?...answer is....time - about half the class just failed
DWoolley

I would say you measure Code & Carrier phase with GPS Dave.

There was an old LS question that asked that very same thing. I believe what they were looking for was a distance to the satellite as that was generally the over-simplified explanation of how GPS works at the time. In reality it takes some sophisticated software to infer that distance. The same goes for time.

Now we know in which half I reside.

DWoolley

[CBarrett]

Educational - get more involved with education of engineers and utility locating people.

Unfortunately . . . they will have to learn via the "School of Hard Knocks" . . . when, as Mr. Kendall points out - they get hit with an enormous law suit.

How many times have you seen an engineer in attendance of an OPUS Manager presentation by NGS?

How many times have you seen an engineer in attendance of GPS seminars at our State Conferences?

So we have to come to them.
If we want/need to retain this piece of survey pie, maybe we need to put more effort into it.

Don't teach them about GPS, show them a presentation about how we can do a better job than utility consultants. (so we need to figure out how, or maybe someone already knows. I don't specialise in this part of surveying, so I don't have immediate ideas). Aren't we a tad smarter and more educated than utility locators?

[CBarrett]

In the current market, how is this this mandate of adding utility locations in the GIS impacting current utility locator services workload?
Are they already circumventing surveying?

[DWoolley]

In the current market, how is this this mandate of adding utility locations in the GIS impacting current utility locator services workload?
Are they already circumventing surveying?

The January 1, 2023 mandate has the underground utility detection association members scrambling to understand how they will comply with the law. Some detection groups are buying locators with a mounted GPS unit that the users believe are accurate to "sub-centimeter". The detection association have a legislative committee and a technical committee that discusses the GIS (including liability associated with accuracy) compliance issues at every meeting I have attended. The technical committee has had GIS specialist from a couple of local agencies give the members basic vocabulary terms and GIS functionality.

Based on my attendance at their meetings, I believe the underground detection folks are concerned with their ability to comply with the GIS requirements by January 1, 2023. (Gosh, if only there was a group of professionals that were licensed, trained, willing and able to help these underground detection folks in the use of GIS, GPS, datums, epochs, and the methods for achieving various accuracies. We can be hopeful ACEC and ASCE will recognize the opportunity and lead these underground detection folks to the promised land of compliance before the equipment sales teams close the gap by convincing the detection folks to self perform their own as built mapping. The Operating Engineers and Laborer's unions are fighting over the work - maybe they will offer a helping hand. The unions will probably recognize the need for a professional...).

DWoolley

[CBarrett]

Where is the money coming from so that the detection folks can comply with this requirement? Are utility owners/companies paying for it?

[mpallamary]

For your reading pleasure.

https://digital.sandiego.edu/cgi/viewco ... ntext=crlr

[DWoolley]

Reading material:

https://eos-gnss.com/products/solutions ... for-arcgis

The heading "Map Underground Utilities with High Accuracy".

"...Eos Locate™ for ArcGIS® is the world’s first real-time, survey-grade underground mapping solution for ArcGIS. With Eos Locate™ , it takes just a few seconds to locate and map buried infrastructure with highly accurate coordinates and depth below cover, directly into ArcGIS. This solution drastically cuts down time and labor spent in the field remapping existing utilities, while improving the accuracy of geospatial records."

DWoolley

[CBarrett]

For your reading pleasure.

https://digital.sandiego.edu/cgi/viewco ... ntext=crlr

There is a lot of stuff in this article that I am not super familiar with, so I can't just scan through it quickly.

While I am finding time to get into more detail - Are there specific parts of the article that you want to highlight?

[CBarrett]

Reading material:

https://eos-gnss.com/products/solutions ... for-arcgis

The heading "Map Underground Utilities with High Accuracy".

"...Eos Locate™ for ArcGIS® is the world’s first real-time, survey-grade underground mapping solution for ArcGIS. With Eos Locate™ , it takes just a few seconds to locate and map buried infrastructure with highly accurate coordinates and depth below cover, directly into ArcGIS. This solution drastically cuts down time and labor spent in the field remapping existing utilities, while improving the accuracy of geospatial records."

DWoolley

Which in the hands of untrained will result in a pile of "garbage-in garbage-out". We get this.

Other than legislations, what other avenues do we have to 'stand up to it'?
To me it sounds like that we also need to reach those who pay for and use these services. Where is the funding coming from?

how does this organization come into play?
https://commongroundalliance.com

[DWoolley]

Which in the hands of untrained will result in a pile of "garbage-in garbage-out". We get this.

Other than legislations, what other avenues do we have to 'stand up to it'?
To me it sounds like that we also need to reach those who pay for and use these services. Where is the funding coming from?

how does this organization come into play?
https://commongroundalliance.com

As for the garbage created by the untrained, nobody cares. Cutting corners to cut costs, contractors self performing land surveying and the sales folks reaping their sales commissions is the bottom line.

My thought was for the land surveying community to waltz in and be the technical guides and service providers to help the underground folks meet accuracy standards (incidentally, creating a sustainable business model). Apparently, if this forum is reflective of the community as a whole, the would-be next generation of land surveyors would rather rehearse "would you like fries with that today?" rather than be bothered with technical nuisances related to accuracies. Although no longer a prevailing American truism, I still believe in freedom to choose their path (and offer me fries in my retirement).

Common Ground Alliance is similar to ACEC of the detection community. The California organization is CARCGA. Another organization is National Utility Locating Contractors Association (NULCA).

DWoolley