Hey Surveyors,
You may have seen or heard people talking about Reality Capture?!?
What if I told you this is just a new-ish buzzword for topo collection and a bit of photogrammetry on steroids? Created to avoid surveyors - again.
Why don't we have more surveyors doing this?
Reality Capture
-
CBarrett
- Posts: 758
- Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2021 12:55 pm
-
Mike Mueller
- Posts: 328
- Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 6:53 am
Re: Reality Capture
One of the barriers to entry for surveyors, at least as I have experienced it, is that we know we are breaking the law when we do some of the things that are being sold. Likewise we assume that we are held to a higher standard in regards to our products, simply because it is prepared by someone who also holds a license in surveying.
For example, using drones back 6-8 (??) years ago when it was was illegal for commercial activities. Didn't stop many from monetizing it, however our office was hesitant to invest too much since it would be breaking the law to be selling the work done. Once the FAA got its act together and we could get drone licenses we did and are using drones now.
Another example: GIS site plans. They are used by the vast majority of groups, governments, professionals etc. It is still a matter of much debate (see threads on this forum) if it is illegal/incompetent for a PLS to do a GIS site plan of a deed boundary that has never been shown on a record map. We will debate and worry over what is meant by "after making a field survey..." while others are blithely making money.
If I did move into things like Reality Capture, or BIM models etc, I would likely do it as a separate LLC so I could more easily assert that it was not a work product that is governed by the PLS act because I was not a PLS while doing that work. So not surveying, and not something I would join CLSA to discuss, as I am specifically trying to not be a PLS when I do that activity so that I could avoid regulations/liability.
The situation is kinda like the opposite of Goodhart's law. As governments regulate one profession by name, the same work will be done under a different name to avoid said regulations. Whack a mole style. Consider how many "designers" there are rather than Architects, "handyman" compared to electrician/plumber/HVAC/etc. The same sorts of work will be going on, just called something else. Its not staking, its grade setting, its not boundary resolution its "deed coordinate calculation"(tm pending!! /jk).
I am not trying to be a downer, as ripping apart efforts to do good bothers me. I just think that an accurate understanding of the forces at play is crucial to determining if there really is a problem, and then how to fix it. In this case I personally am not convinced there is a problem per se.
If there is a problem, then I would say it is a set of antiquated laws that don't reflect the reality of what the world wants/needs (think client request for a siteplan vs RoS required to show said siteplan) coupled with the small political power of our profession trying to use legislative protectionism to shore up the walls that protected our turf. Walls which used to be made of mysterious tools and the knowledge to use them. Without those tools, we are left with laws, without laws, we will have to make do with less turf..... or find new turfs to occupy. Which is I guess the point of your post, now that I have organized my thoughts by writing them out :)
Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County
For example, using drones back 6-8 (??) years ago when it was was illegal for commercial activities. Didn't stop many from monetizing it, however our office was hesitant to invest too much since it would be breaking the law to be selling the work done. Once the FAA got its act together and we could get drone licenses we did and are using drones now.
Another example: GIS site plans. They are used by the vast majority of groups, governments, professionals etc. It is still a matter of much debate (see threads on this forum) if it is illegal/incompetent for a PLS to do a GIS site plan of a deed boundary that has never been shown on a record map. We will debate and worry over what is meant by "after making a field survey..." while others are blithely making money.
If I did move into things like Reality Capture, or BIM models etc, I would likely do it as a separate LLC so I could more easily assert that it was not a work product that is governed by the PLS act because I was not a PLS while doing that work. So not surveying, and not something I would join CLSA to discuss, as I am specifically trying to not be a PLS when I do that activity so that I could avoid regulations/liability.
The situation is kinda like the opposite of Goodhart's law. As governments regulate one profession by name, the same work will be done under a different name to avoid said regulations. Whack a mole style. Consider how many "designers" there are rather than Architects, "handyman" compared to electrician/plumber/HVAC/etc. The same sorts of work will be going on, just called something else. Its not staking, its grade setting, its not boundary resolution its "deed coordinate calculation"(tm pending!! /jk).
I am not trying to be a downer, as ripping apart efforts to do good bothers me. I just think that an accurate understanding of the forces at play is crucial to determining if there really is a problem, and then how to fix it. In this case I personally am not convinced there is a problem per se.
If there is a problem, then I would say it is a set of antiquated laws that don't reflect the reality of what the world wants/needs (think client request for a siteplan vs RoS required to show said siteplan) coupled with the small political power of our profession trying to use legislative protectionism to shore up the walls that protected our turf. Walls which used to be made of mysterious tools and the knowledge to use them. Without those tools, we are left with laws, without laws, we will have to make do with less turf..... or find new turfs to occupy. Which is I guess the point of your post, now that I have organized my thoughts by writing them out :)
Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County
-
CBarrett
- Posts: 758
- Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2021 12:55 pm
Re: Reality Capture
Mike!
Thank You for your thoughts, as usual they are great.
I see exactly what you are saying, laws governing us are too restrictive at times to allow sufficient ground to test new methodologies, and figure out how to utilize them in practice. I think this is very much worth exploring.
I had similar thoughts many times, for example during the early GIS days, we can't touch the boundary line unless we do a field survey and proper analysis. Other jurisdictions have solved this by allowing surveyors to certify a boundary as "finalized" and allow for early, preliminary works, and those where specific precision is quantified, which then allows surveyors to do low precision and preliminary work, rather than having to stick to just one product type.
If someone is to do low precision boundary work, I would still prefer that it be a surveyor, over a non surveyor, at the minimum supervised by a surveyor. We have backed ourselves into this predicament by "only high precision work", and this, historically isn't true.
Look at BLM requirements, current ones, 1:4000 closure.
To me, what you are offering here are very compelling arguments for a more refined classification of our work, which will then in turn allow us to do more things. Define those classifications, legally if we must, so we can take back parts of the profession.
Define standards for GIS work, define standards for Indoor mapping, define standards for Digital twinning and realty capture, define standards for earth calc topos and many others. Give them a reasonable workable range. Define what it means to have a "complete boundary survey" done, suitable for title purposes, specify it's precision and resulting accuracy. Allow for a range, as long as it is quantified.
I'm pretty sure there are people who have done some of this already.... National Mapping Accuracy standards come to mind, FGDC?
Thank You for your thoughts, as usual they are great.
I see exactly what you are saying, laws governing us are too restrictive at times to allow sufficient ground to test new methodologies, and figure out how to utilize them in practice. I think this is very much worth exploring.
I had similar thoughts many times, for example during the early GIS days, we can't touch the boundary line unless we do a field survey and proper analysis. Other jurisdictions have solved this by allowing surveyors to certify a boundary as "finalized" and allow for early, preliminary works, and those where specific precision is quantified, which then allows surveyors to do low precision and preliminary work, rather than having to stick to just one product type.
If someone is to do low precision boundary work, I would still prefer that it be a surveyor, over a non surveyor, at the minimum supervised by a surveyor. We have backed ourselves into this predicament by "only high precision work", and this, historically isn't true.
Look at BLM requirements, current ones, 1:4000 closure.
To me, what you are offering here are very compelling arguments for a more refined classification of our work, which will then in turn allow us to do more things. Define those classifications, legally if we must, so we can take back parts of the profession.
Define standards for GIS work, define standards for Indoor mapping, define standards for Digital twinning and realty capture, define standards for earth calc topos and many others. Give them a reasonable workable range. Define what it means to have a "complete boundary survey" done, suitable for title purposes, specify it's precision and resulting accuracy. Allow for a range, as long as it is quantified.
I'm pretty sure there are people who have done some of this already.... National Mapping Accuracy standards come to mind, FGDC?