Standards of Care - Standards of Practice

[Mike Mueller]

Create a classifications roster and obligate the surveyor of record to declare the classification. It will also make it easy for the consumer. Sure, to put a tiny pool on a 3 acre property which will be 200 feet away from any PL's or zoning setbacks, a Class "D" survey will be affordable and acceptable to the agency, but if you get in a PL dispute with your neighbor over 20 feet of your PL, you will need a Class "A" boundary determination to (mediate, go to court or whatever). If you are recording a Tract Map, class A may be required. If you are doing preliminary planning for a solar panel array in Tehachapi, Class E may be quite sufficient.... No-one is forced to survey against good local practices, and buyer is informed and aware of the product they are getting.

I wonder if the AI will produce something that incorporates standards based on the source of the boundary information and topo information or the precision of the work? I hope it is more based on the accuracy/source rather than the precision.

At the end of the day being able to say all my points are within 0.02 with a 95% confidence is great, but I am 95% certain that most of the clients don't care or understand what that means. Making those grades based on the source of the boundary also doesn't force a portion of the surveying community to lie about their work's statistics. Laws and rules that routinely require fibbs/lies degrade faith in the system.

I do care about precision, but outside of staking for certain types of construction it is rare that anything less than 0.04 matters to my clients. The thickness of the 4X4 post varies about 0.02 from post to post and I have yet to find a perfectly plumb fence that is longer than 20'. Form boards for a foundation also vary quite a bit unless they are using special forms. Tieing a surveys grade to a statistical precision will be easier, but I am not sure if it will get the buy in of 80% of the survey population. Look at the resistance to the accuracy statement.

When I listen to the advice we get about passing laws from CAMS I got the sense that we should focus on some good easy wins so we don't embarrass whoever sponsors our bills when we have surveyors fighting their own bill.

I am looking forward to seeing what the AI comes up with :)

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

[DWoolley]

From the article:

"In this case, he wrote, it's important that people can rely on surveyors to provide accurate maps. And there's no evidence that the maps that Jones wants to create would constitute “unpopular or dissenting speech," according to Wynn."

Do not think this is vindication or salvation. Quite the opposite. Like the folks thinking they'll wave Crownholm in the face of....ah, who again?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/abcnews.go ... -110417163

If only the courts knew the land surveyors in California create inaccurate maps on the reg and are advocating to create less accurate work product, under the guise of benevolence, as a new and accepted standard. Record boundaries with CYA notes for everyone.

If only the courts knew many land surveyors' work product is indistinguishable from the unlicensed folks and less pleasing to the eye.

If only they knew the California land surveyors' unwillingness to comply with existing regulations and the unwillingness to further regulate to protect the public from the misuse of technology.

The California land surveying community has now reaped the whirlwind. The technology companies will come for the land surveyors and predictably, deservedly, decimate every last man, woman and child. DJI, Trimble, Leica, ESRI, Operating Engineers et al should/will form a coalition. The land surveyors are out of time. We can hope for grace in a quick end.

“Truth at last cannot be hidden. Dissimulation is of no avail. Dissimulation is to no purpose before so great a judge. Falsehood puts on a mask. Nothing is hidden under the sun” Leonardo da Vinci.

DWoolley

[CBarrett]

Create a classifications roster and obligate the surveyor of record to declare the classification. It will also make it easy for the consumer. Sure, to put a tiny pool on a 3 acre property which will be 200 feet away from any PL's or zoning setbacks, a Class "D" survey will be affordable and acceptable to the agency, but if you get in a PL dispute with your neighbor over 20 feet of your PL, you will need a Class "A" boundary determination to (mediate, go to court or whatever). If you are recording a Tract Map, class A may be required. If you are doing preliminary planning for a solar panel array in Tehachapi, Class E may be quite sufficient.... No-one is forced to survey against good local practices, and buyer is informed and aware of the product they are getting.

I wonder if the AI will produce something that incorporates standards based on the source of the boundary information and topo information or the precision of the work? I hope it is more based on the accuracy/source rather than the precision.

At the end of the day being able to say all my points are within 0.02 with a 95% confidence is great, but I am 95% certain that most of the clients don't care or understand what that means. Making those grades based on the source of the boundary also doesn't force a portion of the surveying community to lie about their work's statistics. Laws and rules that routinely require fibbs/lies degrade faith in the system.

Resulting classification of a survey product is going to be different than mere accuracy of the fieldwork after least squares adjustment has been run.

You could have Lidared your topo anc claim that your repeatable measurements are 0.02', but if you put it over a record boundary, your survey classification will still be, let's say an example of "E" - "not suitable for permitting when working within 10' of setbacks" - because boundary has not been reviewed to offer a certain level of confidence that it will not be subject to "oops, missed it by 20 feet, didn't review Jr/SR Rights"

[Mike Mueller]

... decimate every last man, woman and child. DJI, Trimble, Leica, ESRI, Operating Engineers et al should/will form a coalition. The land surveyors are out of time. We can hope for grace in a quick end.

It is always interesting to me how the word decimate has evolved to be completely inaccurate. Kinda ironic I guess when used to lament inaccurate maps?

Deci = tenth (think decimal place) + mate = death

So, the death of 1/10 of a population. A very precise and specific word used by the Romans as a punishment for bad centuries. IIRC the group of soldiers had to beat to death 1 in 10 of their own.

Over time I think the emotional impact of the punishment has pushed out the original meaning of the word. Perhaps its the emotional impact of change that is causing such strong reactions in our community above and beyond what might be warranted? As pointed out before, the loss of some of the least efficient in our profession is not the death of it. The change in what percent of our work is topo vs boundary vs whatever, is not the end of our profession. That is a sign capitalism is working.

The job lists of surveyors in the Sonoma County CLSA Historical Records Collection show that most of their work was boundary related. There are a few topo jobs and a little construction staking listed in work orders or time cards, but mostly lot splits, boundary work, or legal descriptions. Perhaps it is some selection bias since the survey records of a surveyor who only did construction staking might not have been saved... As site plans became required for permits, that chunk grows as a percent of the bottom line. As the need for surveyors to prepare such maps declines due to the increasing accuracy and precision available to the lay person, the percent will decrease as it should.

Truth at last cannot be hidden. Dissimulation is of no avail. Dissimulation is to no purpose before so great a judge. Falsehood puts on a mask. Nothing is hidden under the sun” Leonardo da Vinci.

If we continue to assert that people can't get a precise and accurate enough site plan or topo from a layperson, or from a $99 online siteplan machine, we will be ignoring the truth. If $99 gets someone over the bar required by a permitting agency, then the truth is plainly that it is good enough. Is that good or bad? That question doesn't matter when we are trying to determine the truth, since the truth is about what is, not if it is moral. I think we can all agree that low precision maps work for some portion of the agency required site plans. How large that portion is and how to ensure its a long term protection of the public are questions to be answered.

That is why I want to create a distinction between such site plans and a proper boundary survey. It is not a clever ruse being hid behind false benevolence. It is seeking to make a distinction between when an accurate (and precise) boundary is needed, and when it is not. Saying all boundaries are sacred and need to be perfect is just plain silly, and will discredit our claims about when it does really matter. Think of the story of the boy who cried wolf, if we scream and fight over ALL site plans and EVERY topo map, how does anyone take us serious when we say that a RoS needs to be done by a license holder? or Parcel Maps? If we say that GIS folks can't make a map good enough for certain permits, when they are obviously doing just that, we are ignoring the truth.

If we create clear standards for what is a low precision site plan and what is not, it lets us defend the good stuff better, not worse. We can point to the criteria and be correct when we say that a specific map is not good enough for the task at hand. I think it has been proven sufficiently to everyone that we as a group will not create a set of standards that is higher than the average. So if we want to create any distinction at all, we will need to carve that out of the bottom.

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

[DWoolley]

For California land surveyors under 50 years of age, good luck.

DWoolley

[hellsangle]

Mr. Wooley,

Are you suggesting that all the planning and building ordinances in the future won't require a stamped drawing?

. . . and by some of your disparaging remarks about surveyors - the legislature could take those remarks as reason to sunset the Board and let the GIS people, (from which your remark seems to indicate you believe they do a better job than a licensed surveyor), prepare mapping?

Crazy Phil's two cents

[Mike Mueller]

Considering all the interest in this topic (based on the views and posts) it seems like it might be worthwhile to bring this to a wider audience? Is it crazy to think about two articles to be published together in the Cal Surveyor? Each article could make the case for standards, but one aimed at creating a lower tier, and the other article laying out the case for higher standards?

If we really want to create change in our community we have to win hearts and minds. That means folks who arent' active in CLSA need to start hearing about this and talking about it and getting used to the idea so it doesn't feel like something sprung on them.

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

[DWoolley]

Mr. Wooley,

Are you suggesting that all the planning and building ordinances in the future won't require a stamped drawing?

. . . and by some of your disparaging remarks about surveyors - the legislature could take those remarks as reason to sunset the Board and let the GIS people, (from which your remark seems to indicate you believe they do a better job than a licensed surveyor), prepare mapping?

Crazy Phil's two cents

Phil:

If you read the many posts that I have added to this thread my position should be clear.

To answer the question “Are you suggesting that all the planning and building ordinances in the future won’t require a stamped drawing?”

Yes, I will prognosticate that the future ordinances will not “require a stamped drawing”. Why? The current laws require that the current drawings to be signed and stamped. This is true of the Business and Professions Code (PE Act 6735), the PLS Act (8761) and the architects under Business and Professions Code 5536.1 (a). The agencies will not pass ordinances to restate existing state laws.

One step further, the California Building Code (CBC 107.2.5) and the Universal Building Code (UBC) requires:

“…by a site plan showing to scale the size and location of new construction and existing structures on the site, distances from the lot lines, the established street grades…and it shall be drawn in accordance with an accurate boundary line survey….”

The boundary establishment for site plans, provided by land surveyors, is seldom “…in accordance with an accurate boundary line survey.”

Phil, I ask of you, should someone (members of Legislature, regulatory boards, unions looking to deregulate) ask you about the work of the land surveyor being in compliance with the existing laws and in conformance with the standard of care (not GIS maps on 18x26), would you lie? Or minimally, hedge?

There are very few opportunities in life when a person is called upon to do that which is right, distinguished and honest, who among us would let the rare opportunity slip by?

If asked, I have documented thousands of commercial loans, exceeding $2.5M in 2012 dollars, in the six most populated counties in California. Each of these loans would have required an ALTA survey to finance/refinance the loans. These loans were then separated into those with a metes and bounds description and compared to the number of records of survey filed. Sample sets were then verified to not have records of survey filed. The final results? Hundreds of millions of dollars of real estate financing that was underwritten by title insurance companies based on written minimum standards for land surveying that did not comply with said standards and/or state law.

If asked, I could find site plans by the hundreds, prepared by licensees, that are not in compliance with the CBC and/or 8761 or that meet the minimum standard of care required to establish accurate boundaries.

If asked, I could provide numerous examples of the land surveying community demonstrating an unwillingness to conform to existing laws and an unwillingness to support written standards that separate the professional land surveyor from the GIS folks, construction contractors, drone operators, underground mapping folks, i.e. accuracy statements, monument setting, monument rehabilitation, ...I could go on for days.

Now, Phil, if you’re me, do I model Abraham (willing to sacrifice his beloved son Isaac) or would I continue the Benson legacy of 1885? How about you Mikey, where is the smart money placed?

Like Diogenes, looking for an honest man, if asked, which reader shall it be?

Save the holier than thou line, got it the last time.

DWoolley

[hellsangle]

I hear ya, Mr. Wooley . . .

And the written standards that Mr. Page mentioned from Utah & Idaho - I can live with.

But just like you pointed out . . . copious surveyors are not fling Records of Surveys that should have been filed - the same will be with written standards.

Crazy Phil again

[DWoolley]

To keep us all on the same page, when someone asks why professional land surveyors make up about 5% of the licensees under BPELSG and yet, account for 50% of the complaints, what's the alibi? Professional profiling?

And somehow I am disparaging the profession? Facts can be tricky.

Twenty years ago I had a vision for the land surveying profession in 2024. The vision, in short, was to respectfully eulogize and plant the last of the pre-82 folks - emancipating the land surveyor from the engineering business model. In my vision, the land surveyor no longer had to conform to the engineering budget (loss leader) that pressured the land surveyor to cut corners to keep a job. I tried to understand that an ethical land surveyor may have had to make compromises when the pre-82 engineer could simply sign the work product and send the uppity land surveyor packing. In 2004 I understood our community had to be prepared to lead by separating the professional practice of land surveying from the other trades and professions. Again in 2004, when thinking of the profession in 2024, I was rueful of the fact I wouldn't have another 30 years to practice in the land surveying golden era. I was fully committed to the vision and willingly made the sacrifices to have the table set for the future. My wish for another 30 years has turned to the grace of having less than 15 years. Queue "Unanswered Prayers" by Garth Brooks. In hindsight, I did not recognize that we were not coerced into being scofflaws.

Abraham

[David Kendall]

If asked, I could find site plans by the hundreds, prepared by licensees, that are not in compliance with the CBC and/or 8761 or that meet the minimum standard of care required to establish accurate boundaries.

If asked, I could provide numerous examples of the land surveying community demonstrating an unwillingness to conform to existing laws and an unwillingness to support written standards that separate the professional land surveyor from the GIS folks, construction contractors, drone operators, underground mapping folks, i.e. accuracy statements, monument setting, monument rehabilitation...

This is our primary concern. I feel that uniform standards could provide a solution.

Why are we not developing standards? Because the chamber of all star surveyors is going to make it too hard for us donkeys to operate....

Pathetic!

After witnessing this forum discussion for a few weeks I no longer have any hope for finding common ground regarding statewide standards...

I recently made an attempt to develop survey standards at the local or regional level. I figured that n order to start somewhere, we could find some lone morsel of a concept that we could agree on as a standard of practice for our community. The idea was that the agreed principles or guidelines could be published on our chapter website as a reference.

We didn't get very far. In this particular instance, a couple of guys who have been licensed for over 40 years torpedoed the conversation. They are not interested in having their surveyor civil liberties infringed upon under any circumstances, even regarding the simplest of ideas...

[DWoolley]

...
...
I recently made an attempt to develop survey standards at the local or regional level. I figured that n order to start somewhere, we could find some lone morsel of a concept that we could agree on as a standard of practice for our community. The idea was that the agreed principles or guidelines could be published on our chapter website as a reference.

We didn't get very far. In this particular instance, a couple of guys who have been licensed for over 40 years torpedoed the conversation. They are not interested in having their surveyor civil liberties infringed upon under any circumstances, even regarding the simplest of ideas...

The folks with 40 years of licensure do not have any skin in the game - they've done their "record boundaries", written their incriminating CYA notes and bought or sold their private records that memorialize failures to file. There is no incentive to go straight now. Remember that the land surveyors' average age has been reported to be 55+. These average aged folks do not need the work to last another 10 years.

Today, I suspect, the averaged age surveyors have one eye on the door and the other eye on their 401k. They had 40 years to do the work to build a separate sustainable profession - they didn't do then, why would they do it now

DWoolley

[DWoolley]

...
The bad thing about the land surveying profession not having some framework of standards published and agreed to by a significant broad-based portion of the profession is having to rely upon the inconsistent and conflicting professional advice and the resulting impact on the people needing that advice.

Everyone thinks their own "standard of care" is the most widely accepted...without truly understanding how little or wide spread that "standard" is. It is my observation that no one thinks it needs to be established, written, published, and agreed to on a regular basis because they tend to focus only on the impact affecting themselves without truly considering that its not about the land surveyor. Its about the client's or public's need.
...
Since I've been at the Board and especially now in my current role, having to rely on advice from professionals in terms of standard of care (or practice - really doesn't matter) is very important to successfully achieving the Board's mission towards protecting the public. The fact that the land surveying profession cannot establish even the most basic framework of a demonstrated, broad-based standard of care is problematic to say the least.
...

This thread could have ended here on February 17, 2023 about 10 posts into it. Truth. Sixteen months and 150 posts later we have written ourselves into a circle. I appreciate the cathartic exercise. Collectively, we should be at acceptance.

DWoolley

[Mike Mueller]

This thread could have ended here on February 17, 2023 about 10 posts into it. Truth. Sixteen months and 150 posts later we are no further along.

Discussions are not about stating truths and walking away. They are about establishing a common vocabulary so that we can accurately convey our thoughts. Once we have a common vocab (which is often the hardest part) differences are examined. Some differences can be fixed since they are based on ignorance or incorrect assumptions, others can't be fixed since they are based on deeply help axioms. Fixing the fixable is based on those in error being flexible enough to change their mind, axiomatic differences hopefully can be understood and respected.

Dave, I am curious how much of your approach to standards and accuracy statements you are changing in light of the fact that your assumption about the root cause of the issues you saw is wrong?

Twenty years ago I had a vision for the land surveying profession in 2024. The vision, in short, was to respectfully eulogize and plant the last of the pre-82 folks - emancipating the land surveyor from the engineering business model. In my vision, the land surveyor no longer had to conform to the engineering budget (loss leader) that pressured the land surveyor to cut corners to keep a job...
....In hindsight, I did not recognize that we were not coerced into being scofflaws

So you assumed it was the pre 82's that was the root cause (through low bid ccompetition) of the corner cutting and low standards. You formulated policy changes and goals to address the reality you saw. You now you realize that what you thought is not the case. If the premise is wrong, the solutions based on that premise shouldn't be implemented.

Perhaps the cause is a fundamental part of humanity like self interest? Or gleeful ignorance?

One step further, the California Building Code (CBC 107.2.5) and the Universal Building Code (UBC) requires:

“…by a site plan showing to scale the size and location of new construction and existing structures on the site, distances from the lot lines, the established street grades…and it shall be drawn in accordance with an accurate boundary line survey….”

The boundary establishment for site plans, provided by land surveyors, is seldom “…in accordance with an accurate boundary line survey.”

For all those regulations that you brought up, when were they enacted? I would hazard a guess that it was before 2000? So we have a changed environment, that needs to have some tweaks to the laws to accommodate the new technological reality. If those laws called for a site plan in a world that did not have access to boundary information shown in relation to fixed works for every property (aka County GIS websites with sat photos) then it would have de facto require a surveyor to get involved. Nowadays there are many many properties where the GIS boundary is accurate ENOUGH for the site plan purpose.

So lets address that need and legislate a low cost solution like the corner record. It protects good surveying by creating a distinction and doesn't force everyone to recoil at the high price of a survey and find a low cost alternative that is outside the law when all they need is some planners checklist satisfied.

Now, Phil, if you’re me, do I model Abraham (willing to sacrifice his beloved son Isaac) or would I continue the Benson legacy of 1885? How about you Mikey, where is the smart money placed?

I would say first we should never worship a god that asked us to sacrifice our kids, second: my money is placed on the ordinances still requiring siteplans stamped/signed by someone, and the planners continuing to fail to adhere to that standard when reviewing applications. So there will be a legislated demand for a product that will inspire minor turf wars between the various professions/trades involved in development/permitting all fighting over market share.

I want to keep getting some of that market and so I will continue to look for ways to legally and ethically provide those sorts of products. I also like the idea of keeping development costs low so that it is still within the hope of the middle class. (See previous posts etc).

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

[DWoolley]

...
Dave, I am curious how much of your approach to standards and accuracy statements you are changing in light of the fact that your assumption about the root cause of the issues you saw is wrong?

I no longer have an approach. Whether it is the pre-82 engineering culture or any other "root cause" didn't/doesn't matter. The actual cause wasn't at issue and is generally,
immaterial. It was a theory to apply meaning to misdeeds. The misdeeds are the issue. Land surveying, when practiced as intended, had an important role in society. We did not honor our obligations to the profession or society.

I want to keep getting some of that market...

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

Lol, I would suppose you do. Good luck with that.

DWoolley

[jamesh1467]

This thread could have ended here on February 17, 2023 about 10 posts into it. Truth. Sixteen months and 150 posts later we have written ourselves into a circle. I appreciate the cathartic exercise. Collectively, we should be at acceptance.

DWoolley

Twenty five thousand views and 150 posts. How many others have this? People care. Either you want standards and are checking in to see if progress is being made, or you don’t want standards and are checking in to make sure this doesn’t happen. Either way, we all care about this. Its at the very core of our license and why we exist. We all care about this one way or another.

Some of you have kind of danced around this topic, others haven't, but its worth repeating. The establishment of standards is not about surveyors today. It's about shaping the practices of the next 10,000 surveyors and defining the trajectory of surveying in the coming age. Its about creating a legacy that will guide the next 130 years of land surveying. Its not really about surveying today and the effect it will have today will be very minimal compared to the effect it will have in 10 or 20 years.

If you all want a chance to tell me how I should be surveying 20 years from now....this is your shot. Standards are your shot to do that. Otherwise, I am basically going to do whatever I want. If you all want to live by no rules, I can do it too, and I will.

I don't really understand why all 30 and 40-year licensed surveyors are so resistant to find common ground with each other to finalize standards. What do you care? You are done. Do you really think there's going to be an enforcement action against you in the next five years of your practice? And even then, what do you care? They almost always slap you with a fine and are done with it.

Don't you all enjoy telling younger people how stupid they are and how they should be doing things? How are you all not jumping at this? It's your chance to show us how stupid we are and fix all the problems we have. Don't you guys know more about this stuff than me? You can't come together to tell me how I should be surveying? I am blatantly asking you to give me your knowledge so that I can continue practicing the same way you have been practicing and carry on the traditions of surveying, and..........its being refused? Honestly, its baffling to me.

[CBarrett]

This thread could have ended here on February 17, 2023 about 10 posts into it. Truth. Sixteen months and 150 posts later we have written ourselves into a circle. I appreciate the cathartic exercise. Collectively, we should be at acceptance.

This is why political process and laws lag far behind the technology. Things that make our lives more comfortable and fun (most technology) are adopted quickly. things that take time and effort and detour from ingrained habits move painfully slowly. Like quitting smoking or losing weight...

Land Surveying profession has about 800 pounds of fat to shed. That takes years. Just breathe into the pain.

[CBarrett]

This thread could have ended here on February 17, 2023 about 10 posts into it. Truth. Sixteen months and 150 posts later we have written ourselves into a circle. I appreciate the cathartic exercise. Collectively, we should be at acceptance.

DWoolley

Twenty five thousand views and 150 posts. How many others have this? People care. Either you want standards and are checking in to see if progress is being made, or you don’t want standards and are checking in to make sure this doesn’t happen. Either way, we all care about this. Its at the very core of our license and why we exist. We all care about this one way or another.

Some of you have kind of danced around this topic, others haven't, but its worth repeating. The establishment of standards is not about surveyors today. It's about shaping the practices of the next 10,000 surveyors and defining the trajectory of surveying in the coming age. Its about creating a legacy that will guide the next 130 years of land surveying. Its not really about surveying today and the effect it will have today will be very minimal compared to the effect it will have in 10 or 20 years.

If you all want a chance to tell me how I should be surveying 20 years from now....this is your shot. Standards are your shot to do that. Otherwise, I am basically going to do whatever I want. If you all want to live by no rules, I can do it too, and I will.

I don't really understand why all 30 and 40-year licensed surveyors are so resistant to find common ground with each other to finalize standards. What do you care? You are done. Do you really think there's going to be an enforcement action against you in the next five years of your practice? And even then, what do you care? They almost always slap you with a fine and are done with it.

Don't you all enjoy telling younger people how stupid they are and how they should be doing things? How are you all not jumping at this? It's your chance to show us how stupid we are and fix all the problems we have. Don't you guys know more about this stuff than me? You can't come together to tell me how I should be surveying? I am blatantly asking you to give me your knowledge so that I can continue practicing the same way you have been practicing and carry on the traditions of surveying, and..........its being refused? Honestly, its baffling to me.

Someone needs to go through the footwork of collecting the data, organizing it, assessing what we want to keep and creating a proposal, then follow through a several year vetting and tweaking process. I'd like to try... Standards of practice, and care, and accuracy standards.

Want to do it with me?
It's a big lift, I need a lot of help to make it happen.
Someone needs to role model the actions, and not just talk about them. It will catch on eventually.

[hellsangle]

It's a big lift, I need a lot of help to make it happen.

As Evan Page pointed out - it's already been done. Use Utah or Idaho's standard of care

Why reinvent the wheel?

[CBarrett]

It's a big lift, I need a lot of help to make it happen.

As Evan Page pointed out - it's already been done. Use Utah or Idaho's standard of care

Why reinvent the wheel?

Wouldnt be reinventing the wheel, as I said take a collection if what is as already out there, summarize it, pull out and tailor it so it's relevant to California.

Ai can summarize a multitude of documents nowdays, quickly.

This doesn't preclude reviewing and incorporating what other states, agencies or companies have done.

Om not sure why you would consider that reinventing the wheel?

[jamesh1467]

I've created draft standards, or at least a lot of a draft that would probably be very helpful. Plus, a lot of the research. I'm happy to share once I know it will be taken seriously. If the question is about grunt work, show me you are serious, and I will give you the grunt work to get started. It may not be right, but it is much more than a table of contents. (I am not going to mediate agreement of standards, just an initial draft to get you talking; experienced surveyors need to make the standards, not me)

But its not about the work of creating standards really, is it? I am guessing there's dozens of people willing to step up and do the work to create standards once its clear this could happen..........the primary thing blocking California from creating standards is something else isn't it?

To summarize this whole thread and some of the other threads recently: We effectively have no minimum standard of care for land surveying in California, and it sounds like no one really wants to ever define it. In fact, there may even be holdouts that are specifically trying to keep surveyors in California from ever defining the minimum standard of care.

When you get to the understanding that there really is no real standard of care for surveying the question becomes: “what is the point of the license?” If the moral fiber of land surveyors is such that we cannot define the basic level of public protection that every surveyor should achieve while using their license, how can we justify the economic privileges that come from a license whose core purpose is to “protect the public”? To me, that is why there are continuing to be more and more challenges to our rights to exist. Whether or not others understand it is the moral fiber of land surveyors they are challenging our not; they understand weakness, and our lack of a moral compass as a profession is making us weak, to the point we are flirting more and more with extinction.

To put it in perspective and take DWoolley's facts about enforcement one step further to data that I really didn't want to share publicly, we have removed by force somewhere around 1% (0.97%) of all land surveyor licenses in the past 10 years. That means if history repeats, the board is likely to remove one out of every 100 surveyors by force over the next 10 years. Compared to civils, who remove around 1 out of every 750 (0.13%) of their licenses. Also, a decent number of those were pre-82s doing surveying work from my research that skews the data. Does this not show how badly out of hand our moral compass has gotten? All of you who think this about the board..... Does the board forcefully remove people on the first violation? The one off crazy issue that seems nuts to all of us that the board went through with a violation. Did that person lose their license? And the board had to remove 1% of all of the profession over the past 10 years because there were multiple violations, failures of probation, etc.? Things they clearly felt rose to the level of it not being a "one-off" or a "traffic ticket" that they were comfortable with and felt justified in forcibly removing the license for public protection.

These legal challenges discussed up and down this forum appear to be very much reflective of our core values as a profession nowadays....at least for 1 out of every 100 of us. Its one thing to say you didn't know until I stated this information and you want to start trying to change all this now that you have been informed. It's another thing entirely to choose to ignore.

I can write novels of logical arguments about how defined standards of practice are the best thing anyone can do for land surveying right now. They are the best shot we have long term at fixing almost all the problems we have with a lack of surveyors, unlicensed practice, and integrating new technologies for the coming era. Not to mention the actual standards of practice themselves with existing surveyors. If you need me to prove it to you with novels of logical arguments, I can. But at the end of the day, I cannot force people to do any of this. You all have to choose to do this. Legacy is a choice. I cannot make that choice for anyone.

To those speaking up in this tread's credit, it sounds like they have stated their choice here.

[DWoolley]

I've created draft standards, or at least a lot of a draft that would probably be very helpful. Plus, a lot of the research. I'm happy to share once I know it will be taken seriously.
But its not about the work of creating standards really, is it? I am guessing there's dozens of people willing to step up and do the work to create standards once its clear this could happen..........the primary thing blocking California from creating standards is something else isn't it?

There are not “dozens of people willing to step up”. I suspect most readers are tracking the threat level to their practice, nothing more. Hopefully, you did not put to much effort into drafting standards.

… our lack of a moral compass as a profession is making us weak, to the point we are flirting more and more with extinction.

I pulled the next quote from another current thread to remove any semblance of being anecdotal or hypothetical - this is not the proverbial "few bad apples" - as folks are fond of restating. As you have confirmed below, the numbers speak for themselves.

... a LS who proposed to perform a Topographic Survey of improvements and encroachments along one side lot line and rear line. He states in the agreement that he would "re-establish the record boundary". He applied record angle and distance from an what appears to be an extensive alinement of harmonious points along the front right of way to calculate the rear corners. He did not find the rear corners....The other rear point that was also calculated at record location by cited surveyor was exactly in agreement with the neighbor's surveyor.
The cited LS reiterated he did not propose a boundary survey. He represented his survey graphically at a blown up scale, showing the fencing and improvements in relation to the lot line without listing dimensions to improvements. ...Also, what constitutes a "record boundary" was never discussed by anyone.
...
The Board "expert" said all four lot corners should have been found as part of the topographic survey. Borpels cited the LS for negligence per sect. 8780 b, for not having found all four lot corners and not basing his topo survey on such. ...Rather, a record boundary and topographic map would be provided." The neighbor's survey stated that the procedure by the cited LS "is usually sufficient to produce a basic site plan". The owner who hired the cited LS testified she was satisfied with the work under the contract and did not have any expectations he would set points or survey into other neighboring lots.
...

Only Soapy Smith – likely tried his hand at land surveying - could retell this story any better. Nobody could honestly argue a member of the public understands "re-establish the record boundary". It sure sounds official.

There is no such thing as a “record boundary” in connection with a field survey [except maybe a tentative map - which is presumed to result in a subdivision map]. Plenty of folks have been rightfully cited for providing record boundaries and/or not finding existing monuments [even in brush].

A “record boundary” is a nonsensical three card monte - confirmed by their CYA notes. Some folks in our community made up "record boundaries" to offer to unsuspecting members of the public, circumvent the filing a map and to pass bad paper for cheap money. The idea of having to mandatorily set monuments - which these land surveyors oppose for obvious reasons - would end their con. It is a peculiar thing. “Record boundary” aka Two Monument Tango is a close cousin to the “I didn’t set monuments” canard as a basis for not filing a record of survey. Notice the quote "The owner who hired the cited LS testified she was satisfied with the work under the contract and did not have any expectations he would set points or survey into other neighboring lots." These are his words, not mine. A boundary without surveying a neighbors lot? Interesting, noted.

The survey scope of work included “Identify encroachments” – clearly a boundary survey is required to identify encroachments. Square that with the fact the surveyor "didn't show dimensions". Why no dimensions? The land surveyors probably read or was told dimensions "establish" boundaries. Another monte is not to annotate the boundary with the thought "it is not a boundary". Why not simply deliver a topographic map if the client doesn't want a boundary? Not dimensioning is more flim-flam. If the boundary is established properly the dimensions are only ancillary. Any readers have thoughts to the contrary?

This particular licensee got lucky in court, and we are expected to accept the procedural failing of the basics as a precedent i.e. search for monuments, evidence, measure, and map. As we see here, we will have professionals waiving one meaningless Superior Court ruling as though it came from SCOTUS or Mount Sinai on a tablet of stone. The paperwork will be passed among their friends to rationalize their practices and spawn another twenty more like him. Apparently, readers do not find this offensive. Offensive is trying to stop it or regulate negligence out of existence. Bottom line, not finding an original monument is being argued as being acceptable for boundary establishment.

To put it in perspective and take DWoolley's facts about enforcement one step further to data that I really didn't want to share publicly, we have removed by force somewhere around 1% (0.97%) of all land surveyor licenses in the past 10 years. That means if history repeats, the board is likely to remove one out of every 100 surveyors by force over the next 10 years. Compared to civils, who remove around 1 out of every 750 (0.13%) of their licenses.

Keep in mind, the BPELSG complaint wash rate is between 60-70%. As among polite society, most criminals commit a lot of crimes before they are caught. In California, approximately 50% of the homicides and aggravated assaults are not solved and only about one in three rapes and robberies are solved.

Crime in California, being generally acceptable, creates a wide open lane for those particular California land surveyors. For them, I suppose it beats walking into a CVS and stealing as much as you can carry and reselling on the street. It also allows them to smile and shake hands with their fellow perishers on Sundays without pulling from the plate [not that they are above it]. To hear land surveyors retell the story, they are helping the poor, poor widows, and orphans that “just need a survey” [to add their $350k ADU to their $1.5M property] - ever so benevolent.

Riddle yourself this, do you think after 10, 20 or 30 years of grifting a respondent decides to go straight after a brush with BPELSG? That has not been my firsthand experience. In fact, note the “celebration” of the decision above "JUDGE BLOWS UP WHAT BOARD THINKS NEGLIGENCE IS", all caps to express rejoice. That fella was so convinced of his righteousness he trotted off to court to defend holding record angle and distance while not finding an original monument (essentially a GIS boundary). Should we take this ruling and allow the GIS folks to make boundary maps in a similar manner, why not? Many times, I have seen licensees in similar situations waving their closed case paperwork as though their practice is now sanctioned. Doubt me? Re-read the referenced post for the incorrect citations of Brown. Tragic, but not uncommon. Sure makes it hard to argue against GIS folks performing land surveying. Flashback, recall a different thread in which I wrote about records of survey not having monuments, boundary establishment notes, calling monuments off without explanation formatted on 18x26 as a record of survey? According to "JUDGE BLOWS UP WHAT BOARD THINKS NEGLIGENCE IS", they got a green light for the practice.

I can already hear the licensees wailing at the injustices of deregulation. For those that feel as though there is no justice in the world, as of late, I am seeing land surveyors paying multimillion dollar settlements for their wrongdoings. I am not seeing the public protection aspects in those cases. Carpenters and laborers doing layout work may prove to be better at, er, land surveying.

DWoolley

[LS_8750]

That was awesome Mr. Wooley.
Fire.