California Surveyors Forums

TTaylor:

I appreciate your 2 cents here. It helps affirm, in my own mind, that I am not completely out of my mind.

Phil:

I'll bite on the nexus example (again). Today's LA Times ran an article that included the following paragraphs:

"Federal officials say they will allow operators to fly small drones over people and at night, potentially giving a boost to commercial use of the machines.

Most drones will need to be equipped so they can be identified remotely by law enforcement officials.

The final rules announced Monday by the Federal Aviation Administration “get us closer to the day when we will more routinely see drone operations such as the delivery of packages,” FAA Administrator Stephen Dickson said.

Drones are the fastest-growing segment in all of transportation, with more than 1.7 million under registration, according to the Transportation Department."

Not that most drone operators follow the law, but the path is clearing for them to sell their services commercially. A land surveyor will not have the opportunity to tell a client the value of using a land surveyor when the engineers and architects can provide the topography without engaging a land surveyor.

There are no financial barriers to entry. The folks processing this data into topographic maps with ortho photos will do so for less than $300 for a 200'×200' site with improvements.

The engineers and architects will circumvent the land surveyors and the contractors will do their own layout.

What exactly will the land surveyors being doing? Setting temporary drone targets and dipping a couple of manholes? Locally, the underground utility locators dip the manholes, GPS the utility locations and map their locations. Does anyone think for a minute these same folks won't offer topographic mapping from a drone and pick up a couple of monuments with their RTK unit? In reality, locating 2-3 monuments and plotting the mythical "record boundary" isn't actually land surveying. That said, I don't think we can prevent unlicensed folks from doing it. Next question, who's going to stop them? BPELSG? Pffft.

How much more nexus do you need? Rhetorical question. Thank you for asking.

The land surveying community should try to get out in front of this next wave of technology or face their own extinction.

DWoolley

DWoolley wrote:
The land surveying community should try to get out in front of this next wave of technology or face their own extinction.

DWoolley

Dave, we are already there thanks to technology and the innovation of robotic instruments. Only reason to higher a chainman is for safety issues and have someone babysit an instrument. No more mentoring and teaching real surveying. The newer licensee are book smart if they went to Fresno State (or compatible), but definitely don't have the necessary hands on for real boundary work. Prime example is have someone note, "TAG NO LEGIBLE", LOL. Sign or laziness, cause they don't know how to clean up a tag, or the record surveyor being in violation of Section 8772 of the PLS Act, when they used a "PK" nail with 3/4" tag and covering up the LS number.

The proposed accuracy statement will not do anything more than drive the profession deeper into text books, and for what reason?
Surveyors are already moving out of CA to avoid the politics going on, and this proposal follows suit with the current governor, IMO.

Thanks for your efforts, but lest spend time promoting land surveying and get students to Fresno State for their program and our future surveyors!

Measurement is Dead

Another thought on the subject for people to consider:

At this point I am not going to wordsmith the proposed language and where it is placed in the LSAct as it looks like a lot of work went into creating the proposal.

I do, however, have a recommendation for consideration.

I recommend that because of the nature of boundary surveying and the difficulties in creating a one-size-fits-all specification for those types of surveys that CLSA create an ad-hoc committee with the charge to create a “flow-chart” type of document.

The committee could be comprised of surveyors from all around the state and from different types of land areas such as urban, suburban, and rural with a total of maybe 7 people.

What do I mean by “flow-chart” type of document?

Initially the committee should research what other documents on the subject are out there across the state, country, and world and put the resultant research in a central location.

From this research they could then see what looks good and what doesn’t for us.

Then the document would be creating having sections such as: Research, Recon, Measurement, Evaluating the evidence, Orders of evidence (Brown), Setting markers, and Required end products.

The idea is to provide guidance in an orderly fashion for boundary type surveys without laying out exact specifications that might not work in all situations.

An appendix could be added for unique situations such as the North Bay.

If this were to happen it would give PPCs across the state leverage on conducting their efforts locally.

It would also help to identify those that are incompetent or negligent, which are the two key words BPELSG uses for enforcement actions. And now that BPELSG has raised our license renewal fees by 40% they should have the resources to conduct enforcement actions.

2 Cents

DWoolley wrote: The engineers and architects will circumvent the land surveyors and the contractors will do their own layout.

What exactly will the land surveyors being doing?
Next question, who's going to stop them? BPELSG? Pffft.

How much more nexus do you need? Rhetorical question. Thank you for asking.

DWoolley

Some of the experienced ones probably realize the liability involved and will continue to use surveyors, but probably not many...

Aside from the accuracy statement...

Building departments could help stop them...

Another idea to help protect our "profession" (like I said on a previous thread) is to get building inspectors educated and on our side. They can single handedly stop alot of unlicensed folks by knowing when a ros is required, by requiring setback letters for projects, knowing thst setting ginnies at a prop corner is not allowed etc.

I realize getting building departments on board would be difficult, but most of them want to protect the public as well

Could we as a profession get behind this idea also to help save us? It might be nice to have more than one avenue to preservation.

PLS7393 wrote:
Prime example is have someone note, "TAG NO LEGIBLE", LOL.

The proposed accuracy statement will not do anything more than drive the profession deeper into text books, and for what reason?

Keith,
I have been guilty of "TNL" in the past. Depending upon the location of the monument, tnl could be because of safety factors for 1 man crew in street, or lazyness if on row. Sometimes, plastic tags are just flatout unreadable due to being damaged by sun or by non-experienced shovel work etc.
I agree with you about deeper into textbooks. That's not a bad thing but practicable application is just as, if not more important. Great perspective!

All that being said, HAPPY MEW YEAR!

Thanks,
Drexyl

Does anybody have a definition for "survey grade"?

As a corollary, what are the standards for an "As-Built" survey? What does that mean and how close is close?

https://ppmco.net/what-is-an-as-built-survey/

Do you need a license to prepare an As-Built?

ekparian wrote:

DWoolley wrote: The engineers and architects will circumvent the land surveyors and the contractors will do their own layout.

What exactly will the land surveyors being doing?
Next question, who's going to stop them? BPELSG? Pffft.

How much more nexus do you need? Rhetorical question. Thank you for asking.

DWoolley

Some of the experienced ones probably realize the liability involved and will continue to use surveyors, but probably not many...

Aside from the accuracy statement...

Building departments could help stop them...

Another idea to help protect our "profession" (like I said on a previous thread) is to get building inspectors educated and on our side. They can single handedly stop alot of unlicensed folks by knowing when a ros is required, by requiring setback letters for projects, knowing thst setting ginnies at a prop corner is not allowed etc.

I realize getting building departments on board would be difficult, but most of them want to protect the public as well

Could we as a profession get behind this idea also to help save us? It might be nice to have more than one avenue to preservation.

Drexyl:

Your idea to get the inspection staff to require surveys can be done through local ordinances. We have three cities in Orange County that require a record of survey or corner record submittal stamped by the County Surveyor and the lot corners monumented before a demolition permit will be issued. Yes, the monuments are usually destroyed during the demolition, but it has eliminated, for the most part, neighbor disputes (injunctions) during construction demolition. The monuments are reset upon completion as part of the final inspection punch list. It will take some work to get it done, but it certainly is not impossible.

Email me personally or the Orange County Directors with the details of your letter sent to the Board of Supervisors and the jurisdictions you are interested in implementing this standard. Also, understand this creates a liability for land surveyors. We have had a few local land surveyors surrender their license, rather than have it revoked, because they got behind on meeting the statutory timelines for resubmittals (60 days) and either did not charge enough money or spent the money intended to complete the work.

PLS7393 wrote:
Prime example is have someone note, "TAG NO LEGIBLE", LOL.

The proposed accuracy statement will not do anything more than drive the profession deeper into text books, and for what reason?

ekparian wrote:Keith,
I have been guilty of "TNL" in the past. Depending upon the location of the monument, tnl could be because of safety factors for 1 man crew in street, or lazyness if on row. Sometimes, plastic tags are just flatout unreadable due to being damaged by sun or by non-experienced shovel work etc.

I agree with you about deeper into textbooks. That's not a bad thing but practicable application is just as, if not more important. Great perspective!
...
Thanks,
Drexyl

At our firm, if a surveyor in the field says, “searched found nothing” and the monument exist the surveyor is terminated, no questions asked, no second chances. The same is true for not reading tag numbers, no questions asked. The reason being, we are boundary surveyors. Additionally, we are often involved in litigation. Monuments are the paramount consideration in boundary determination. Our surveyors do not have time or budget considerations in the execution of their duties. Their job, when boundary surveying, is to recover (and describe) monuments – a failure to do so is negligence for the surveyor in responsible charge. This is very little wiggle room here. The failure to properly describe a monument is negligence per se – a violation of a statute i.e. Business and Professions Code 8764 (a).

On high profile cases we sometimes send a second crew, including the signing surveyor, to verify no monuments were missed or incorrectly described. In litigation, the question will always be asked if the expert witness performed the work or the level of supervision that was exercised (usually satisfied with a written and executed QA/QC plan). The second crew protects the signing surveyor from any surprises during a deposition and insures adequate supervision.

I have witnessed - usually from across the table - surveyors systematic destroyed by an examining attorney and subsequently, sued for missing a monument that altered the conclusions and opinion of a surveyor. In our firm, especially on high profile/high liability cases, it is not uncommon for the responsible signing surveyor to chief the crew. Litigation aside, this is the duty of a land surveyor. Restated, if a monument exist in the field and is not considered in the solution - because it was missed - every decision made after that moment is incorrect and likely, negligent.

The attached photo was taken recently. The spot of lime in the hole is surveyor bent over reading a tag that has not been seen in approximately 70 years. The hole is 5’ deep and about the same in diameter. Any deeper and we would have had to lay back the slope or shore it. The carsonite post lets the next surveyor know the monuments exist and is about 5’ down. Also, note in the foreground the paper towels on the shovel handle, water cup and paint brush used to clean up the monument.

Lastly, I do not recall the last time there was a technical discussion on the forum that generated over 100 comments. It appears as though we are onto something of interest.

DWoolley

DWoolley wrote: At our firm, if a field surveyor says, “searched found nothing” and the monument exist the surveyor is terminated, no questions asked, no second chances. The same is true for not reading tag numbers, no questions asked. The reason being, we are boundary surveyors. Additionally, we are often involved in litigation. Monuments are the paramount consideration in boundary determination. Our surveyors do not have time or budget considerations in the execution of their duties. Their job, when boundary surveying, is to recover (and describe) monuments – a failure to do so is negligence for the surveyor in responsible charge. This is very little wiggle room here. The failure to properly describe a monument is negligence per se – a violation of a statute i.e. Business and Professions Code 8764 (a). On high profile cases we sometimes send a second crew, including the signing surveyor, to verify no monuments were missed or incorrectly described. In litigation, the question will always be asked if the expert witness performed the work or the level of supervision that was exercised (usually satisfied with a written and executed QA/QC plan). The second crew protects the signing surveyor from any surprises during a deposition and insures adequate supervision. I have witnessed - usually from across the table - surveyors systematic destroyed by an examining attorney and subsequently sued for missing a monument that altered the conclusions and opinion of a surveyor. On high profile/high liability cases it is not uncommon for the responsible signing surveyor to chief the crew. Litigation aside, this is the duty of a land surveyor. Restated, if a monument exist in the field and is not considered in the solution - because it was missed - every decision made after that moment is incorrect and likely, negligent.

The attached photo was taken recently. The spot of lime in the hole is surveyor bent over reading a tag that has not been seen in approximately 70 years. The hole is 5’ deep and about the same in diameter. Any deeper and we would have had to lay back the slope or shore it. The carsonite post lets the next surveyor know the monuments exist and is about 5’ down. Also, note in the foreground the paper towels on the shovel handle, water cup and paint brush used to clean up the monument.


DWoolley

All interesting points, which also point to the fact an "accuracy statement" is irrelevant to the real issues facing public harm and the quality of one's survey.

A surveyor missing a monument, not identifying a tag, or not finding a deep monument, can very well be quite accurate -- and place that note on his map and be technically correct with regards to his accuracy note.

ekparian wrote:
Sometimes, plastic tags are just flatout unreadable due to being damaged by sun or by non-experienced shovel work etc.
I agree with you about deeper into textbooks. That's not a bad thing but practicable application is just as, if not more important. Great perspective!

Remember the option that many do not do, but is best to perpetuate, . . . "FOUND 1/2" REBAR WITH DETERIORATED PLASTIC CAP, ACCEPTED AND SET NEW PLASTIC CAP, "PLS 7393".

OR

"FOUND 3/4" IRON PIPE (OPEN), ACCEPTED PER " P.L.S. - A.", SET PLASTIC PLUG "PLS 7393" & TACK. "

I have done this many times, and gets documented appropriately for future surveyors to follow. I have even done this for "Unknown Origin", accept and set my license when feasible. This is better practice than the need for an accuracy statement IMO.

What I am hearing so far in support of this change to the PLS Act is that it will in some way help to protect the profession and help keep us all from becoming unregulated technicians with no need for licensure.
This is a valid concern, I also fear this outcome.
I don't think this change is any part of the answer.
We are going to lose out on drone work etc for the same reason we lost out
on GIS and scanning for the most part.

We need more surveyors, and we need more surveyors.

The market will not stop while we train more surveyors. If we can not meet the demand for a service then the barriers for entry into providing that service will be removed.

We need to recruit and train probably (2?),(3?) five times as many surveyors as we now have in order to retain our market share and philosophically I don't think we recruit people by telling them they can't be trusted to decide what statements to put on their work product, what unnecessary monuments you need to set and what kind of font you put on the sign on your vehicle.
You recruit by telling them they can be well compensated for becoming proficient at serving a quasi judicial function for the community.
Back to the accuracy statement idea.
It doesn't help me in my research, calculations or fieldwork.
My client doesn't understand it. He just wants to know how far apart those stake thingies are and he is pretty sure you told him you don't know.
The city doesn't understand it and you want them to enforce it.
The dastardly drone dude without a license is going to put out a least count statement of accuracy of his tools which for
most people is going to sound better than a true accuracy statement, much like the laser most of us carry that
is "accurate to an eighth of an inch!!!" Until I get it and it is good to a tenth or two, I think I pressed the button wrong.

Perhaps some proponent would share a Corner Record, or topo or something which would enlighten us to its usefulness.

Jay

Jay,

I totally agree. If we can't find ways to fill the ranks behind us with qualified professionals, no amount of verbose discussions on accuracy statements, signs on vehicles, or "practice-based" chapters are going to fend off the inevitable. Something will fill the void, that we can be sure of. As we all know, technology has all but eliminated OJT mentoring. So much for getting the required OJT experience like many of us did. We don't have enough universities producing enough graduates to come anywhere close to replacing the void that is being created by the "grey tsunami" that is going on right now. And we are competing with the whole country on this shortage. Cost of living in California puts us at a disadvantage.

Unless we find ways to sustain our profession with qualified people, all this effort to "save" it by adding regulations will be for naught. At the very best, we will legally retain our role as boundary experts, but not many companies will survive on that alone. That could even go away despite our kicking and screaming.

All this amazing energy, passion, discussion, and knowledge is totally missing the single most critical danger to the sustainability of our profession - who do we hand the stamp to?

If anyone can refute my assertion, I would love to hear it.

Scott P. Martin, PLS 5684

I see this discussion has an important tangent now: The sustainability of our profession.

Recruiting people into the profession has always been an uphill battle. I think the Trig-Star program helps to expose high school students to Land Surveying and occasionally a Land Surveyor will go to a "Career" type fair and occupy a booth and give a talk about the profession.

These are good.

IMO, we need to also expose elementary and middle students to Land Surveying. In 2010, Ted Rollheiser, PLS gave me a copy of his "Grids For Kids" talk he created for just this purpose. I always liked it and was planning on setting up an ad-hoc committee for this effort when I became president... But....

Ted's work is very good and a great starting point to expand materials, talks, presentations, etc. to reach out to the younger folks.

The earlier the better if we want to ensure a steady flow of people into the ranks

2 cents

I forgot to mention in my last post that including Land Surveying and map making into the elementary and middle school Geography segments in the classroom is another place to expose to what Land Surveying is and the famous people who were Land Surveyors.

1 cent

How much for a "survey grade" accuracy "as-built" map of a 4-inch gas line running down Telegraph Avenue in downtown Oakland?

The younger generation is all over social media excited about what land surveying has to offer.
Don't fool yourselves.

Let's get the kiddo's excited about providing accuracy statements so they can grow up and call monuments off by .04' and be confident doing so!

For those that believe land surveying is not threated with deregulation or that believe it will be business as usual forever, I received the following today:

“Here is the link to the bill which is committee now. If passed this would allow non licensed people to perform survey work that currently requires licensure. Our Montana ACES Section is in opposition to this Bill.”

https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2021/billpdf/LC1441.pdf.

I have not researched this proposal yet. It appears as though Montana land surveyors will be defending their practice in much the same way Florida and New Mexico have had to do in recent years.

Trent Keenan, a Nevada land surveyor that is also licensed in California, recently published a in-depth article, "Professional Land Surveying: Then, Now, and Where Are We Headed", detailing the hard statics of licensure in several states. I am not going to publish the article here as I am not sure of the copyright issues. The article was published in the Nevada association magazine last month. I believe he is dead on in his analysis and the statistics provided paint a picture.

As I see it, the land surveyors are facing deregulation of the profession. Costco doesn't have room enough for all of us as greeters - if you get there before me, will you put in the good word? Maybe Phil will take in you and your family.

DWoolley

This bill was withdrawn.

http://laws.leg.mt.gov/legprd/LAW0203W$ ... TY_ID_SEQ=

I can chat with Trent Keenan. He has asked that I make a national presentation on some issues. He is developing some programs for others.

Please find a copy of Trent's article. He has authorized CLSA to share and route this article. It is a great piece of work!

I hope this advances this discussion.

A most thorough article by our eastern cousin, Trent Keenan . . .

The "meat 'n potatoes" of Trent's article is we need fresh horses! Not three signs on our vehicles and an accuracy statement!

Yep, Crazy Phil again . . . Surveyor to Recorder