California Surveyors Forums

Right on, Phil.

Imposing more regulations will not address the elephant in the room, or the lack of fresh horses. It likely will do the opposite. I am so glad I am nearing the end of my professional career, which has far exceeded my wildest expectations. I have made, and will continue to make, many contributions to support the profession that has been so good to me, but 99% of them have been outside of the influence of, or connection with, CLSA. In my 34 years as a licensee I have attended exactly two CLSA conferences, both times as a presenter.

Ya'll can talk you all you want about the threat of deregulation, the need to require firms to only hire licensed, or LSIT certified staff, or anything else you want to pontificate about in a 1,000 words or more. Until you focus on how to attract fresh horses to the profession, in a world where mentoring is all but dead, it is not a matter of if, but when. That article is based on facts, not supposition or opinions. Wake up or go the way of the dodo. Redirect the energy to the root of the problem.

Surveying can still be a proud, noble, and well paying profession. CLSA was founded to ensure that remains a truth. They can make a difference in keeping the profession alive through bringing new people in, not regulating the existing professionals out of business.

Scott P. Martin, PLS 5684

Scott, as you are well aware, Caltrans has implemented the JET program which brings people in to the survey (and engineering) departments without obstacles of college or LSIT/EIT prerequisites. In D2 it has resulted in not only new bodies, but also great new bodies. Unfortunately the JETs are low paid and the challenge of keeping them until they can get the required experience and knowledge to pass the LSIT, and then having to wait to compete for a deep class position is starting to pop up as they look around and see other work that pays better than the short ladder of the JET program. Hopefully, as the top surveyor at Caltrans you might have some sway in this retention of JETs problem.
And although getting new bodies into the survey field has been a huge problem for surveying, the topic of deregulation should not be overlooked. And while I give Caltrans high marks for the JET program, I can’t say I’m pleased with their role in deregulation. In particular CT has allowed the construction managers to dictate that dirt work and PAVING contractors using automated machine guidance equipment, do not need licensed surveyors in responsible charge of the site calibrations, digital model manipulations and transformations, nor qc/qa or oversight of the GNSS and geodetic aspects of AMG. I believe a big step forward for this would be to define what is to be considered grade setting versus land surveying for AMG activities. Again, hopefully as the new head surveyor for Caltrans you may have some sway in this issue.

Jeff Steffan, LS, PE
President, Cascade Chapter, CLSA

p.s. although I share the disgust at some of the internal power struggles within the organization, disgust that prompted me to quit being a member. I encourage all to join CLSA, as I myself have rejoined. CLSA is active in the legislative efforts that affect this profession. And although I don’t agree with a number of current and past legislative stances CLSA has taken, I realize the importance of having a voice in those debates. I encourage all to see the value of having your voice heard in those debates.

this Caltrans JET program sounds fascinating.
I would love to refer some youngsters... but I need some more detail
is it Publicly documented?
after 3 minutes with Google I came up with zip.
Thanks

I start my land surveying career as a Junior Engineering Technician (JET) range B with the Division of Highways (Caltrans) and yes the pay was minuscule. But it was a continuous learning and training program back then.


https://www.calhr.ca.gov/state-hr-profe ... /3008.aspx

Jeff,

Thank you for bringing up the reimplementation of the JET classification at Caltrans. Although it is less than a year old, the successes to date show great promise for "growing our own" surveyors, as was done many years ago. Many high level surveyors within Caltrans over the years started as JETs, including Mark Turner, who lead the HQ Office of Land Surveys for 19 years before retiring in late 2019. To date, 32 JETs have been hired - 25 field and 7 office. Thirteen more are in progress. The qualifications and volume in the candidate pools have been impressive.

When I was with DWR we used the JET in the same way to much success. Most often, the employees began investing in themselves in addition to OJT and internal training and mentoring, sitting for the LSIT as soon as possible and moving into the Transportation Surveyor series once they passed the LSIT/FS exam.

The other issues you bring up are for discussion outside of this forum and primarily founded with BPELSG. I am aware of your concerns.

Peter: Here is a link to a current ad for a JET vacancy. Two others closed this week.

https://www.calcareers.ca.gov/CalHRPubl ... technician

Regarding CLSA being legislatively active - I attempted to bring them to the table as a stakeholder regarding what NGS was proposing for our future State Plane Coordinate System. I started about 18 months before the NGS deadline and they never were able to get organized enough to participate formally. However, I am now involved with a CLSA lead effort to rewrite the PRC to accommodate the new reference frame/datum/SPCS that are coming in the 2024-25 timeframe. Hopefully we started early enough to get that work done.

Scott I would appreciate having this conversation with you in greater detail through other avenues.
I will question why, when a contractor submits shoring plans to the RE, they are required to be stamped by a PE, However when a contractor submits site calibrations and certain other AMG submittals, CT specifically refuses to require they be stamped by a LS? CT’s AMG SSP sponsor (construction) has emphatically resisted any suggestion to that effect. The message to contractors from CT is clear, and has been direct, no LS required.

Accuracy standards & specifications and the methods required to obtain and ensure the data is correct have been with the survey profession for a long time. These standards are usually related to federal and state related control or projects. As far as I know nobody complains about having to supply the documentation to substantiate the survey results. It's part of the contract and if you have bid correctly you are compensated for the effort it takes to meet these standards. That's the government world.

Step to the private side of things and where are these standards? There isn't a formal document for us to fall back on. Only what we have been taught or learned from reading professional references. Since we are professional measurers we are expected to work within a certain standard of care. But what is that? Everybody seems have their own opinion. Does the standard of care change depending on the value or location of the land? How is the surveyor who follows in your foot steps going to know what standard of care you applied? Oh that's right we are professionals with an ethical oath to protect the public.

An accuracy statement doesn't have to be any thing more than the relative accuracy of monument positions and the lines connecting them. But of course you can add as much information as you want, it's your prerogative.

I came across a document online published by the State of Washington Department of Natural Resources titled "Surveyor's Guidebook on Relative Accuracy". This document was put together by a good cross section of Washington surveyors in 1995. I found the two pages I have attached to be quite germane. I have also supplied the link to the document if you would like your own copy.
https://www.dnr.wa.gov/publications/eng ... debook.pdf

Since I use a least squares adjustment program to analyze all of my surveys I know the relative accuracy of my control and found monuments. So having to add a statement to any document isn't a big deal. At least for me, no pun intended.

Randy Mayer, P.L.S. 7024

When a surgeon performs a surgery, when finishing up, does he/she use a certain type pf thread for the sutures? Does he/she space the sutures at a specified distance from each other, say every 6 mm apart or, does he/she space them at 5 mm? When using anesthesia, is a certain amount of medication used for the patient, say, predicated upon the weight of the patient?

If the surgeon places the stitches 7 mm apart, does that constitute a violation of certain accuracy standards?

If the surgeon exercises professional discretion as to what he/she needs to do to accomplish his/her work, and saves the patient, but des not use the standards someone established, what kind of problems does he have?

If, based upon his/her discretion, certain methods need to be employed, did he/she meet the standard of care? For the most part, many of these decisions are made by a product manufacturer.

Is it not the surgeon’s training that guides him/her in those decisions?

What is the difference between a surgeon and a surveyor?

mpallamary wrote: What is the difference between a surgeon and a surveyor?

Probably not the best analogy.

We can start with plus 10 years of education for a surgeon. Life or death consequences for an error in judgement. A sophisticated peer group. Regularly published journals that include scientific research from leading professionals on specific procedures - conducted at facilities like Mayo, Johns Hopkins, UCLA etc. The surgeons are sure to have standards that exceed a 20 page Professional Land Surveyors Act.

I worked for a leading heart surgeon, as a land surveyor. He had authored several manuals on procedures. In speaking with him about his writing I had the sense their community would have had to follow rather rigid protocols and reporting functions.

Speculatively, I suspect surgeons are less likely to have a criminal record and far are less likely to show a blatant disregard for the practice law. Also, unlicensed practice is unlikely to be as prevalent as realized in land surveying.

The proposed accuracy note does not specify a standard to be applied. It simply asked for the methodology and reporting it accordingly.

DWoolley

Thanks! I like the reply. It is thoughtful and provides a good assessment of things!

First off, thank you Randy Mayer for posting that wonderful treatise on accuracy and precision! A most thorough treatise by our Washington cousins!

If I may . . . a few observations:

1). Buried in the Washington treatise is an example of an airport runway extension. i.e. “The reported uncertainty of the distance to point B with respect to point A is 4,000.00±0.04 ft.
Therefore, the positional uncertainty of point B with respect to point A is ±0.04 ft. The relative
accuracy between the two points will be 1:100,000.”

Practically speaking . . . who gives a rip?! A pilot on Final approach having an airspeed of 80 to 130 knots could give a rip. She or he wouldn’t care if it was off twenty feet!

Practically speaking, buried utilities may be the same. No surveyor in their right mind would give an accuracy statement that the buried utility is within a tenth of their X,Y, or Z! Future a GPS machine-controlled excavator could dial in the surveyor’s X,Y, Z and dig. If they hit something . . . well, based on the “accuracy statement” - now who is liable? Again, practicality
is hand digging. Who needs a accuracy statement for that? The hand digging note virtually says the utility could be anywhere “near” here (the statement X,Y,Z).

2). The surveyor has contracted to set or recover the client’s corner. Another example in this beautiful treatise states “ . . . For example, if you find a non original monument 0.9 ft from the computed position, you may be tempted to reject it. If you compute the relative position error of your traverse at that location, you may find the monument is within the perimeter of your error ellipse. You may be left with two choices: accept the monument, or review your traverse analytical data to find possible areas of improvement. A smaller ellipse may make your decision making a bit easier.

I can feel it, folks - a pin cushion on the horizon. Codify the accuracy statement, and the surveyor’s contract says she/he will set or find the corner. Because the “math” ellipses tell us what we found is not the corner. So to fulfill our contract another corner is set x.x’ from an existing point. Regardless what the error ellipses say, the found point may have been “blessed” by the adjoiners . . . until the expert-measurer came along.

And every iteration after . . . with better accuracy statements and slap-the-math-on-the- ground: we get more corner-points.

3). The property owners almost never cares within a foot. Especially in rural areas. How many times have you been asked “Oh I just want to know approximately where my corner is”? Then you have to explain - we don’t do that. Poof! Another survey lost to the Bottom Feeders.

4). Many of use are retiring or going to that monument-farm in the sky. Recently a competitor called and wanted to refer me some work. We got caught up on life and business. (Some of us play well with others.) I shared with him that when I die or can no longer work, I will be passing the business onto my son. He said his son wants nothing to do with surveying when he retires. Why? Because of the variety of map reviews, three signs type legislation, BPELSG complaints filed by surveyors - not consumers, and what seems like over a decade of back-biting by a few infallible surveyors that believe they walk on water.

Building the census to our profession was the crux of my last post and that of Trent’s article in the Nevada Traverse. We need fresh horses!

If we continue the back-biting and silly three-signs legislation - nobody will want to be a part of this profession! When that happens - yes, there will be deregulation. Because there are not enough of us to fulfill the public’s needs.

Then I would speculate that the birth of CLSA and their SB2-success will be for naught . . . which will be the death of CLSA.

Stay safe, wash your hands and have a nice week.

Yeah, it’s Crazy Phil again - Surveyor to Recorder

I applied for a comity PLS in Nevada in 2011 or so, having my CA PLS, PE and a degree in engineering. They slapped me down and said I didn't qualify because I didn't have a degree in "land surveying". I re-applied in 2019 and got my NV PLS without issue. Can't say personally that Nevada has it figured out.

Seems the four year degree requirement is causing a drop in licensure. If it were easy, every jackass would be doing it. Is the degree requirement for licensure helping clean up the crappy work within the LS profession?

The unions have been trying to de-regulate the LS profession for decades. Without the unions, there would be no meaningful discussion about deregulation.

Who are the present PLS candidates? How did they arrive here? Seems an interesting question to me. Are they coming from the unions? Crossovers from say engineering, geology, earth sciences, geography?

I recall my first job out of university, it was the union laborers stripping forms and sweeping the job sites that were driving new trucks to work and making more money than I. I sucked it up because I was on a different path moving forward. Counting schooling and work experience it took me 8-10 years to become a professional engineer (of minimum competence). I don't see it a problem being a similar time path for a PLS.

Does a kid with a four year degree in say geology or engineering want to hold a plumb bob and rod for six months? Probably not. That is the Foghorn Leghorn and chicken hawk scenario. I remember it well. field calculating coordinates and bearings with my calculator and lunch sack to locate pipes when my so call party chief ran out of batteries in his data collector (which I had no idea an HP-48 could be used that way).

Furthermore, I see a lot of junior level engineers, geologists and environmental types on sites with their cameras, clipboards, pale skin and soft fingers and note they all have a minimum BS degree .... While the kid working on his LSIT at night is running the entire job while I get to talk shop and do my investigative work. At one time I was the dork with the clipboard watching the surveyors, and I made the change as soon as I could. I wanted to get dirty. Surveying isn't for everybody.

To answer the above questions might provide some California specific further insight to what is going on. Where is the younger or up and coming community within CLSA? I'm not seeing it. Seems like there should be a community within CLSA that gets the younger ones up to the bar from different companies, sectors, etc., so they can talk shop and complain about their employers or how boring school is. And lack of mentoring. Hey, maybe they can share stories and learn from one another. I don't recall professional engineers looking over my shoulder when I was doing my homework.

I hear ya, Clark,

I love your candid writing, dork. (From one dork to another . . . LOL)

Many years ago I snagged the nephew of an esteemed Marin engineer as an instrument-man and Autocad computer/draftsman. He turned out to be extremely intelligent, caught on in the field, and played the Autocad keyboard like a concert pianist.

After Sonoma High School . . off he went to UC Santa Barbara for his engineering studies. However, he changed his major to geography (I think?) and became a crack GIS technician. The following summer he asked for a recommendation to work for an engineer near Santa Barbara and poof he was gone. He would have made a great surveyor.

As we know education (any amount) opens one's mind to other shiny objects. More power to those that do what makes them happy. Then it is not work.

I always thought a good place to snag new surveyors would be scouting. But apparently "scouting" isn't as ubiquitous as it was fifty years ago.

Yep . . . Fresh horses.

Crazy Phil - Surveyor to Recorder

DWoolley wrote:

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).
DWoolley

As mentioned previously, monuments and their descriptions are paramount in boundary determination.

Today I checked in with a project manager as to their monument recovery this week. He was happy with the crew's progress. When reviewing today's photos, I was happy with the crew's proper benching into a monument as a matter of safety. The project manager is excited for the crew to return next week - they have strong sound and believe the monument is within the next 2 feet.

Also, please do not comment on using the GPS in a hole. We understand multipath etc. The GPS/RTK is used to make sure they are close horizontally as they go down vertically (before they got sound). Yes, they have to lay back the slope again.

This monument was set in the 1930s and tied the two tracts of the era together.

DWoolley

Also, this is not standard practice to go down this far in search of a monument. In this instance, we know approximately the amount of fill material placed and can be reasonably sure the monument is there. Our normal practice is to dig 1 foot in dirt if we have no sound and then, sound again.

Now's a good time to call it off a tenth.

I have been following this post for a while and haven't really had much to say that hasn't already been said but I feel the need to clarify a few things from the perspective of a newly licensed surveyor.

This feeling of a "pincushion" coming on is ridiculous. I don't know about you all but from what I was taught, original monuments (and perpetuated original monuments) hold. If I came to a monument and it was a called for original corner monument would I call it off because someone set it 0.1' in error, even if they had an accuracy statement saying that they were +/- 0.05' on each monument? The answer is more than likely no. I think it would be safe to assume that the monument has been relied on in the past and that me setting a new monument or calling the other monument off would only result in more harm than good.

With that being said, as a profession we need to look for ways to protect our profession from deregulation and the way that we do that is by making what we do more valuable and necessary than some Joe Blow hub monkey. We have already lost performing staking and layout to other trades and as more of the work we used to do gets pawned off on the cheaper, less educated (both in schooling and experience) tradesman what will be left for our profession?

I suggest that those with contest to ideas like this get off the train of disillusion that our profession is not in danger of deregulation. I would also suggest that some of the "seasoned" surveyors in this forum who are close to retirement and look at this as more of a nuisance to think about folks like me. I worked incredibly hard for a long time to become licensed and I really don't want that to be taken away from me any time soon. If we as a profession do not start making moves to show that value and necessity of the profession than we are doomed.

I am currently preparing a program on RTK/RTN measurement accuracy. In my mind, I did not connect or realize any correlation to the RTK/RTN measurement program with the accuracy note requirements in this discussion.

As I prepared a “practice tip” slide it occurred to me, is the reason land surveyors oppose reporting their accuracy (reminder, there is no measurement standard suggested or imposed in the legislation) is because the land surveyors are sheepish about showing measurements that have a precision of less than 1:7500 or a line being 0.12’+/-? Or having relative variations of 0.25’ on the min/max?

Serious question, it had not occurred to me.

Also, I received a second call tin a week asking me for an opinion on measuring monuments ties, usually less than 50’, with RTK/RTN. Apparently, that is a thing now. That makes it harder to argue the need for licensure and the public protection afforded by licensure.

DWoolley

To qualify my concerns using an RTK/RTN for measuring ties, the line accuracy, at best (no PPM considerations), is plus or minus 0.10'. Measuring a 40.0' tie distance produces a 1:400 precision (40/0.10). A rag tape would produce a better result. Now place the RTN base 30k away, well, you have coffee cup accuracy if you cannot measure all of the ties within, say, about 10 minutes or less. The more time that elapse the less "relative" the coordinates become to each other.

I can see why a fella wouldn't want to make a note of that. Feet don't fail me now!

DWoolley

"The accuracy of this survey is 1:400 or better" Prove me otherwise.

Again - we need fresh horses.

Does CLSA wish to spend its legislative capital on this stuff? Three signs and accuracy statements?

Crazy Phil again . . . Surveyor to Recorder

hellsangle wrote:"The accuracy of this survey is 1:400 or better" Prove me otherwise.
...
Crazy Phil again . . . Surveyor to Recorder

I do not understand this sentence i.e. "prove me otherwise". I would appreciate further clarification. I ask because I am almost done with my presentation and would like the opportunity to anticipate any questions or additional clarifications.

Thank you,

DWoolley

Hi David,
Before your presentation, as I assume you are initiating this proposal, I think a member poll may be helpful to see what kind of support there is for this proposed statement. If you would like, I can start with a NO VOTE. But I look forward to a new official poll.

I spoke to a colleague last that night that has started working for a company that uses the latest and greatest RTK equipment to make their ties. Funny thing is the fresh horses in the field and in the office can't figure out why they are missing record ties by 0.10 plus, since the record ties were made by them a couple of years before. The colleague is pulling their hair out.

Monument ties have been accepted as a resource to accurately reestablish a position for as long as I can remember. That is because of the method and tools used to make the ties, nothing beats tangent overs. The results are usually beyond question. But I see a future where ties will yield an error large enough that they will be suspect, questioned and won't be relied upon. Good enough for GIS maybe.

Fresh horses won't fix a profession considered experts at measurement and yet the experts can't measure less than 100 feet from three or more positions to a common point precisely.

Randy Mayer, PLS 7024

1973 Manual:

3-124. The "error of closure" of a survey is defined in general terms as the ratio of the length of the line representing the equivalent
of the errors in latitude and departure to the length of the perimeter of the figure constituting the survey. However, with due regard for
the controlling coordinate governing lines of a rectangular survey, accuracy in latitude is not permitted to offset gross error in departure,
or vice versa. A double test is therefore applied to United States rectangular surveys in place of the one expressed in general terms.

The "limit of closure" set for the public land surveys may now be expressed by the fraction 1/905, provided that the limit of closure in
neither latitude nor departure exceeds 1/1280.

Where a survey qualifies under the latter limit, the former is bound to be satisfied. An accumulative error of 614 links per mile of perimeter,
in either latitude or departure, will not be exceeded in an acceptable survey. The latitudes and departures of a normal section shall each close within 25 links, of a normal range or tier of sections within 88 links, and of a normal township within 150 links. The boundaries of each fractional section including
irregular claim lines or meanders, or the meanders of an island or lake in the interior of a section, should close within a limit to be determined by the fraction 1/1280 for latitude or departure considered separately. The same rule applies to all broken or irregular boundaries.

All closings will be computed in the field.

********************************************************

as I review this thread, it reminds me, 1 size does not fit all. Many here talk about, 0.05', 0.10' but in my world that type of measurement is not realistic when surveying parcels of 5 ac. and up, over topographically challenging terrain. Are folks actually using the methods with their instrumentation to achieve what they claim? In I survey 1000' with an elevation change of 500', tie with RTK, am i within 0.10'? Most private work will not pay to achieve that result.

I second Bryan's observation, a monument is a monument. Surveying is much more that measuring.