California Surveyors Forums

For consideration. Has anyone considered using the state standards? We, as taxpayers, spent a lot of money developing these standards. Why reinvent the wheel?

https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/pr ... s-a11y.pdf

mpallamary wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 3:48 am For consideration. Has anyone considered using the state standards? We, as taxpayers, spent a lot of money developing these standards. Why reinvent the wheel?

https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/pr ... s-a11y.pdf

Caltrans is off point

Edward M Reading wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 4:06 pm Dave,
I'm curious as to how you think that an accuracy statement is going to "sharpen and expand the skills of our brethren".
Ed

Ed:

I am often surprised by the lack of knowledge or experience practicing land surveyors have in determining the accuracies, equipment limitations, calibrations, measurement analysis, the use of state plane coordinates etc. and more importantly, how this knowledge is correctly applied to the project. It is common to find coordinate surveyors that simply collect coordinates and import them directly into CAD, no adjustment, no sense of managing their measurements, often scaling "to ground" - whatever "ground" means. This lack of adjustment knowledge is readily apparent when looking at a CAD file and finding two coordinates for the same point in the file - one point is often labeled "check point". Why is that? We also have folks using RTK/RTN with the belief the work is within a couple hundredths. Who doesn't want to believe it? Confirmation bias abounds.

Frankly, a land surveyor that does not practice with the understanding and utilization of a measurement analysis (coordinate collectors are no different than contractors that self perform) cannot rightfully claim the unlicensed practitioner is encroaching on their practice. To this day I find land surveyors that operate in violation of the Public Resource Code (PRC), have little sense of epochs, datums, grid v. ground, how is that possible after nearly 25 years of the PRC? In the last six months I have found two instances of surveyors collecting coordinates using the incorrect zone constants and two instances of folks using international feet rather than US Survey feet. One fella that used the wrong zone decided his solution was to change his coordinates to "assumed" - not moving the coordinate base - rather than fix the project to the right zone. Apparently, he wasn't concerned with the distortion caused by being in the wrong zone. I also had a "professional" indignantly arguing he has been licensed X number of years and has never been required to comply with the PRC - zero sense of humiliation about it. I think his point was "why would I start to comply with the law now?". A general contractor could not do any worse. As a whole, our community must do better.

If "land surveying" is turning on a GPS unit and staking a CAD file or simply plotting coordinates there is a solid argument to be made for deregulation. Have you ever seen how Operating Engineers describes their land surveyors as mindless fools? They believe us to be little more than morons.

Thoughts?

DWoolley

(b) Accuracy
Accuracy refers to how close to the actual value the measurement is. Accuracy is a result of both good instruments and good field methods. It is important to understand that high precision is not necessarily high accuracy. A highly precise instrument that is out of adjustment, for example, a compass that has its declination set incorrectly, will give a precise reading but an inaccurate one. The magnitude of inaccuracy is often referred to as bias.

An objective of surveying is to obtain the required data with the desired accuracy at the lowest cost. Since 1925, accuracy has been defined for Federal
Government surveys and mapping by classes of first-, second-, third-, and fourth-order. Third-order and fourth-order accuracy generally apply in soil and water conservation engineering work as ordinary and rough surveys, respectively. Ordinary survey accuracy should be attained in establishing benchmarks, level circuits involving six or more instrument setups, and surveys for drainage, irrigation, large channels, and other major structural practices. Rough survey accuracy is adequate for level circuits of less than six instrument setups, preliminary and reconnaissance surveys, and
surveys for such conservation practices as diversions, waterways, and small ponds.

Dave,

Mr. Reading, et al, have valid concerns . . .

After attending Vansickle's "Error Analysis" et al, at the 2021 Conference . . . seems like such legislation is just requiring more "math masturbation".

The bread 'n butter of our work is NOT GEODETIC surveys. (Which as you pointed out - one must take great care when performing such surveys.)

I, and by the many negative responses, others, would be opposed to such legislation. One cannot "legislate" the way people operate that haven't been correctly mentored.

Respectfully,

Crazy Phil's two cents.

Phil:

Quantifying and qualifying measurement is not geodetic work.

I understand your position, having one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel, who needs the aggravation of technical change? I hear you and in another 20 years I may very well relate. There is certainly mercy in that you will not have to be here to witness the end of a profession as we have known it. You have clearly loved being a land surveyor and contributed towards the better for many decades.

[For the unacquainted, Phil and I have been friends for over 20 years. He was the editor of the CalSurveyor for many years and has always been active in CLSA. Even though we do not drink the same brand of coffee I have always enjoyed his company. We have had a lot of great conversations over the years.]

DWoolley

For those folks that enjoy land surveying and need it to work for another decade or two, let me show you something I find interesting.

One professional association for underground utility work is Common Ground Alliance (CGA). They publish interesting studies and industry news. I am a member. The emerging market in their industry is Surface Utility Engineering (SUE) - which has a recognized land surveying component. The SUE standards are being published by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). The ASCE as-built standards are scheduled to be published any day now. These as-built standards require accuracies to be specified and certified - in California this should be a boon to the survey industry if we are prepared. This as-built work may keep the masses busy and allow the small practitioners to survive without competing for wages as the traditional (construction and topography) markets narrow.

I have attached a "study" - can a study only consist of four pages with photos? - to give readers a sense of the CGA perspective. The following quote is from the "study":

“The Vivax-Metrotech locating device ties into LaunchPoints SiteRight to record utility location and depth data, utilizing the state of Missouri’s GIS base stations to be accurate within a centimeter.”

I call the Vivax GPS utility detector "the unicorn". If you saw a photo you would understand. Never mind the fact it is illegal in California for unlicensed folks, including surveyors, to report a depth of a utility unless they pothole or can visually measure it i.e. dip a manhole. Never mind the fact locating lines, per ASCE standards, is clearly land surveying according to the Business and Professions Code. Of course, GIS had similar components and our community let that train leave the station without us in the 90s.

Bottom line, does anyone else see the issue here? Surveyors, good surveyors, cannot measure to a centimeter without extraordinary measures. As mentioned above, land surveyors could stand to learn more about accuracy and equipment specifications - does any reader of this forum believe they have centimeter accuracy on the equivalent of a Schonstadt, likely in a hole or under a tree if you have ever been to Missouri, and achieved 1 cm accuracy? This community desperately needs our community - they simply do not know it yet.

There is opportunity to expand our profession outside of our traditional dying markets. The question is whether or not we want to believe there will always be a market for the horse and those cars are merely a fad.

For the record, I have one of the few certifications available in underground utility location. The work isn't as enjoyable as a boundary survey, reading a good legal description, finding a stone nobody has seen in 100 years, staking something interesting and a myriad of things I have done over the last 30 years. However, it sure beats the heck out of being a Walmart greeter and if it can fill in the gaps between land surveying jobs I enjoy, well, count me in.

DWoolley

DWoolley wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 7:48 am

Edward M Reading wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 4:06 pm Dave,
I'm curious as to how you think that an accuracy statement is going to "sharpen and expand the skills of our brethren".
Ed

Ed:

I am often surprised by the lack of knowledge or experience practicing land surveyors have in determining the accuracies, equipment limitations, calibrations, measurement analysis, the use of state plane coordinates etc. and more importantly, how this knowledge is correctly applied to the project. It is common to find coordinate surveyors that simply collect coordinates and import them directly into CAD, no adjustment, no sense of managing their measurements, often scaling "to ground" - whatever "ground" means. This lack of adjustment knowledge is readily apparent when looking at a CAD file and finding two coordinates for the same point in the file - one point is often labeled "check point". Why is that? We also have folks using RTK/RTN with the belief the work is within a couple hundredths. Who doesn't want to believe it? Confirmation bias abounds.

Frankly, a land surveyor that does not practice with the understanding and utilization of a measurement analysis (coordinate collectors are no different than contractors that self perform) cannot rightfully claim the unlicensed practitioner is encroaching on their practice. To this day I find land surveyors that operate in violation of the Public Resource Code (PRC), have little sense of epochs, datums, grid v. ground, how is that possible after nearly 25 years of the PRC? In the last six months I have found two instances of surveyors collecting coordinates using the incorrect zone constants and two instances of folks using international feet rather than US Survey feet. One fella that used the wrong zone decided his solution was to change his coordinates to "assumed" - not moving the coordinate base - rather than fix the project to the right zone. Apparently, he wasn't concerned with the distortion caused by being in the wrong zone. I also had a "professional" indignantly arguing he has been licensed X number of years and has never been required to comply with the PRC - zero sense of humiliation about it. I think his point was "why would I start to comply with the law now?". A general contractor could not do any worse. As a whole, our community must do better.

If "land surveying" is turning on a GPS unit and staking a CAD file or simply plotting coordinates there is a solid argument to be made for deregulation. Have you ever seen how Operating Engineers describes their land surveyors as mindless fools? They believe us to be little more than morons.

Thoughts?

DWoolley

Hi Dave,
You used a lot of words but didn't answer my very simple question. I'm really struggling to understand how an accuracy statement is going to "sharpen and expand the skills of our brethren". I'm not against a statement per se, but I am trying to understand how it advances our profession. I think that a degree requirement and continuing education requirement would go a lot farther than an accuracy statement.
Ed

Ed:

Brevity is not my strong suit.   

The measurement of long distances is no longer exclusive to land surveyors.  There is still a market for accurate measurement, but who knows the difference?

Most people, including land surveyors, believe their measurements are more accurate than they are.  There is a market need to have accurate measurements quantified. 

Only a land surveyor can quantify the accuracy of measurements - Business and Professions Code 8726 (n).  This ability to quantify separates us from them. 

As it stands today, to few surveyors have the requisite skill to make these accuracy determinations.  An accuracy statement would create an environment and motivation that demands more skill and knowledge from every land surveyor - thus, separating us from them in a legitimate manner.  If we are to claim the exclusivity we should have the goods to back it up.

The public agencies would require these statements on most work product as a matter of law and public protection - forcing contractors to hire surveyors for the work that requires a level of accuracy. 

Short enough for your liking?

DWoolley

Just a small point.

Standard error = The statistical indicator of precision
Standard error of the mean = The statistical indicator of accuracy.

Measurement theory and analysis is based on random errors with all systematic errors and blunders removed.

Taking several measurements along with independent observations, and redundacy allows for a much better statement of accuracy than some one who wingdings a side shot with one reading and claims a high level of accuracy.

FYI, NGS has dumped their "No standards" approach and is currently writing detailed standards for geodetic work and other areas of surveying some of which is for ASCE.

The FGCS specs (the gold standard) from the '80s had very detailed requirements for surveying including planning, observations, and adjustments for all types of surveying. NGS's mistake that they realize now was to not have detailed requirements for surveys reporting with an accuracy statement as opposed to the FGCS precisional ratio.

2 cents

TT, PLS

For those that do not log into the CLSA forum and therefore, cannot read the CGA “study” I posted, the article is about a company, Utilisource, locating and mapping an entire city’s utility infrastructure and creating a GIS system. The equipment they use is a “survey grade” device with an “accuracy within a centimeter”. I am specifically focused on the number of jobs created within this company and their qualifications. The following quotes are shown on page 3 of the “study”:

“Utilisource has dedicated a full-time employee (who previously was a construction foreman for the organization) to managing its mapping project, [pause, read that sentence again] who is supported by three GIS Specialists who were hired in the last six months….Utilisource implemented its own API to receive data from the locating devices and load it onto a GIS map (bypassing Google Earth, which is not as accurate as GIS maps). [pause, read the context and use of “as accurate”].

The company also plans to hire three or four additional GIS specialists in the near future, and would need to invest in an additional 35 Vivax-Metrotech RTK-Pro devices in order to give all of its crews the ability to map facilities as they work.”

Naysayers, absent from this article is any mention of a land surveyor. Large scale mapping, utility locating, GPS measurement lead by “…a full-time employee (who previously was a construction foreman for the organization)”.

The article says the former construction foreman supervises three GIS specialist, again, not land surveyors, and plans on adding another “three or four additional GIS specialists”. This is in addition to “all of its crews”. The article says the firm purchased 25 of the locators. It appears as though they have four mappers – with plans to add another 3 or 4 – and 25+ field locators for more than 30 people employed to map a city of 5,500 people.

Readers, in California, what is your next move, call BPELSG? And say what? What has BPELSG done to stem the contractors from self-preforming? They issued Kiewit two $5,000 fines after they self-performed nearly $10M in construction surveying on the 405 freeway. They handed out the maximum penalty to Kiewit. Frankly, I do not see it being BPELSG duty to protect the practice. Even if they were so inclined, they do not have the authority or tools to do so. Their primary function, besides testing, is to protect the public from you, the licensee.

Readers, I ask again, what are you going to be doing for work in 2030? 2040? Slope staking? Bluetops? Ride a horse to the local Walmart to file out a job application?

Hell, it may not work out for our community, but I am not inclined to sit on my hands, fingers crossed, reminiscing about land surveying in 1995 and hope someone else acts to save our profession.

DWoolley

Well said Dave! Well said. As I have suggested for years, CLSA needs to have a real conference, debating and dealing with these issues. We are losing this profession day by day, hour by hour.

DWoolley wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 6:18 pm
...An accuracy statement would create an environment and motivation that demands more skill and knowledge from every land surveyor - thus, separating us from them in a legitimate manner.  ...

Do you really believe this? I don't. I think it will just be another bunch of words that surveyors will slap on a map. The bad ones won't know what it means and the good ones will. I don't see how it elevates the profession at all.

Gawd love, Ed!

LOL

Edward M Reading wrote: Wed Dec 08, 2021 3:41 pm

DWoolley wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 6:18 pm
...An accuracy statement would create an environment and motivation that demands more skill and knowledge from every land surveyor - thus, separating us from them in a legitimate manner.  ...

Do you really believe this? I don't. I think it will just be another bunch of words that surveyors will slap on a map. The bad ones won't know what it means and the good ones will. I don't see how it elevates the profession at all.

Ed:

Yes, I do believe it. I understand it may be a fool's errand, but I am an eternal optimist. I have to believe it. The day I quit believing is the day I begin to work towards our own deregulation. I firmly believe deregulation would be easier than regulation. I grew up in the era of Old Yeller - where you take the responsibility of killing your own rabid dog.

It has been my experience that some folks simply have not been mentored properly (hat tip to Phil). We will always have a few numbskulls, but I want to believe they are in the minority.

Sincerely,

Pollyanna

DWoolley wrote: Thu Dec 09, 2021 12:30 pm It has been my experience that some folks simply have not been mentored properly (hat tip to Phil).

The mentoring system doesn't work.
What other "profession" uses a mentoring system?

Edward M Reading wrote: Thu Dec 09, 2021 7:39 pm What other "profession" uses a mentoring system?

All of them. How did you learn?

It's Impossible to Learn to Plow by Reading Books

Doctors perhaps.

https://www.edumed.org/resources/mentor ... ealthcare/

Medical interns?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4294009/

Mentoring is defined as a process whereby an experienced, highly regarded, empathetic person (i.e. the mentor) guides another individual (i.e. the mentee) in the development and re-examination of the latter’s ideas, learning, and personal and professional development.(1) A mentor is an active partner in the ongoing relationship between mentor and mentee, helping the mentee maximise his or her potential, and reach personal and professional goals.(2,3)

In some countries, medical graduates must complete a rotating internship followed by a residency programme in their area of specialty in order to become a medical specialist. Interns taking their first step to becoming independent professionals may wonder who to choose as role models, often demonstrating enthusiasm, passion and support for the specialties they are interested in.(4) Osborn reported that a faculty advisor was the most significant factor affecting the specialty choice of medical school graduates entering residency training in the primary care fields of internal medicine, paediatrics and family medicine.(5)

Although interns starting their internship have more vigour than the general adult and college student populations, they progressively exhibit greater fatigue and anger as the internship year progresses.(6) Intense work demands, limited control and work-home interference in training programmes also strongly predispose residents to burnout.(7) Young physicians who readily embrace the hard work are especially prone to experiencing high levels of professional burnout during their training years.(7) As a result, many medical interns have been leaving teaching hospitals each year due to burnout.(8) While most of these interns move to other hospitals, a few have even left the training programme altogether.(8)

Research on mentoring in Western countries reported that effective mentoring resulted in reduced burnout and increased physician retention.(9) Notably, mentoring during the early stages of a career was found to help mentees enjoy greater career satisfaction.(10) However, few studies have examined the mentoring experiences of physicians in Asian countries,(11) where cultural differences in vertical relationships are evident, compared to Western countries.(12) Given the paucity of such research, we investigated the mentoring experiences of Korean interns in the absence of a formal mentoring programme and assessed how they perceived their mentors. Additionally, we compared job satisfaction between interns with mentors and those without. We believe that the results of this study will aid and facilitate the development of future mentoring programmes for interns.

Lawyers perhaps?


https://legalmentoring.org/mentoring-pr ... -programs/

Scientists perhaps?

https://pda.usc.edu/2019/10/24/scientis ... smdp-2020/

All professions maybe?

5 types of workplace mentoring programs
1. Developmental (career) mentoring program
This is the most common type of mentoring program. It typically involves a relationship between a senior executive and a more junior employee, with the goal of supporting the mentee with their professional development to further their career.

This is a great option for companies that want to dip their toes into the mentoring world for the first time or want to offer more growth opportunities to their workforce.

Benefits

Can increase job satisfaction. Having the support of a mentor can help employees feel more fulfilled in their roles. It demonstrates that their organization cares about their success and provides them with the guidance they need to achieve their career goals. That’s likely why more than nine in 10 workers who have a mentor are satisfied with their jobs.

Results in better career outcomes for employees. Mentorship isn’t just about having someone to turn to for advice. It can also lead to tangible outcomes for your employees. In fact, a study found that people with mentors are promoted five times more often than those without mentors.

Applicable to all levels of seniority. Mentoring, contrary to popular belief, can help employees of all levels – even CEOs. A study found that even the most senior leaders became proficient in their roles faster, with the help of a mentor.

2. Diversity-focused mentoring program
Mentoring programs are especially important to women and people in underrepresented groups. According to a study by executive search firm Heidrick & Struggles, 30% of women said their mentoring relationship was extremely important, compared to 23% of men. Similarly, 32% of minorities found it extremely important, compared with 27% of the overall sample.

A diversity-focused mentoring program addresses these needs by targeting underrepresented groups and creating equitable opportunities for career development.

Benefits

Builds more equity. It’s well known that women and minorities don’t receive equal access to career development opportunities. Targeted mentoring programs, which have been found to boost the representation of Black, Hispanic, and Asian-American employees at the managerial level by anywhere from 9% to 24%, can overcome these obstacles and build more equity.

Leads to improved business outcomes. Research from McKinsey & Company revealed that ethnically diverse and gender diverse organizations are respectively 35% and 15% more likely to achieve financial returns above average. We saw with our client, Best Buy, that its internal mentoring program helped 87% of underrepresented minorities and women improve the quality of their work and prepared them to take on more responsibility.

3. New manager mentoring program
While mentoring programs can be beneficial to anyone in an organization, they’re especially relevant for new managers. A mentoring relationship can help first-time managers develop the skills they need to thrive in their roles and better serve their teams and direct reports.

Benefits

Supports management skills. Being promoted to a managerial role for the first time requires a huge amount of upskilling. The steep learning curve can be overwhelming for employees, but the support of a mentor can make the transition a bit easier. We found that with our mentees that 92% of them felt they had increased skills for the job, with the help of their mentor.

Builds confidence. New managers may experience self-doubt in their new roles. Unaddressed, this can lead to poor performance, low self-awareness, and an inability to provide helpful guidance to direct reports. Mentors can help managers overcome this lack of confidence by providing encouragement, sharing objective feedback, and guiding them through challenges. 92% of Torch mentees report improved confidence in handling challenges

4. High potential employee mentoring program
While most organizations recognize the value of their high potential employees (HiPos), many don’t provide them with the support and growth opportunities they need to be successful. A HiPo-specific mentoring program, which is one of the most unmet needs of this group, can help your top performers find fulfillment in their roles.

Benefits

Delivers more value to organizations. Research shows that HiPo employees work 21% harder than their peers – not to mention they also bring 91% more value to the organization than non-HiPos. This means that the longer you retain your HiPos, with resources like mentoring, the more value they’ll deliver to your company.

Creates opportunities for growth. Our client, PennyMac, uses a mentoring program to build and nurture its leadership bench. The program, which offers high-quality mentor-mentee matches and customized learning paths, helps identify and give opportunities to HiPo employees to develop into future leaders.

5. Reverse mentoring program
As the name implies, reverse mentoring is when a more seasoned executive is paired with a younger employee. The purpose of this relationship is for the mentor and mentee to share information with a bottom-up approach to create more transparency, knowledge sharing, and collaboration.

Benefits

Increases retention rates. Reverse mentoring programs can be a powerful retention tool for employees. Financial company Pershing introduced a reverse mentoring program to incorporate new and fresh perspectives at the more senior levels of the organization and saw a 96% retention rate for the 77 millennials who were involved.