California Surveyors Forums

As a profession, land surveying in California should be willing to reassess whether the assumptions that once justified exclusive control over broad swaths of geospatial practice still hold.

In the 1990s and early 2000s, they did. Licensed surveyors generally possessed materially greater technical understanding of GPS error modeling, coordinate systems, geodetic datums, and post-processing of vector data, including network adjustment, constraint application, and reconciliation of measurements to controlling monuments and legal intent. The regulatory posture at that time plausibly served a public-protection function.

That technical gap no longer exists.

What is more concerning is that the legal and statutory fluency presumed to accompany licensure is no longer consistently present either. Rather than disciplined compliance with the California Public Resources Code, I am increasingly encountering licensed surveyors who are unfamiliar with its applicability to their own work. That observation is not offered as an indictment of individuals, but as a warning sign for the profession. Licensure only carries moral authority if it reliably correlates to superior competence and statutory awareness.

Meanwhile, GIS professionals and other geospatial practitioners now operate with the same GNSS equipment, software, and processing workflows used by surveyors. Post-processed kinematic data, datum transformations, and error reporting are no longer specialized capabilities exclusive to licensees. In practice, many non-licensed practitioners demonstrate technical rigor equal to, and in some cases exceeding, that of licensed counterparts in these domains. In the alternative, licensees no longer demonstrate competencies that exceed GIS folks.

If licensure no longer reliably distinguishes either technical mastery or legal comprehension, then we should ask ourselves what function continued exclusion is serving. Public protection must be demonstrated, not presumed.

For decades, GIS professionals sought collaboration. The profession’s dominant response, often summarized as “just say no” or reduced to the dismissive “GIS means Get It Surveyed,” has had predictable consequences. The willingness to collaborate has narrowed, not because of hostility, but because patience has limits.

Yes, this conversation necessarily implicates deregulation. But deregulation is not inherently a retreat from responsibility when the underlying risk landscape has changed. Sometimes professional integrity requires acknowledging that a framework which once served the public well has outlived its justification.

There is an uncomfortable analogy here, but an honest one. Like the boy in Old Yeller, stewardship sometimes means ending what once protected us, because allowing it to persist unexamined causes greater harm than letting it go.

This is not a call to erase the boundary profession or diminish the role of land surveyors in defining property rights, boundary resolution, or legal title. It is a call to ask, in good faith, whether continuing to assert broad authority over geospatial measurement and analysis still serves the public interest.

If there are concrete risks, statutory necessities, or public harms that would arise from reopening portions of geospatial practice to qualified GIS professionals under defined limits, they should be articulated clearly. If not, then the profession owes itself, and the public, an honest reckoning.

If no clear public risk can be identified, then professional responsibility may require us to ask the hardest question of all: is it time to put Ol’ Yeller down—“Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me.”

DWoolley

agreed. now is the time we need to take on the mindset of Grandpa Sanderson, and teach Travis about the realities of life
Ol’ Yeller needs to be put down down, gently

There remains a requirement that a licensed professional practice within his/he area of competence. Not all survey tasks require a thorough understanding of measurement errors, and a lot of productive, useful work is signed off by a licensee who may not have an encyclopedic knowledge of the technology employed to produce it. Yet the projects get built, occasional screwups are paid for by the licensee, his employer or his insurer, and the world goes on.

However, there are also tasks that require a more detailed comprehension of the measurement process and tools, and who better than a licensed land surveyor to fill that role? The equipment manufacturers paint a beautiful picture about the accuracy of their equipment, but mostly what that does is lead the gullible down the garden path.

A couple of weeks ago I was talking with a guy who kind of fell into the business of GIS consulting. He has since branched out into low-level (drone) photogrammetry. He confidently told me that his RTK system provides sub-centimeter accuracy for his maps, without any ground control. When I described some of the methods I have to employ to get reliable 2 cm vertical datum accuracy on a single mark, he just looked at me like I was an idiot. He mentioned that he thought about getting a land surveyor's license, but decided not to bother.

Yeah, don't bother.

"Cuttin the heads off of parking meters Captain..."

"It's all up to you....."

FAFO

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPc5Xh3e4dw

Jim Frame:

Overconfidence driven by manufacturer claims can be dangerous, but danger does not disappear simply because a license is present. A licensed surveyor who does not meaningfully understand the tools or limitations involved is no less capable of producing harm than an unlicensed practitioner who overestimates accuracy.

Which raises an uncomfortable question: in the absence of documented, systemic damages tied to GIS or non-licensed geospatial work—and given that most disputes are resolved through indemnity, insurance, or correction—what role is licensure actually playing in risk reduction today?

In the course of my work, I have had occasion to observe land surveyor negligence matters in court and deposition settings. The errors I see most often are not failures of advanced measurement theory or high-order geodesy. They are failures of fundamentals: inadequate records research, insufficient redundancy in measurements, failure to collect and preserve physical and documentary evidence, misunderstanding how fundamental principles apply to that evidence, and, too often, cutting corners to save clients money—even when doing so crosses legal or ethical lines.

These are precisely the risks licensure is meant to capture and mitigate: disciplined records research, evidentiary rigor, redundancy in measurement, principled application of fundamentals, and adherence to legal and ethical constraints even when doing so is inconvenient or costly. When failures persist in these areas, it is reasonable to ask whether licensure, as currently structured and enforced, is still aligned with the protections it is intended to provide.

DWoolley

LS_8750: Cool Hand Luke—Paul Newman, George Kennedy, Strother Martin—has been my favorite film since early adulthood. If you are not familiar with it, particularly younger viewers, it is well worth adding to your queue.

DWoolley wrote: Fri Jan 09, 2026 12:28 pm LS_8750: Cool Hand Luke—Paul Newman, George Kennedy, Strother Martin—has been my favorite film since early adulthood. If you are not familiar with it, particularly younger viewers, it is well worth adding to your queue.

Don’t miss young Harry Dean Stanton singing “Just a Closer Walk with Thee” about halfway through (on the way to visit Arletta)

No. It's not time to put Ol' Yeller down. He's feeling happy.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBxMPqxJGqI

The discussions over on Linkedin would make the prudent land surveyor think the world has gone mad, boastful discussions about work product that clearly violates the law. But hey, knock yourselves out.

I think this discussion originated when the rope was invented, then it led to the compass, the transit, and on and on.

I think the land surveying profession is a bit off track in many cases, but not in others.

To return to Harry Dean Stanton.... It seems that many surveyors no longer have a code to live by, they've reduced themselves to ordinary people, spending their lives avoiding tense situations. Well, there are some in the land surveying community that spend much of their time getting into tense situations....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcJXT5lc1Bg

LS_8750 wrote: Wed Jan 14, 2026 9:12 am ...
I think this discussion originated when the rope was invented, then it led to the compass, the transit, and on and on.
...

Those with an interest in historic land surveying should watch for the next Ten Minute Surveyor, scheduled for release on January 21, 2026. This episode will feature Jack Coffee Hays, California’s first Surveyor General. In that era, land surveying was dangerous work—surveyors who were unprepared, unlucky, or simply in the wrong place at the wrong time were often killed while carrying out their duties.

In contrast, modern technology and institutional insulation have removed the consequences that once enforced competence and integrity, allowing flimsy and dishonest practitioners to prosper by ignoring legal obligations to reduce client costs, in environments where failure and deception are rarely penalized.

Anyone familiar with Jack Hays understands this difference immediately. A land surveyor would have been hard-pressed to intimidate him, deceive him, or commit fraud under his authority. Hays was a man whose reputation alone imposed discipline. Had he lived another twenty years, it is doubtful that figures like John Benson—and the machinery of fraud surrounding him—would have operated with the impunity they ultimately enjoyed.

DWoolley

The issue that needs to be decisively resolved is whether GPS or conventional measurements performed under the guise of GIS or construction should fall exclusively within the practice of licensed land surveying. This is not a turf dispute—it is a question of responsibility, authority, and consequences. What is the responsible professional path forward?

In that era, land surveying was dangerous work—surveyors who were unprepared, unlucky, or simply in the wrong place at the wrong time were often killed while carrying out their duties.

It can still happen today. In 2020 I had a very close call with a couple of large German Shepherd-mix dogs. Were it not for the presence of a big (3" diameter, 6' long) tree branch that happened to be at my feet when they surrounded me, I might not be here today. (No dogs or humans were harmed in that encounter, but it could have turned out very differently.) Twice I've had rifles fired in my general direction (once knowingly, once unwittingly, though the bullets didn't care about the distinction). And, of course, the most persistent threat of all is the distracted driver.

Jim Frame:

You are absolutely right—the danger hasn’t disappeared. What has changed is how visible and immediate it feels.

In Jack Hays’ era, the risk was far more direct and often final. Surveyors working in contested territory—particularly in Texas and the Southwest—were oftentimes killed outright by Comanche war parties. Surveying parties were viewed as advance agents of settlement and land claims, which made them deliberate targets. Authority, resolve, and personal credibility weren’t abstract traits then—they were survival tools.

That context matters when looking at what came later. If Jack Hays had lived in a slightly later era—when land surveying licensure was formalized and enforcement mechanisms were emerging—it is unlikely that what I refer to as the “Benson Bullseye” would exist today. The institutional vacuum that allowed the Benson syndicate to take root, spread, and leave a lasting professional hangover might never have materialized.

What the upcoming Ten Minute Surveyor episode focuses on instead is Hays himself. Trained as a land surveyor, Hays became the first Sheriff of San Francisco in 1850—at a time when San Francisco was widely regarded as one of the most violent and lawless cities the United States has ever seen. He confronted violent criminals and the infamous vigilantes of the day alike. Fraud, intimidation, and lawlessness were not things Hays tolerated, in surveying or in public office - ideal traits for a Surveyor General.

DWoolley

I think the degradation of knowledge started before 1990, in fact I think it started around the time when the newer technology became available and widely used.There also is a driving force within a person to become better in whatever he/she does and take it upon themselves to learn what you don't know. I got that drive from my father (a surveyor and civil engineer). In the 1980's, there were some excellent training three day seminars taught by the best from NGS (e.g. Ed McKay), but due to budget constraints, have been done away with. Available and affordable education would certainly help, but, the right mindset and the drive for an individual has to be there or, it won't work. When AutoCad, and GPS were in there infancy, I felt that I needed to research and educate myself to learn these tools. Nobody paid me, I did it on my own time and sacrificed any out of pocket monies to achieve that. I have seen much of the newer generation either don't have the drive, nor want to do anything without being paid to do this education.
If you look around you, in all trades and professions, it is rare to find a worker that is truly dedicated to their work anymore. And, so "That's the way it is" as was said by one of my favorite news anchors!