Measurement is Dead

[mpallamary]

I have been working on this article for some time. It is my hope that it will generate some discussion. I am also hopeful that the profession will consider taking a long hard look in the mirror.

http://www.amerisurv.com/content/view/10759/

[LS 4722]

....Today, the land surveyor is no longer the Master of Measurement; everyone measures and the profession now includes women.


That's gonna get a few comments. FYI Mike, women have been involved in Land Surveying for a very long time.

[mpallamary]

Thanks for your note. The manner in which I made reference to women was a bit awkward and unintended. What I was trying to say was in the context of surveying being historically a male dominated profession. That was not made very clear. Thanks for pointing that out. It was intended to follow the initial passage. I should clarify.

[mpallamary]

I clarified the passage regarding women in the article. Thanks again for pointing that out!

[bruce hall]

some really loooong paragraphs. oh well.

[LS_8750]

Brilliant Mike!
Couple things:
1. CE: scrap the current trend. Boundary law is of course paramount, but in addition today's LS needs an earth science background, much like that of Thoreau's day. Riparian and littoral issues are not purely boundary related these days. They are now tied to inverse condemnation and eminent domain issues relative to easements and rights of way. Man has interfered with natural processes, and nature has adjusted accordingly. And property owners have been affected by these changes, the result being a litigious atmosphere.

2. First thing to ask your grading plan expert LS is to maintain post development runoff flows to that of pre-development flows. The LS is then entering into a whole new science that in my experience remains beyond the purview of the LS, at least currently. Secondly, in my experience the LS staking the improvements backs off when discovering an issue between design and reality, unless trivial, and waits for engineer clarfication - usually time wasted because the LS won't make the decision and carry the liability. Plus, the design issue usually traces back to a problem with the original topo, such as using GPS on a flat site or something similar.

3. I notice some redundancy when talking about CE, land planning, managing engineers. I think you may have made the same point twice on a few items.

4. Don't worry too much about the PC thing with respect to women. History shows that land surveying was uniquely physical in terms of task load and therefore dominated by men.

5. I am a student of yours. Look me up.

Closing, (I am pecking on a smart phone): what you are suggesting Mr. P is not for every LS, or PE, or for whomever runs across this, but your suggestins are real. You are old school and seeing through the smoke and mirrors. Applaudable indeed!

[land butcher]

Oh Michael, you do open the cans of worms. LOL

you have a email too long for here.

[mpallamary]

land butcher:

my email is mpallamary@pipeline.com

[Dylan Kolstad]

Thank you Mr. Pallamary,

I agree on most of your points and did see this encroach of technology coming, though didn't exactly plan for it - surveyors have not yet been replaced by technology (yet) in Humboldt County, "behind the redwood curtain". I did also laugh when Walt Robillard uttered "Get It Surveyed"...

Those elements of land planning I have typically avoided as I felt it was outside my realm of expertise. However, the surveyor should be ready to more professionally advise as to best and highest use of the land as they are generally the first on the ground, as you said.

If apprenticeship is impractical in today's world, it should play a bigger role in the educational process...ideally, I guess. I regret not being "educated", but wouldn't give up a day of the field experience (well, there are a couple days I could stand to forget). A more comprehensive curriculum may be beneficial.

I agree that continuing education should be a bigger interest for surveyors. Maybe a requirement, with courses administered or filtered by scrupulous folks at CLSA? I do understand the danger of creating another empty industry feeding on more bureaucratic requirements...

[goodgps]

to address the continuing education issue.

1. it needs to be relevant and taught by people experienced in the real profession of land syrveying and NOT (like you pointed out) a special science class of breaking down math to the thousandth of a foot.

2. it needs to be affordable. Right now, in California, there are many very good and experienced Land Surveyors who are struggling to make ends meet due to such a lack of work, and may not be able to afford CE.

3. (lastly) the current education system in place(College), needs to teach in a method of real land survey practice ie: boundary control; proper acceptance; proper pro rate and / or junior senior rights; research; etc.

Of course the list can go on and on, But as you pointed out, many a time, we come across points set "perfectly" but 5 feet off. I hear the most arguments in support of their "perfect"(but wrong) surveying from the Students of one particular university. And for THIS fact, I am wary of "school book" Land Survey education.
Best Wishes

[Proud7191]

First, this is a great article and I cannot believe that it has not created more discussion. Second, I agree with Goodgps and education. Who is going to teach it? 3rd, maybe surveying and title should be reformed to a land registration torrent system (see Wattles 1.8) since we can measure so well, and with all the growing planning regulations, liability limiting title companies, and general ambiguities that may never be settled until a court hears it and then an appellate court..... And that might be for just one of the boundary lines. My 2 cents, Jp

[E_Page]

Mike,

Thank you for framing the basic issue is when properly defining what the profession of surveying. It's controversial because so many surveyors and sectors shaping our profession view measurement and the manipulation of measurement data as the central function of a surveyor. Those sectors include not only practicing surveyors, but more importantly, Boards of Registration and our colleges and universities (ABET accredited and those seeking that accreditation).

Even when measurement tools required special training, a reasonably intelligent person with no experience or previous training could become a competent instrument operator with a few days or a few weeks training, depending upon the instrument.

Use of the tools of measurement has always been a technical skill which could be handled by a skilled or semi-skilled technician. I recall a job interview for a party chief position I had applied for 20 some years ago: The interviewer was either told or thought that experience with their particular brand of total station was important and I was asked if I had experience using it. I hadn't, but my reply was that it was just another measurement tool, so it didn't matter if I had used that particular model or not. It mattered that I had experience using measurement tools generally, but more importantly, that I knew what I was supposed to be measuring and what data I was supposed to be recording. I told him that I had not used that particular model, but that I had experience using about 20 other models of total stations and transits and had no trouble becoming familiar with any. I would be productive from day one and would know the instrument as well as his best I-man in about a week. It must have been the right answer.

The inner workings of the measurement tools have gotten far more complex, so much that what the machine actually does is essentially "b;ack box" technology for most users. But as the mechanics and electronics have gotten more complex, that inner complexity has served to greatly simplify the use to the point that under most circumstances, a person with no previous experience can, after a few hours or in some cases, a few minutes of instruction, begin making measurements of the same quality as a surveyor with several years experience.

As it was 20, 60, or 200 years ago, the ability to make accurate measurements is less important than knowing what must be measured and knowing what to do with the resulting data.

The discussion of college degrees and continuing education are two natural spinoffs of this basic subject.

The biggest problem with our college and university degrees is that most of them are ensconced within the institutions' colleges or departments of engineering. Compounding that is the ABET accreditation, which is shaped largely by academics with engineering backgrounds.

Perhaps it was a natural progression that surveying degrees formed within colleges engineering departments because there is a lot of crossover skill and education. But that crossover is the measurement and calculation aspects of surveying, not the analytical and legal which are completely foreign to engineering types.

As long as surveying remains in the engineering departments of our colleges and universities, and as long as ABET is viewed as the only valid accrediting system for surveying degrees, they will continue to have their primary focus on measuring and the mathematical manipulation of measurement data and will continue to be light on the analysis of issues, the legal aspects, and on land planning. And they will continue to dwindle in enrollment and we will continue to see once well known and well attended programs close.

Some are trying to remain relevant by including a GIS option. Good for them! But that train has left the station as far as surveyors staking out the ground as the lead professionals in that endeavor (pun intended, as bad as it is). At this point, the surveying programs are playing catch up and are a long way from the head of the GIS pack. They are essentially producing skilled GIS techs to work under the lead of a graduate with a geography degree.

Again, are these schools focusing on the tool (GIS software & systems) or on the professional level knowledge required to direct the data analysis and the system development - skills that will be able to transcend to the next and very different technology that will someday replace current GIS systems?

For ABET accreditation, instructors must have advanced degrees, with preference to doctorate degrees. How about a Juris Doctor? Not considered for ABET because the advanced degree is not engineering based. But having an instructor in each such program with an advanced degree in law would make for a faculty with a much more full set of relevant knowledge and skills.

I was fortunate to have an instructor who was a practicing surveyor with many years of practical knowledge for my senior level legal aspects class at OIT. With a better rounded curriculum, that would have been a 200 level class, but OITs coverage on that side was as good as any and better than many. That instructor had a few classes toward his MS degree, never attained the degree but was widely recognized by students over many years as being the best instructor in the surveying department.

The typical college surveying professor has an advanced degree, and if licensed, has just enough practical experience to have qualified to take the licensing exam. Anyone remember a proposed legislative amendment a couple years back that would have counted teaching university courses as qualifying experience? Anyone ever had to endure a legal aspects surveying class taught by a professor with the requisite advance engineering-based degree but light on training in the law and light on practical experience? It can be intellectually painful and counter-productive as a learning experience.

It struck me when I took the CA LS exam that it had so much calculation content that it seemed they were in the business of licensing highly skilled technicians rather than professionals. Contrast that to the OR state-specific exam I took and passed the previous year in which the examinee was required to write up an analysis and opinion of the scenario given in a problem. I spent a heck of a lot of time using my calculator when taking the CA exam and almost none when taking the OR exam. My understanding is that OR has since remade their exam more in the pattern of what the CA exam had been. That's moving in the wrong direction, IMO.

As Mike's article points out, there are only a handful of holdout states that have no continuing education requirement. Since I've been paying attention to what's being sent to the legislature pertaining to surveying (since about 2004 or 2005), it has been the conventional wisdom that the matter of continuing education for surveyors is dead on arrival once sent to the legislature, so no one ever tries.

43 other state legislatures have been convinced of the value of CE to the point that they required it. Is CA so backward that the topic of professional education can only be discussed in forums like this and briefly at the occasional Chapter meeting? Bring it up at Leg Comm and the topic can't be dropped quicly enough.

Both college degrees and CE are full topics in themselves and I've rambled long enough to almost forget the original topic of the thread.

Thanks again Mike for opening up the conversation.

[Ben Lund]

I did not take the Oregon exam but I did take the National and CA state specific. I found the National exam to be more definition and calculation based vs the state specific. I did not use my calculator on the state specific except for one problem.

I'm not sure continuing education or degree requirements will help the professional land surveyor become more professional. The main problem I see is that there is no accountability or system to ensure accountability for negligent acts.

The classical school of criminology says that in order to deter crime, there must be a punishment with sufficient severity so that the cost (penalty) outweighs the gains of the criminal act and that the more swift and certain the punishment, the more effective it is in deterring crime. The punishment for negligent acts is weak. The punishment is never swift in regards to boundary determination. And the punishment is far from certain.

[E_Page]

The exams I had been involved in were designed with the thought of minimizing or eliminating the need for a calculator when possible, but obviously, that is much more recent than the exam I took for the CA LS.

When I took the NCEES, it was along with the OR exam. At that time, they used 4 hrs of the NCEES Principles & Practice and 2 hrs of the NCEES PLSS. I found the NCEES exam to be ridiculously easy, only marginally more difficult than the LSIT.

I avail myself of educational opportunities because I know that it makes me a better professional. But then, what one gets out of educational opportunities is in large part dependent upon that person's attitude toward learning. If you don't think educational opportunities for the professional are of much value, it is because you aren't personally open to learning, or perhaps because you think that although you are capable of expanding your professional knowledge, your fellow licensees are not.

There is accountability in the system as long as practicing licensees do their part. If a licensee becomes aware of an illegal or negligent practice but does nothing to stop it, either because they think it is not their problem, or because they are too cowardly to confront the offender, instead making excuses why the violation might not be a violation, or claiming that there is nothing they can do, then the failure is not with the system, the Board, or the profession. It is with the negligent practitioner and with the licensee who by laizzes faire attitude or by spinelessness allows the clearly negligent or clearly illegal practice to continue unchallenged. IMO, the primary failure is with the licensee who declines to do anything to stop the negligent or illegal practice he sees.

[desert turtoise]

I have in the past submitted articles that I spent much time preparing; offering suggestions and sometimes constructive criticism for the profession. Nothing has ever been published and in some cases there was never even a response. Why would I want to pay annual dues to an organization that is not responsive ? Yes, I realize this website provides non-members a podium. With CA Surveyor being an award-winning publication, I could not help but wonder if articles that rock the boat tend to be avoided not featured.
On policing this profession, an example would be yet another owner/builder phoning around today trying to find a surveyor to certify the building setbacks to his deed-created property lines. It's just a matter of time until he will find a licensed surveyor who will jump on the job, place on his contract; "no corners to be set" and hope no one files a complaint for triggering 8762(b)(5). Everyone needs to be pro-active with their local PPC's. We need to get over the notion we would be unprofessional to point the finger at a fellow "unprofessional" who avoids playing by the rules the rest of us follow.

[Jim Frame]

yet another owner/builder phoning around today trying to find a surveyor to certify the building setbacks

This reminds me of a phone call I got a couple of weeks ago from a well-known local architect. He's working with a small-time developer who has a long history of being both a cheapskate and obnoxiously persistent in pursuing his projects. They just submitted a Tentative Parcel Map to the city for review, and didn't realize that local ordinance requires that it be signed by someone authorized to practice land surveying. He said they "need a stamp right away," and that they "can't afford a full survey."

I told him that I won't do a tentative map without a boundary survey (been burned enough times by the "not based on an accurate survey" thing turning into discrepancies large enough to affect the proposed design) That was all he needed to hear; his interest in further conversation ended right about there. I'd like to think that his phone calls won't eventually find a moonlighter willing to pimp his seal and signature, but I have my doubts.

.

[LS_8750]

I took great interest in Mr. Wooley's article last year, and I take great interest in this thread now. "Measurement is dead. What do you do for a living?" - I love it.

I am discussing an encroachment issue with a client just now. Options for resolving the issue are on the table, including among others a temporary easement similar to that discussed in Mr. Wooley's article.

This particular job invites thoughts on continuing education. I've had the double monumentation seminars and books beat into my brain. Like everybody, I've seen thousands of non-recorded, or un-called for, monuments called off by a tenth or so on maps because they don't fit the math. But what about those situations when you have a recorded map, find monuments in accordance with that map, and you have sufficient evidence to know that the monuments and the map are wrong? I'm not talking about causing "great calamities", I am talking about calling off a monument because not doing would screw up long established lines. What about a day's worth of discussions and examples of cases on issues such as this? Something like "When Monuments Do Not Control".

"For What It's Worth"

[Paul Goebel]

Dave,

I would be interested in seeing the written legal opinion about requiring improvements to be shown on Records of Survey.

I'm assuming we are talking about improvements used in the establishment of lines, such as curbs used to retrace a road center line by method of "splitting" the improvements.

If the expectations for improvements to be shown go beyond what I mentioned above, a Record of Survey could be presumed to show all improvements. At this point the Record of Survey essentially becomes an ALTA/ACSM Land Title Survey.

I wonder what improvements the CS memo will require to be shown. Buildings and fences? Curbs? Wires? At what level do we stop?

I agree that Records of Survey showing more context are valuable and serve the public. Many modern survey plats are "sanitized" to the point where only a bare minimum of information is shown.

[E_Page]

Dave,

Your last post (#23) is getting off topic but is a good topic for discussion on its own. Consider posting it as an OP to a new thread.

[LS_8750]

Survey: v.t.
1. to overlook; to inspect or take a view of, especially in a general or comprehensive way.
2. to see; to perceive.
3. to examine carefully with reference to condition, situation, or the like, with a view to ascertaining the precise state or value of; to inspect or consider carefully.
4. to determine the boundaries, form, extent, area, position, contour, etc. of (a tract of land) by means of linear and angular measurements, and the application of the principles of geometry and trigonometry.

Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary, Unabridged, Second Ed., 1983


I opened up a copy of Accident Reconstruction Journal (Vol. 24, No. 5, Sept./Oct., 2014) last night, and somewhat winced at the pages full of advertizements for total stations, laser scanners, GPS gadgets, etc. Based on my experience (private message me if you would like to learn further), the majority of those purchasing this "measurement" equipment either do not know how to use it, or hand it over to technicians who do not know how to use it - because they do not know how to "survey" (and they know this because they avoid using the word "survey" when describing the services they provide with their precision "measurement" equipment).

Given the definition above, the measurement portion is only one of the four complimentary descriptions, and the land surveyor, one who surveys, may utilize his/her "measurement" tools in the performance of a survey.

Mr. Pallamary may indeed be the Nostradamus of land surveying, with his "Measurement is Dead" article, and his coining of the term. I have not forgotten it, only because it is true.

Students of this fine profession, including each one of us, need to remember the other three components of the above definition. But, how does one obtain the knowledge and skills to practice these other three? Hmm.

[Sunburned_Surveyor]

I was intrigued by Mike's original article title...and published this response:
http://www.amerisurv.com/content/view/11713/153/

Landon

[LS_8750]

I think Mr. Pallamary and Mr. Blake are a little off target, opposite extremes, which seems odd since they are both surveyors talking about measurement. Which brings me to my point, measurement, targets, etc., are just tools.

Beware of your professor's definition Mr. Blake. Without perception first, what is there to measure and how do we do it?

Look at the above definition, measurement comprises one of four components of what it means to survey.

I like extremes, they get the discussion going.

Was Henry David Thoreau a merely surveyor in the sense of his expertise in the art of measurement? Or was he after something more?

Check out this website for some information about Thoreau: http://www.mappingthoreaucountry.org/

[Mike Hartley]

sorry, can't help myself ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4

[Mr. Smith]

In 1912 a fellow named A.C. Mulford, (an old civil) new hierarchy of measurement for the land surveyor:
"For after all, when it comes to a question of stability of property
and the peace of the community, it is far more important to have a
somewhat faulty measurement of the spot where the line truly exists than
it is to have an extremely accurate measurement of the place where the line does not exist at all."

This thread reminded me of this great quote the book is called Boundaries and Land Marks A Practical Manual, its a great book lots of pictures, Robillard sold them for $12 ea. at his seminars.

Brian Smith

[Sunburned_Surveyor]

I might print that out and put it on my wall.