How about 1) Requiring all new legal descriptions to be prepared by a licensed survey - no more attorney bs i.e. no more "30 feet by parallel lines of the north side....." 2) Limit the number of exceptions that can come off of a tract before a new description is required for transfer and finally 3) Do not allow transfers of parcels whose descriptions do not meet minimum closure requirements. When are surveyors going to stop allowing politicians and attorneys to dictate what they will be allowed/permitted/required to do? Charge more and work less!

Surveyors have long since been the whipping boy. Title in conjunction with lawyers dictates what they perceive to be their responsibility. They tend to demand we perform our work to their standards, which many times are in conflict with state board rules. Property descriptions that once where very descriptive being two pages in length have been altered to fit on a half page half page. Construction companies ask for two boundary corners to be set or two building corners and then ask you to certify the points. When things go wrong, they are on the phone-claiming foul on the surveyor's part. They buy the cheapest equipment and hire people at the lowest salary possible with little training. Then they think; buy gps it is perfect and so, they hire someone with minimal knowledge. This does not protect the public. Property descriptions should be written only by a licensed surveyor and under no circumstances altered for any reason. GPS used to determine elevations and construction layout is to be under the purview of a licensed surveyor only. Surveying is a very diverse and complex profession. Surveyors need to stand up and say we have had enough and take back our profession and respect.

David and James - i had no idea that those things were occurring. i would have thought them to fsll within the the law of what a surveyor does. Absolutely, property related computations and descriptions thereof should be in the Surveyor's realm. Fight the fight gents - this is a forum to be post and be heard.

Harry, Good article as always. You have a knack to make me think. Please bear in mind that is a Surveyor's magazine and the following is my opinion only. 11-12 Years ago when everyone in the 3D modeling business did what you and I did (pay the price, go to the manufacture, learn machine control, learn 3D software and apply our skill and experience to make it work) I would have disagreed with you regarding licensing. Let the market and competition handle it. Today with the influx of 3D "experts" I am beginning to change my mind. When you run an honest company with employees, benefits, office, taxes, insurance, etc. it is hard to compete with a non-licensed individuals that set up an LLC, works out of his house and the only thing he has to lose is a couple of hundred dollars in the bank. I am also hearing rumors of "working under the table" in the underground economy. Very disturbing to "real" business owners. When asked the other day on how one becomes a 3D modeler, I told him what I did and about the training offered by the manufacture is still the best bet since our engineering and surveying educational systems seem to have no interest. He told me that it was too expensive and he could not take the time anyway. It would be like me asking you "how can I become an engineer without taking the time or cost to go to engineering school". I am also seeing many engineering and surveying firms trying to "pass off" 3D modeling to the CAD department. In my view to correctly place a "digital stake" takes the same skill set as correctly placing a "wooden stake" with the same liability and responsibility. All that is different today are the tools we calculate and measure with. The same education, experience and expertise are required. My problem with licensing is that I have National Contractor's who know and trust my work. When they go to a new area they do not want Machine Control productivity lost to someone still in a learning curve and did not not want to spend the "time and money" on acquiring the proper "skill set". Although I am licensed in 5 states my clients work in 10. I would prefer not to have to test and maintain 10 licenses just to do 3D modeling (since the tests do not even have any questions to test my 3D modeling abilities and since I mostly do Heavy and Highway work under national ASHTO standards). Boundary surveying NEEDS to be left to the local surveyors well versed in State and Local laws and local customs. I always have my clients contract a local surveyor for these issues. Even though I am licensed in 5 states, I only feel qualified to perform boundary surveys in my local area. As in Florida, if the contractor is taking liability for the project he should be able to contract "digital stakeout" from someone he knows and trusts. If the state is taking construction liability, then they should choose the qualified 3D modeler. The engineering/Surveying community needs to set standards, provide "skill set" education/testing/certification and be prepared to take on the same liability and responsibility as conventional wood stakeout. Liability should still remain with the signed paper contract drawings. I do not know if the contractors will tolerate forced licensing and the current 3 page disclaimer that even though you paid us to do professional work with a professional fee we have no responsibility/liability for the data. It is 2009 and I am still refused standard CAD files in many areas! Since many unqualified 3D modelers are coming into the market, something needs to be done. They are beginning to erode the reputation of the industry. I believe the liability/responsibility that goes along with licensing is critical but how about some kind of national certification for licensed engineers and surveyors performing 3D modeling, who have national clients and do not need or want to carry licensing in all 50 states.

This just expands a bit on Mr. Flora's comments. I've done both GIS and Geodetic surveying well outside my scope of a state license. I've done this for many years and have clients worldwide that depend on my expertise in these two fields.They send work based on my reputation and proven track record of results. Our state board has tried to restrict both of these in Oklahoma to PLS license holders but these rules have been largely ignored because I do not think they are enforceable. The NGS works in Oklahoma and has no Oklahoma PLS. The USGS works in Oklahoma and has no Oklahoma PLS. The state and cities maintain GIS systems without any PLS on staff overseeing various functions of the GIS. I have no problem with certfications for any field based on some national license for geodesy, photogrammetry or GIS but this is well outside the scope of a state license for boundary work, which relates to the state specific rules and laws pertaining to boundary determinations. I think my point being, is that we do need to restrict the trade of others but we do need to protect and to promote the boundary surveying aspect of our profession. Our problem is not that GIS,Photo's or Geodesy are impacting our bottom line. Our problem is that people do not fully understand the true value in a boundary survey. Some feel, though not me, that we are seen as tradesmen applying simple rules and measurements to arrive at a map that can be used for improvements and sales. Our profession is a one that involves not only math but the legal ramifications of our decisions. A PLS license means that you do the research, you do the field work and you weight the evidence with statutes, case law and above all else harmony and you do render a decision. I work in several fields nowdays but when I got my license many years back it meant that I could make boundary decisions. I did not see it as saying I was suddenly equipped to do GIS, Geodesy or Photogrammetry by default. That I do all these nowdays merely means that I have spent the time and money to educate myself and have developed the necessary skills to do them well. I might not have been an PLS back then and could have done the same thing in the other fields had I chosen. Deral

I give you credit on two fronts, Harry. One, you did your best at hooking us by an outrageous tag line. In fact it is so preposterous, I said out lout "No way, Harry!" Then I dove into your article wherein, Two, you made great points. I strongly agree all those items you cited and perhaps more should be under the supervision of an LS or PE. I also think the lines of distinction around what a PE can perform under the "incidental" clause should be more strictly limited, though that is likely because I am an LS. Not only would the limits on PE's sealing "incidental" work insure quality by having the surveying performed under an LS, it would increase our market share...That is where I differ with your proposal. I think I read you well enough to realize you're just poking to get this very kind of reaction. Unfortunately, many reading your article might not have had the pleasure to meet you. This is the point which is lost on those unfortunate strangers: None of the limits should be imposed to increase our market share, or our employability in a down economy, but rather to protect the public who are generally unable to make informed decisions about the areas of practice which are licensed. In Virginia, licensure is the highest control and professional responsibility and is only given to those professions which stand to do the most damage to the public. Then there is regulation and certification with lessening degree of potential for harm, thus we have the Certified Interior Designer. The boards of professional and occupational regulation already have a great control over our careers; they may not need more. They also dutifully shoulder a great responsibility to protect the public and at times, the regulants. It is unfair to suggest (to the unknowing) they might be acting to regulate these professions for the motivation of making us more employable.

Funny... I thought that legal descriptions had to be written, stamped and signed by an LS or qualified RE, at least in California anyway