Surveying Articles

As we explore this counterpoint perspective, it’s important to revisit the original discussions that shaped the narrative around National Surveyors Week. For insights into the impact of emerging technology, see How AI Will Change (Not Replace) the Surveying Profession and The Hype vs. Reality of AI in Surveying. The critical role of NOAA was explored in Why NOAA Is The Most Important Agency You’ve Never Thought About and What Happens to Surveying If NOAA Loses Funding?. For the conversation around professional standards and licensure, revisit The Push to Kill Surveying Licensure: Who’s Behind It and Why? and When Licensure Disappears, So Does Accuracy (And Public Trust). Additionally, the importance of knowledge preservation and education was addressed in The Generational Knowledge Gap: Where Are the Next Surveyors? and How to Build the Future of Surveying Through Education. Finally, the profession’s role in defending reality was explored in Surveyors: The Last Defenders of Ground Truth in a Virtual World.

1. The Case for Deregulation: Why Less Government May Benefit Surveying

In the ongoing conversation about the future of surveying, one of the most frequently discussed issues is the need for professional licensure and regulatory oversight. Articles like The Push to Kill Surveying Licensure: Who’s Behind It and Why? have argued that stringent licensing requirements protect the integrity of the profession, ensuring that only qualified individuals are responsible for critical tasks such as property boundary determinations. These regulations undoubtedly play a role in maintaining high standards. However, in the quest for professional excellence, it’s crucial to also consider whether excessive regulation may be limiting the potential of the surveying profession, preventing greater participation, and hindering innovation.

At its core, deregulation isn’t about removing oversight altogether, but about finding a better balance between maintaining high standards and promoting a more accessible, efficient industry. The debate about deregulation often centers on the notion that less government intervention could open the door to a wider pool of professionals. For instance, reducing bureaucratic barriers could make it easier for new talent to enter the profession, particularly in regions with labor shortages, by lowering the time and financial investment required to obtain licensure.

The process of acquiring licensure is often long and costly. For many aspiring surveyors, the burden of complying with varying state-specific regulations—especially when these regulations can be inconsistent—may deter them from even considering surveying as a career. In fact, younger professionals, who are already facing barriers related to student loans and rising living costs, might be discouraged by the complexity and expense of the licensing process. By streamlining these requirements, or allowing for more flexibility in how professionals gain certification, we could see a surge in new talent entering the field, including a younger, more diverse group of individuals eager to modernize and innovate the profession.

Another advantage of a more flexible regulatory framework is that it would likely encourage competition and innovation. In industries where there is less regulatory control, businesses and professionals are often forced to be more creative and adaptive to stay competitive. In surveying, this could lead to the development of new methods, technologies, and services that might otherwise be stifled by the rigidity of outdated regulatory structures. For example, firms might be able to adapt faster to emerging technologies like drones, GIS, or AI if they aren’t weighed down by bureaucratic red tape. The surveying industry is ripe for transformation, but these advancements could be limited by excessive oversight that doesn’t account for the rapid pace of technological progress.

There’s also the economic argument. Deregulation could result in lower costs for surveying services, which could benefit both professionals and consumers. With fewer regulatory hurdles to overcome, surveyors could potentially spend more time focusing on the technical aspects of their work, rather than dealing with administrative tasks. This could reduce overhead costs and ultimately lower the price of services, which would benefit developers, real estate professionals, and consumers alike.

While deregulation should not mean a free-for-all, it’s important to explore whether the profession might benefit from a more adaptable licensing system that allows for greater flexibility in how surveyors can enter and succeed in the field. A more dynamic approach could foster a diverse, highly skilled workforce, equipped to meet the evolving demands of the profession.

2. Technology and the Changing Nature of Surveying: A Double-Edged Sword

Surveying has always been a profession grounded in precision and accuracy, where human expertise plays a central role in interpreting and applying measurements. However, the advent of cutting-edge technologies like drones, LiDAR, GPS, and AI has brought forth a new era in the industry. These technologies are heralded for their ability to improve the speed, accuracy, and efficiency of surveying tasks. In articles such as How AI Will Change (Not Replace) the Surveying Profession, the potential of artificial intelligence and automation to revolutionize surveying has been widely discussed, with proponents arguing that these innovations are game-changers. But while these technologies certainly enhance the profession, there’s a compelling case to be made that over-reliance on them could have unintended consequences.

On the surface, AI and automation appear to be the natural evolution for surveying. After all, machines can process data faster, eliminate human error, and handle repetitive tasks with ease. Drones can map expansive areas quickly, and LiDAR can create detailed 3D models of landscapes, all without the need for the surveyor to physically visit each point. These technologies save time, reduce the need for manual labor, and increase data accuracy in ways that were once unimaginable.

Yet, there’s a deeper concern: as technology becomes more advanced, will it render human involvement in surveying less critical? The crux of this issue lies in the potential loss of the human element in the profession. Surveyors don’t just gather data—they interpret it, apply it within the context of land use, property boundaries, and local regulations, and make judgment calls that require experience and expertise. While technology can provide data, it can’t make the nuanced decisions that a surveyor can make. For example, a surveyor’s knowledge of the local terrain, zoning laws, or potential environmental hazards can influence the final analysis. These skills are built on experience, and they can’t be replicated by algorithms, no matter how advanced.

In addition to this, the rapid pace of technological change poses the risk of skills erosion. As new surveyors rely increasingly on automated tools, they may never fully learn the traditional methods and techniques that have defined surveying for centuries. Some of these older methods, such as chain surveying or compass work, have long been foundational to the profession, and while they may seem outdated, they provide essential lessons in attention to detail and the importance of critical thinking. If future generations of surveyors are trained primarily on technology-driven methods, they might lack the essential problem-solving skills that allow surveyors to adapt to challenges when technology fails or encounters unexpected errors.

Moreover, there’s a concern about job displacement. While new technologies may enhance the profession, they could also lead to fewer job opportunities for new surveyors, especially those who rely on traditional fieldwork skills. Automation has already impacted a number of industries, and there is a legitimate fear that surveying could be next on the list. If AI and drones take over much of the surveying process, how will new professionals be trained and employed?

Instead of seeing technological advancements as a threat to the profession, surveyors should view them as tools to augment their work, not replace it. The challenge lies in finding balance—embracing the innovations that drive efficiency while preserving the human expertise that is vital to the profession’s integrity. Surveyors must remain involved in the interpretation and application of data, while using new technologies to enhance their ability to deliver accurate and timely results. The future of surveying should be one where technology supports and amplifies the skill and judgment of human professionals, rather than replacing them entirely.

In the end, while AI and automation offer exciting possibilities, it is vital for the surveying community to remain grounded in its core values—accuracy, expertise, and critical thinking. By maintaining this balance, surveyors can adapt to the future without losing the human touch that has always defined the profession.

3. Questioning the Public Perception Strategy: Is More Awareness Always Beneficial?

Throughout National Surveyors Week, the profession has been highlighted in a series of articles emphasizing its importance in fields like real estate, infrastructure development, and environmental stewardship. Articles such as The Public Perception Problem: Why No One Knows What Surveyors Do have shed light on how many people remain unaware of the critical role surveyors play. The push for increased public awareness of the surveying profession is understandable—after all, the more the public understands about the value of surveying, the more likely it is that the profession will be recognized and respected. However, while raising awareness is important, there is a case to be made that overexposure could bring unintended consequences for surveyors and the profession as a whole.

The primary argument for raising public awareness is that it could generate greater recognition of the profession, encourage more young people to join the field, and potentially lead to improved policy outcomes. These are all valid and worthwhile goals. However, greater visibility often comes with an increase in public expectations. When people become more aware of a profession, they may begin to demand more from it—whether it’s more regulation, more accountability, or the expectation that surveyors can solve problems that go beyond their technical scope. In some cases, surveyors could be asked to navigate public debates about land use, zoning, and environmental protections, areas where their involvement is valuable but not necessarily the primary focus of their work.

Take the issue of land use, for example. As the push for increased public awareness of surveyors grows, so too does the risk that surveyors will become embroiled in the broader political and ideological debates surrounding land development. These debates are often contentious, involving conflicting interests between developers, environmentalists, local governments, and communities. While surveyors provide essential data and insights, they typically do not make the ultimate decisions about land use or zoning. Yet, with increased public awareness, surveyors may find themselves under greater scrutiny, with public expectations about their role growing in ways that go beyond their professional purview. This could create unnecessary stress on surveyors, who may feel compelled to take positions on issues they are neither trained for nor equipped to address.

Additionally, the more widely known surveyors become, the more likely they are to be swept up into conversations about political endorsements. As we've seen with recent calls for prominent political figures to endorse National Surveyors Week, there is a risk that the profession could become intertwined with political agendas that don’t align with its technical goals. Political endorsements may seem like a quick way to gain visibility, but they come with the potential for polarization. Surveyors may find themselves alienating clients, colleagues, or communities that don’t share the same political views. Maintaining professional independence is crucial for surveyors, and overexposure could jeopardize that.

There is also the concern that increased visibility may lead to increased regulation. As public awareness grows, there may be more pressure for lawmakers to enact policies that affect surveyors. While regulation is necessary to maintain high standards, excessive regulation could stifle the profession’s ability to adapt to new technologies and practices. Surveyors, by virtue of their specialized skill set, must navigate a delicate balance between maintaining high standards and staying flexible enough to embrace new technologies and methods. Overexposure could lead to unnecessary legislative actions that constrain their ability to operate efficiently and effectively.

In light of these potential downsides, it’s worth considering that the profession may benefit from a more strategic, measured approach to public awareness. Rather than striving for blanket visibility, surveyors might consider focusing on targeted education efforts that emphasize their technical expertise, contributions to land development, and critical role in maintaining property rights and environmental standards. By keeping the focus on professionalism and technical excellence, surveyors can raise awareness in ways that don’t invite excessive public pressure or political involvement.

Surveyors can also benefit from fostering greater internal awareness within their own community—improving professional development, networking, and mentorship, for example—without relying too heavily on public campaigns. These efforts can build a more robust, self-sustaining profession, less dependent on external recognition.

In conclusion, while raising public awareness is a valid and important goal, it’s crucial that surveyors approach this challenge with caution. The profession can thrive without the need for constant external validation, and in some cases, less visibility may allow surveyors to focus on their work and maintain their professional autonomy. By maintaining control over how and when they interact with the public, surveyors can ensure that they remain focused on what truly matters: providing accurate, reliable, and expert services to their clients.

4. The Need for a More Inclusive Dialogue About the Future of Surveying

The surveying profession is in a state of transition, and the future will require thoughtful engagement from all sectors of the industry. The discussions about professional licensure, technology, and public awareness, while important, can sometimes feel like they’re focused on a narrow portion of the industry. The reality is that surveying encompasses a wide range of specializations, each with its own challenges, needs, and opportunities. As we consider the profession’s future, it is crucial that the conversation is inclusive, representing the views and experiences of surveyors across the spectrum.

One of the most pressing issues in the surveying profession today is the increasing generation gap. The industry is facing an aging workforce, and many seasoned professionals are nearing retirement, leaving a void that younger, less experienced surveyors are struggling to fill. As noted in the article The Generational Knowledge Gap: Where Are the Next Surveyors?, this gap poses a significant challenge. The future of surveying depends on attracting young professionals into the field, and yet the current conversations around surveying’s future often overlook the needs and aspirations of the new generation of surveyors.

Younger professionals today are entering a rapidly changing landscape. Technology is transforming the way surveying is done, from the tools and techniques used in the field to the software and analytical methods used to process data. While older surveyors bring invaluable experience and institutional knowledge to the table, they may struggle to relate to or fully understand the technological tools that younger surveyors are more familiar with. Conversely, younger professionals, while adept with the latest technologies, may not have had the opportunity to learn the hands-on, field-based methods that have historically been crucial to surveying.

Instead of creating a narrative that pits younger and older professionals against each other, the surveying community should foster an environment of collaboration and mentorship, where both generations can learn from each other. Older professionals can provide invaluable insights into the history, ethics, and best practices of the profession, while younger professionals can bring fresh perspectives on technology and innovation. This kind of collaboration can help bridge the generational divide and create a more dynamic, adaptable profession that is equipped to meet the challenges of the future.

In addition to the generational divide, there is a broader issue of diversity within the profession. Surveying has traditionally been a male-dominated field, with limited representation from women and minority groups. However, the profession stands to benefit immensely from a more diverse workforce, which can bring a broader range of perspectives and ideas to the table. In the past, efforts to diversify the field have been slow, and the conversation around inclusivity has often been sidelined in favor of more technical or regulatory discussions.

The need for greater diversity is not just about equity or representation—it’s also about improving the profession itself. Diverse teams tend to be more innovative and effective at solving problems because they bring a wider range of experiences and viewpoints. By making the surveying profession more inclusive, we can ensure that it remains vibrant and capable of adapting to the diverse needs of modern society. This means not only encouraging individuals from underrepresented groups to enter the profession but also ensuring that they have the support, training, and mentorship they need to succeed.

Moreover, the future of surveying will require the profession to be more adaptable than ever. While traditional surveying methods and practices remain important, the rapid advancement of technologies such as AI, drones, and LiDAR means that the profession must continuously evolve. The ability to adapt to new tools, learn new skills, and rethink how surveying is done will be crucial in the coming years. An inclusive dialogue that brings together surveyors from all backgrounds and experiences will be essential in ensuring that the profession remains relevant, adaptable, and forward-thinking.

In the context of National Surveyors Week, the conversation about the future of surveying should not only focus on licensure, regulation, and technology but should also prioritize inclusivity and adaptability. By encouraging a broader, more inclusive conversation, we can ensure that surveying continues to grow, evolve, and thrive in the years to come.

5. Critiquing the Role of Political Endorsements: Why They May Not Help Surveying

In the discussion surrounding National Surveyors Week, there has been growing support for the idea that political figures, including those with high visibility like Donald Trump, should publicly recognize the profession and its contributions. This notion is fueled by the idea that political endorsements could bring attention, resources, and potential policy changes that benefit surveyors. Articles such as Surveyors: The Last Defenders of Ground Truth in a Virtual World have discussed how surveyors are critical to preserving the integrity of land data and boundaries, and some suggest that high-profile political support might amplify this message. However, while political endorsements may seem like an immediate boost, there are valid reasons to question whether they are in the best long-term interests of the surveying profession.

First and foremost, the politicization of the profession could be a double-edged sword. Surveyors are experts in the technical and legal aspects of land measurement and property rights, and their primary responsibility is to provide accurate, unbiased data. When a political figure endorses National Surveyors Week or speaks out in support of the profession, it runs the risk of aligning the profession with particular political agendas. While political figures may recognize the importance of surveying, their endorsement often comes with a platform that involves partisan policies, making it difficult to maintain the impartiality that the profession relies on.

Surveying has historically been a non-partisan, technical profession, with surveyors focused on facts, figures, and on-the-ground realities rather than political ideologies. When surveyors become associated with specific political figures or movements, it risks alienating a portion of the profession that does not align with those figures’ ideologies. This division can harm the profession’s credibility and its ability to advocate for its interests in a cohesive manner. Surveyors need to maintain their reputation as impartial professionals, and an overt political connection could undermine that.

Moreover, while political endorsements can certainly raise awareness, they do not necessarily translate into the types of policy changes that surveyors actually need. For example, the surveying profession may benefit from changes in regulatory policy or support for educational programs, but political figures often have other, larger priorities, and the surveying profession may get lost in the shuffle. There’s also the concern that political figures, particularly those with polarizing reputations, might inadvertently turn the focus of National Surveyors Week into a political battleground, detracting from the celebration of the profession itself. Instead of focusing on the technical excellence of surveying, the public conversation might become focused on ideological debates that have little to do with the core work that surveyors do every day.

Furthermore, political endorsements could expose the profession to unintended consequences. For instance, if a political figure uses their support of National Surveyors Week to advocate for deregulation or other policy changes, surveyors could find themselves in a situation where the push for deregulation conflicts with the profession’s desire to maintain high standards of accuracy and professionalism. Deregulation, while potentially beneficial in some contexts, could also undermine the integrity of the surveying profession by lowering entry barriers or allowing for inconsistent practices across states. If political figures champion such changes, surveyors might be forced into uncomfortable alliances with policies they do not fully support.

Instead of relying on high-profile political endorsements, the surveying profession may be better served by focusing on grassroots efforts to raise awareness and advocate for its needs. Professional organizations, local surveying chapters, and educational institutions should take the lead in advancing the profession’s goals, ensuring that the conversation stays focused on the issues that truly matter: licensure standards, education, technology integration, and the evolving role of surveyors in modern society. Political endorsements, if they do come, should be seen as secondary to the work that surveyors do on a daily basis.

In conclusion, while political endorsements can certainly help raise visibility, they may not be in the long-term best interests of the surveying profession. Surveyors should remain independent, focused on their technical expertise, and driven by the need to improve the profession from within. Instead of looking for political validation, surveyors should aim to shape their own future, ensuring that they remain relevant, respected, and effective in serving the needs of society. By maintaining professional independence and focusing on the core values of surveying, the profession can continue to thrive without being tied to the shifting tides of political influence.