What is too much "regulating" when it comes to surveying,e.g.
Plan checkers who go too far the requirement that the map be readable and
can be calculated by any competent surveyor.
Other surveyors in associations filing complains against outside surveyors for not filing records for construction stakes, especially firms that do work for agencies setting stakes adjacent or on property line without fileint, and land subdivision construction line stakes like 20's abd 80's.
Surveyors who think you need a Phd or other degree to quailfy for a license, instead of the same qualifications surveyors have had for 3000 years, that is, actual experience in the field.
Replies
Where I am at there is no requirement for filing anything. However filing a Map Record is typically a requirement for developing unplatted land. These Map Records must be approved by the local entity ("entity") who issues building permits. Generally the people reviewing these Map Records have little or no experience in Land Surveying. These entities and their reviewers are free to come up with what ever requirement they please and many of them have no written criteria for the content or requirements for getting a Map Record approved by them.
While I find this frustrating and have on a number of occasions been unable comply with these "map checkers" demands I do not blame them. I am sure it is much different where you are at and I can't comment on that.
For myself, in Texas, I would actually like to see more regulation, not less. The problem as I see it is that there is no uniform requirements for content or format for approval and filing of a Map Record. There is also no requirement for minimum competence to become a "map checker" for these entities. This leads to a multitude of different arbitrary requirements for content and format that vary wildly from one entity to the next. Compound this with "map checkers" hired by these entities who have no experience at Land Surveying and you end up with a mess.
I have written a number of articles on this in the past (that unfortunately are no longer on the web). I have had to refuse to sign certain statements or make certain changes in the Map Record I am preparing required by some of these "map checkers" and entities in the past. This has resulted in my client being unable to use the Map Record they paid me a fortune to produce. It has also led me to understand how certain Land Surveyors have been able to get away with producing and filing Map Records which I consider to be substandard, negligent or fraudulent as far as the law is concerned.
It is a good topic Mr. Sanchez.
It should be obvious I'm not talking about incompentent individuals doing land survey work, The problem with so many regulations is the regulators who do the regulating. Perhaps those positions should be reserved for semi-retired professional surveyor, who aren't looking to make a career out of a corner record.
What's outrageous is how much hydrology and stormwater (and minor engineering) a candidate needs in Pennsylvania to pass the state portion of the test.
Personally, I could care less how much water will come out the end of a 12" concrete pipe at a 4% slope. I could also care less as to the size of the pipe needed to drain a sedimentation pond of 5 acres in size. Those are engineering issues.
I can, however, tell you where these items need to be placed and at what height and slope in the field. I get this information from the plan; prepared by engineers.
What engineers want are people capable of doing their "grunt" work in the office for them. It has always been my impression that surveyors need to be on the ground and not in the cubical down the hall from the PE. Why do actual field results come back to the office full of glitches and errors? It's because the surveyor didn't gather the data: his technicians did.
Keep the surveyor on the ground where he belongs doing the kind of work he's been doing for ages: Gathering data, retracing footsteps and assembling the results.
I am uncertain where you are located at that gives you this perspective. While I agree with you that the need for experience in the field can't be overstated there is absolutely a need to be competent in the formal aspects of Professional Land Surveying.
I can't comment on areas of the country where Land Surveys have filing requirements that fall into the hands of bureaucrats but I can say that regulation and education requirements are not only necessary but from my point of view are paramount in protecting the public.
There is not a day that goes by now where I am not involved in trying to help a client recover from damages caused by poor Land Surveying practice. Minimum requirements for content and format of Land Surveys need to be enforced even more now in my opinion. The quality has definitely dropped since the economic downturn because many Land Surveyors are cutting so many corners to save costs they end up producing a product that is nothing but a recipe for disaster for those who rely on them.
Perhaps if you saw the reaction many of my clients have after I perform a Land Survey for them and they are informed of the results your opinion may mellow a bit. Here is an example of what I mean.