What constitutes a "survey product"?

[J. Pastrana]

This is another term being used by the GIS folk and incorporated in the model law.

I wonder how we (Surveyors) define this ? - I would hazard a guess that it is quite different from how other non-Surveyors define the term.

Read Appendix B of the Task Force For Model Law for Surveying and think of how this would be applied (Inclusions and Exclusions of Practice).

[Ian Wilson]

Can you provide a link to this Appendix, please?

[J. Pastrana]

See "Model Law" thread begun by Administrator. The info is included in Howard Brunner's post in the attached file "model law.zip". This includes a number of files regarding CLSA and Board responses to NCEES. There are two pdf files "Task Force 1.pdf" & Task Force 2.pdf" which included the info I was referring to. You will need to open both of these files - it appears these were produced from scans and the pages are out of order - read pages 129 & 130 as printed on the bottom of the page.

[J. Pastrana]

I see that this question hasn't generated any discussion which I feel may be indicative of the lack of understanding of the magnitude of the encroachments and dilution of the land surveying profession or possibly members don't know the tact to take or the methods to employ to correct them.

Leadership from CLSA elected representatives is needed - Courage from CLSA membership to express their thoughts and concerns openly so that a positive dialogue for change occurs.

Case in point: The USDOT under the Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) have developed new regulations for utility owners regarding the National Pipeline Mapping System (NPMS). I have a question whether the required pipeline mapping and geospatial data is actually a bona-fide “survey product” under BPC 8726 regardless of the verbiage within the standards document that submitted data is “not to be construed as actual survey-quality data”. I have attached two web-links that will provide access to the regulations (49 CFR 195 & 49 CFR 192) as well as the standards document for data submission.

http://www.npms.rspa.dot.gov/

http://ops.dot.gov/

It seems to parallel in some instances the previous legal opinion (Dorothea Johnson, Nov 16,2001) regarding the collection of information to Craig Wilson of the SWRCB (in California only). Granted this data collection has less rigorous positional accuracy requirements, but data is being collected and qualified at various levels - who is qualified and can certify the spatial accuracy of direct measured data besides the PLS?. The data is also shared back to state agencies for use in policy and planning decisions as well.

This is just the latest example I have come across where the collection and classification of positional data, in real-world coordinate systems, for the location of fixed works apparently is allowed to be prepared by non-licensed practitioners. At what point does BPC 8726 (a), (b), (f), (k) & (m) not apply?

Think of the magnitude of this one item - mapping of pipelines and related features for hazardous liquids and gas transmissions located in High Consequence Areas - within the entire State of California!

Second case: Government Accounting Standards Board Statement 34 (GASB34):

"Governments will report all capital assets, including
infrastructure, in the government-wide statement of net
assets and will report depreciation expense—the cost
of “using up” capital assets—in the statement of activities."

State and local governments are required to account for all infrastructure - mapping projects galore are on-going or in development to map these systems within their jurisdiction - the work is being done by whom? How is the public protected? What other uses is this data being used for?

[Jim Frame]

Determining the proper location of the line between land surveying and GIS data capture is a daunting task. The proliferation of tools that provide remarkably accurate geographic positions at the push of a button has revealed what we assumed to be a bright line of separation to be, instead, a broad fuzzy swath of overlapping interests.

The NPMS is a good example of a mapping effort that is clearly not a land surveying product. It would be ludicrous to claim that meeting the 500'+/- accuracy target specified in the NPMS standards document requires that the work be performed by a licensed land surveyor, when a layman armed only with a consumer-grade GPS receiver can get 10 times that accuracy.

The land surveying community must be careful to keep its goals realistic. If we are unable to modernize the statutes governing licensure in such a way that the legitimate need to protect the public welfare is met without unreasonably restricting the performance of noncritical positioning tasks by unlicensed persons, we may lose control of the former in the stampede to remove restrictions from the latter.

[J. Pastrana]

I respectfully disagree with your assessment of the NPMS. I believe this data is directly relevant to the protection of the public welfare, the data will be used beyond the NPMS (e.g. shared back to State and local agencies) and will be used for Homeland Security purposes among other uses. I agree with your last paragraph concerning the caution we must exercise without "unreasonably restricting the performance of noncritical positioning tasks by unlicensed persons" but I feel there is a need to clarify what constitutes "noncritical positioning tasks".

For me the question isn't that it should be done entirely by Surveyors (how many field crews are made up of PLS's) but that there is oversight of the geospatial data that is being captured by direct measurements by a PLS or RCE for quality control and quality assurance purposes when the data is to be used/submitted to a public body. Can anyone certify the accuracy of geospatial data obtain from direct field measurements (at any accuracy level)? Should this type of data being used by public bodies be certified? Data migrates regardless of it's original purpose and funds are wasted when programs are short-sightedly developed.

This project is concerned with areas classified as High Consequence Areas. Where do we realistically think this data and program is headed? At minimum I am unaware of any discussion within the CA surveying community about this or other programs and our relationship to the data products being produced. I am also unaware of any involvement at the National level (ASCM) on the development of the program or standards.

A GIS mapper for a private entity, capturing positional data which is completely for internal consumption by that private entity, is their concern entirely. When we move into the public arena I believe the rules change.

I grant you that within the standards document it is stated that the goal is to receive data at a minimum 500ft accuracy level (absolute or relative?). There are no requirements for demonstrating how any of the available accuracy levels were achieved (NSSDA?).

A review of the standards document also shows multiple classifications under the "data quality code" which provides levels of:

Operator's estimate of the positional accuracy of the submitted facility data. E=excellent: within 50 feet, V=very good: 50–300 feet, G=good: 301–500 feet, P=poor: 501–1000 feet, U=Unknown.

Additionally here is the general statement within the standards document:

4.1 General Requirements for Digital Geospatial Data
The following discusses various requirements and formats that operators should meet when submitting digital geospatial data.
1. Use a real world coordinate system based on North American Datum (NAD) 1983 or NAD 1927. The Repository accepts unprojected data in decimal degrees and data that employs a common projection scheme such as Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) or State Plane. Projected data may employ either English (feet) or metric (meters) measurement units. In all cases, clearly state the datum, coordinate system/ projection, and measurement units in the accompanying metadata.
Note: Digital data that does not employ real world coordinates, such as CAD files that employ an origin point of 0,0 in the lower left hand corner of the drawing cannot be accepted by the Repository.
2. Provide spatially accurate data. NPMS strives for minimum accuracy of ±500 feet. Base maps or other source materials used to develop digital geospatial data submissions should have a scale between 1:24,000 (1" = 2,000’) and 1:1,200 (1" = 100'). The spatial accuracy of the digital submission should be clearly stated in the accompanying metadata.
3. Always submit pipeline systems (lines) and LNG facilities (points) in separate files.
4. Submit only qualifying pipeline and LNG facility data. The submitted digital file should contain only pipeline segments representing natural gas transmission lines, hazardous liquid trunklines, and points representing LNG facilities. Separate all other data such as gathering lines, spur lines, valves, and base map data such as buildings, roads, property lines, political boundaries, scanned images, etc.
Note: Curves should be represented by a pipeline segment with as many vertices/shape points as is required to provide the appropriate cartographic appearance. CAD system arcs should be avoided.
5. Ensure that the reproduction and submission of any map or data does not violate existing copyright laws.
6. Review data for quality. Common problems include:
a. overshoots and undershoots at pipeline intersections,
b. stray points and lines that do not represent a pipeline or LNG facilities, often left from deleting non-NPMS data, and/or
c. duplicate points and lines.
7. Use commonly accepted digital media. The Repository accepts CD-ROMs, diskettes, zip disks, and Internet transmissions. Check the NPMS Web site for details.
24 Standards for Pipeline, LNG, and Breakout Tank Farm Operator Submissions U.S. DOT – 2003

[Jim Frame]

I agree that the NPMS will affect the public welfare, but disagree that the data being sought to populate it are of a critical nature. The apparent intended use of this particular GIS is infrastructure management and disaster response planning on a rather course scale, as indicated by the 500-foot positional tolerance specification. This sort of accuracy is relatively easy for a competent lay person -- the typical end-user of the data -- to validate by readily available means (aerial photography, street mapping, vehicle-borne GPS, etc.), which argues against requiring that it be gathered and compiled under the direction of a licensed land surveyor.

Your points about quality control, data certification and potential misuse by downstream users are well taken, but they seem to go beyond the NPMS project as it exists.

Last time I checked, there was an ongoing attempt at the national level to delineate the boundary between GIS data gathering and land surveying. I am not conversant in the fine points of the subject, but suspect that it will be quite some time before anything approaching consensus is reached. I do know that attempting to stretch existing regulations to cover situations that were not considered prior to promulgation can produce unfortunate results. Remember the police accident surveys fiasco?