MAPPS Reaches out to MO State Senator Regarding New Bill Making GIS for Surveyors Only

MAPPS Reaches out to MO State Senator Regarding New Bill Making GIS for Surveyors Only

About Directions

Special Announcement

Newsletter Sign Up

Calendar

Syndicate This Blog

RSS 0.91 feed

RSS 1.0 feed

RSS 2.0 feed

Top Referers

georezo.net (166)
planetgs.com (63)
www.thegisforum.com (43)
www.bloglines.com (25)
bit.ly (23)

Our Points

Saturday, March 14. 2009

February '10

The Missouri State Senator (this is a state issue, not a federal one) is Brad Lager; he wrote SB 384 (pdf), "AN ACT
To repeal section 327.272, RSMo, and to enact in lieu thereof two new sections relating to geographical information systems."

Here's the Bill Summary, from the Senate website:

SB 384 - This act requires the Office of the Land Surveyor in the Department of Natural Resources to promulgate rules and regulations establishing minimum standards for GIS cadastral parcel mapping. Any map designed and used to reflect legal property descriptions or boundaries for use in a GIS system shall comply with such rules.

The practice of land surveying shall include working with positions of the United States Public Land Survey System and creating, preparing, or modifying computerized data, including land information systems and geographic information systems.

MAPPS contacted the State Senator on Friday by letter (pdf) to suggest its concern about the bill and to work with him to "correct its defects."

The letter details how MAPPS has no issue with surveyors conducting boundary or cadastral surveys, but is concerned that the bill will restrict use of GIS to surveyors. That, the argument continues, will mean job losses in Missouri. Further, the law as written is inconsistent with the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES) Model Law which grants "grandfathering" to existing GIS practioners, so they need not collect surveyors credentials. The letter wraps up by noting that no outreach was done to stakeholders related to the bill and that the bill would put Missouri surveyors under the auspices of two different state agencies: The Office of the Land Surveyor and the Missouri Board for Architects, Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors and Landscape Architects.

Posted by Adena Schutzberg in Surveying at 11:51 | Comments (10) | Trackbacks (0) |

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

As worded, that bill would make it illegal for a homeowner in Missouri to use my $49 software to look up his property by its PLSS description and mark it on the map. The mere act of working with PLSS and creating computerized data doesn't constitute land surveying - there are plenty of reasons to use PLSS outside of establishing legal boundaries. Landowners have a right to locate their boundary markers - I've talked to plenty of people who have used PLSS-to-GPS tools like mine to get them close enough with GPS, and then a 5-minute search locates the existing iron pipe.

Let's hope the final MO bill includes a more rigorous definition of what actually constitutes the act of land surveying.

#1 Dan Foster (Link) on 2009-03-16 09:01 (Reply)

This bill is a farce. I have been assured that it will not affect GIS and has nothing to do with GIS, yet its in its title and body. Sounds like someone has close friends in the survey business.

#2 Anonymous on 2009-03-16 12:09 (Reply)

Is Senator Lager related to that assemblyman in San Diego who wanted to blur out "targets" in Google Earth? Same type of geo-ignorance and shortsighted thinking.....and yes, there must be a surveyor brother-in-law in there somewhere.

#2.1 GIS_rocks on 2009-03-20 11:33 (Reply)

This bill defines cadastral parcel mapping as an accurately delineated identification of all real property parcels. When, in fact, the cadastral maps used in the Assessors office are merely a representation of the property description and are intended for tax purposes only. While map making standards are important, it is also important to take into account the main function that the cadastral maps are to be used for.

#3 Anonymous on 2009-03-17 12:52 (Reply)

I'm all for surveyors staying employed. However, if this does pass, the resulting bottleneck while the LS folks try to maintain "quality" will severely impair property development and government functions.

Corrective legislation will soon follow to quickly repeal this repeal.

#4 Also Anonymous on 2009-03-20 12:56 (Reply)

It may be possible to avoid unwarranted controversy simply by adding some language that clearly makes a distinction between boundary lines shown on maps (whether paper maps or GIS databases) as the authoritative definition of their location, versus boundary lines represented on maps for any other purpose. The former should be created and maintained under the supervision of a licensed surveyor, while the later need not.

For example, a land parcel's boundary lines shown on an assessor's tax map or a planning department's zoning map represent the boundary but they do not define its location. The same boundary lines shown on a recorded survey, subdivision plat, or described in a deed, would be the official, or authoritative, definition of that line's location. The distinction requiring surveyor licensure really is in the purpose to which the map will be used: whether it is used to represent or illustrate the boundary, or used to define the boundary.

Accordingly, a few small changes to SB 384 may serve to alleviate possible misinterpretation of the intent of the bill.
1 - page 2, line 19, substitute "representing" for "showing"
2 - page 3, line 43, add "authoritative" before "location"
3 - page 2, paragraph 3, line 35 change "reflect" to "define."
Further, this paragraph concerns any map designed and used to define boundaries, it really makes no difference whether the map is in a GIS system, a GPS system, a CAD system, or ink on paper. Therefore, I suggest they remove "for use in a GIS system" from that paragraph. Who knows what new technology will be used tomorrow? The principle does not depend on the means of representation.

The NCEES Model Rules document presents clear distinctions between creation of use of maps (or GIS) that require surveyor licensure and creation and use of maps that do not. Section 210.25 is the relevant part. Download the Model Rules at http://www.ncees.org/introduction/about_ncees/ncees_model_rules.pdf pages 2 - 4, Sec.210.25 Inclusions and Exclusions of Surveying Practice

#5 Bruce Joffe (Link) on 2009-03-20 16:30 (Reply)

This homepage link is corrected.

#6 Bruce Joffe (Link) on 2009-03-20 16:36 (Reply)

I'm sure Senator Lager's intentions are honorable. However, anyone "in-the-know" regarding the forces behind this legislation, is aware it's a blatent attempt by a specific surveying firm to corner the GIS market in the state.

#7 anonymous on 2009-03-23 14:21 (Reply)

I've participated in this debate in two different states over twenty year period and to say that this issue doesn't tick me off is an understatement. The small percentage of the Surveyor industry that intend on capturing work outside of what is traditional is based upon selfish, greedy and or ignorant motives.

One should contend that you can't protect the general public from sticking a screwdriver in there eye. In other words, you can’t legislate stupidity.

Data developed and maintained in a GIS system if well documented should site the intended use and developmental history of the information contained in said system. When this practice if followed, there should never be a question as to the suitability of use by the conscientious user. Such laws if they are enacted have proven to damage many industries in the process i.e. Florida.

Surveying is considered only one of nine skill sets utilized in the development and maintenance of an enterprise level GIS. With over twenty years in the industry, one begins to realize that this whole "put a surveyor in charge" of GIS is nothing short of insane and is part of a major epidemic to line their pockets or simply out of a misinformed fear of loosing work.

My degree in GIS is in fact a degree in “information technology” which covers the vast majority of what it takes to design and manage a functional GIS. Most (but not all) Surveyors are not qualified to manage an IT system much less one of such obvious complexity. To say that because they have one of the nine skill sets required to perform this function and that is enough to justify supervisory control is a lame argument that can only be sold to the uninformed or dishonest bureaucrat.

#8 Brian Brady (Link) on 2009-04-02 13:35 (Reply)

To say you understand the issue is an overstatement. Land Surveyors do not want to take over GIS. There is one particular layer, the cadastral layer, that only a land surveyor can truly understand. This is the only layer land surveyors would like to see some standards. I do not think it is to much to ask that if a GIS firm is handed a coordinate file of the Public Land Survey System corners that the coordinates are used to map the PLSS, or cadastral, layer.
The cadaster is the foundation of a GIS. Without a well located cadaster nothing else will fit. We have all seen the county maps were nothing lines up from one map to the next. The county is divided into little segments and a PLSS corner that touches four maps has four different coordinates. This is the only issue in which land surveyors are interested. Each and every PLSS corner in Missouri has only one location. If the various GIS coverages of the various counties were all on the same coordinate system then a seamless map could exist Though this is down the road aways, should it not be a goal of the land survey and GIS industries?
Surveying is not a skill set utilized in the development and maintenance of a GIS, though I'm not familiar with the term "enterprise level GIS". Does an "enterprise level GIS" demand the services of a Professional Land Surveyor when determining the location of the cadaster and the property lines?
Believe me, a poorly done GIS with the PLSS rubber sheeted to match USGS quads or some equally poor model of the cadaster, has never lost the land surveyor a project. The opposite is closer to the truth. Many landowners who never thought they had a problem, take a look at the new "tax map" only to find the section line does not run up the center of the road as they thought, now it looks like their neighbor's fence is encroaching 20 feet (and this is a minor infraction to some that have been heard). This is not a service to the citizens of Missouri. Land surveyors spend more time explaining and trivializing these small discrepancies than is ever spent making sure they do not exist.
Most, but not all, surveyors are not qualified to manage an IT system. Most, but not all, surveyors do not want to manage an IT system. Most, but not all, surveyors want a cadastral layer that mimics the original government surveys, that are by statute and centuries of common law, unchangeable. Most, but not all, surveyors want the subsequent surveys incorporated into the layer making a seamless cadastral layer.
To sum it up; surveyors do not care what standard is used to locate a manhole, they just want the manhole to land in the easement. If that cannot be understood then perhaps surveyors have a better grasp of what a GIS is, and should be, than those that close their mind and refuse to read and understand a few simple paragraphs. Perhaps surveyors should be in complete charge of GIS - nah, and I'll let it go at that.

#8.1 Darrell Pratte on 2009-04-05 19:33 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. Standard emoticons like :-) and ;-) are converted to images. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above:
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Advertisers

Polls

What's your feeling about commercial organizations that participate in kind or cash support to help in disasters and publicize those efforts?