Talk:Surveying/Archive 1

Old surveys

This page says little about the problems involved with reconciling older, inaccurate surveys and established property lines (fences) with modern measuring techniques. This "art & science" aspect, and the associated legal aspects, are relevant to most property owners, and deserve treatment by someone more knowledgable than myself.

This page needs some work. First to separate the science/profession from the person/professional, then to add a bit more substance to each. Please try to add information without too much reference to local jargon/terminology.--Mikeh 04:01, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Modern surveying query

surveying is nothing but general imagination

job

I am not a surveyor and so don't really have the knowledge to change this page myself but in the "Modern Surveying" section, shouldn't there be mention of the Automoatic level, which I often see used on building sites. Also, should there be mention of the angle determination capability of the total station?--Commander Keane 09:57, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Surveyor Comment

The list of types of surveys doesn't mention Construction Stakeout at all, that is the one VERY COMMON ommission from the list. I am not sure what can be done about the local jargon, since surveyors do use different terms in different regions and different nations. Since Construction is linked to this page, IT should have links to Surveying/Surveyor.--Davesjourneys 16:31, 23 April 2005 what is survey

20mm? Surely you jest!

Shouldn't the measure say 2m or 20m? 20mm is 2 centimetres or a bit under an inch. I shouldn't mind this high a degree of accuracy!

I agree that with one GPS unit, you will be lucky to get 2 m accuracy. However, if you have two recievers the situation can be different. If you place one reviever over a known postion (a bench mark), and then place the other reciever over the unknown postion, you can take the difference between the recordings to get the absolute distance, probably to about the 20 mm accuracy that is quoted. This is because both signals undergo the same (or very similar) distortion through the atmosphere (or very similar at least). Maybe the article needs to clarify this.--Commander Keane 14:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

A single dual frequency survey grade GPS unit, with over four hours occupation time on a point, can routinely get down to the 5mm range if the RINEX files are post processed with the final computed orbits instead of the broadcast orbits. NGS (part of NOAA) offers the post processing for free (a free government service). The NGS site has details (NSG.NOAA.GOV) [The service is OPUS.] Nahaj 03:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Famous Surveyors

Hmm... Many of them I've not heard of, and can't find by "[name given] surveyor" search in major search engines. I suspect a number of vanity items being inserted. Nahaj 22:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Well there was Lewis and Clark, who were the first surveyors in America...at least that's what my surveying boss said. --Oliver Brody 15:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I do believe George Washington Should be added to this list! He did many, many surveys. Three out of the 4 faces you see carved onto Mt. Rushmore were surveyors for a period of time in their lives. Abraham Lincoln was working as a surveyor when he was elected to the Illinois legislature.Thomas Jefferson was the county surveyor of Albemarle County, Virginia. Roosevelt was never a surveyor. Tony Shaffer- West Virginia surveyor.

All three that you mention are already listed. The list is sorted alphabetically by last name.--Mooksas (talk) 23:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Major cleaning required

This article is EXTREMELY US based, and does need major cleaning. I'm going to attempt to universalize this article, and make sure that its not biased towards one legal system. And yes, I do have a expert source that I will get my information from - am Australian consulting surveyor that I work for.

I'm also going to be re-doing the famous surveyors list - I don't think Walt Disney who did "subdivision lot plans" can really be classed as a surveyor. I'll include commented references were possible ----glasnt^<3 02:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Dag Nordberg is a famous norwegian surveyor.

This is still really biased percpective, presenting a view of US surveying .I'd be interested in seeing the changes mentioned above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.57.8.11 (talk) 05:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Please merge from Land surveyor

Land surveyor is only one paragraph, overlapping much of this article. I don't feel qualified to judge how much of that article should be added, or how much should replace text in this article. If there is no response here within a few weeks, I will just add the paragraph to this article as a new section and tag it for cleanup. Chris the speller 16:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I merged the article Land surveyor into a new section here, Land surveyor. Much of it overlaps material that was already in this article, so it should be cleaned up, mostly by trimming. Good luck! Chris the speller 01:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm A Land Surveyor

Ok guys well I am a Land Surveyor and I agree that Land Surveying should be mereged with Surveying as a whole. While Land or Cadastral Surveying is the most prevelent of all types of surveying too much of the material overlaps and the Surveying article is much more complete and accurate. I have made some changes and additions in the article. I agree with previous discussions that the article is very US based, I however have little or no knowledge of modern surveying practices and techniques outside the US. I will attempt to regularly check in and correct any information pertaining to US methods and techniques and I will leave it up to other contributors to expand the article from and international standpoint —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cbrek04 (talk • contribs) 05:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

Building Surveying

I added a "Building Surveying" section dealing specifically with what building surveying is as when I searched "building surveying" it redirects to the Surveying section but there was previously no information on the subject. However, I noticed that Quantity Surveying and Land Surveying have their own dedicated pages, I'm not sure if Building Surveying should also... (The Beer Baron 22:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC))

You apparently did not look very hard at the Land Surveying article. It is a redirect back to this article. Chris the speller 23:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

That should have read "Land surveyor" and not "Land Surveying". My mistake. (The Beer Baron 09:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC))

Then you might have noticed the mergeto and mergefrom tags at the top of the two articles. Land surveyor will probably cease to exist sometime later today. Chris the speller 14:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Tunnel Surveying

I would like to read a bit about techniques surveying tunnels in this article. For long tunnels the surveyors operates with an accuracy of 1 mm per 100 meters, inside a mountain!

Types of Surveys & Applicability

Removed the following note from section Types of Surveys & Applicability, not relevant: NOTE: The willful destruction and or removal of above said monuments is illegal in the United States. These acts will always result in fining and rarely, but sometimes, in jailtime. 87.109.22.50 17:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Land Surveyors as a Brotherhood

First, let me say that everyone has an opinion about land surveyors and land surveying; especially land surveyors themselves. We tend to forget that we ALL do the same thing for a living; albeit, the methods differ depending upon where on this planet we practice our profession. For the moment, lets forget about classifying the types of surveys we can perform for they are too numerous to mention and surely go by different names. The term "Land Surveying" is not exclusive. It includes any precision angle or distance measurement taken with the purpose of defining an object's location relative to space, meridian, range, township, section, quadrant, boundary, etc. and preparing a plat for the record. (This is a generality and, yes, there are those that would seek to expand upon it, but for the sake of brevity, we proceed). It is imperative that we present ourselves as a united group in an honorable profession rather than allow ourselves to become a bunch of cry babies who snipe and complain about all the things that are wrong in what we do. Sure, there are those of us who prefer to take the high road and those who prefer to travel the valley. Every project or job is different and demands specific tasks to complete, BUT, remember the reason why we became licensed surveyors: TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC. You protect the property rights of your client as well as his neighbor. The bottom line is that the job is performed to the BEST of your ability based on a preponderance of the evidence gathered from your available resources. Yes, there is a profit margin to consider when pricing the work to be performed but price should never determine the quality of the work. No matter from where we hail, we are brothers who practice in the same profession. Let us be mindful of this fact and treat each other with the respect we expect others to extend to us. We may not always agree with another's decision about a call or finding, but, be respectful of that call or finding in lieu of presenting evidence to the contrary. That is how professionals conduct themselves! 68.82.11.216 17:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)REW

GPS/Total Station relation to earlier methods

"As well GPS systems do not work in areas with dense tree cover. It is because of this that total stations have not completely phased out earlier instruments."

I don't how these relate to each other. The earlier instruments are still in use, because sometimes they are all that's needed. There's no point in buying €30 000 total station, if you can do what's required with, say €500 level. --Kermi 18:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Quantity Surveying?

I think quantity surveying should be removed. This isn't surveying at all, but estimating and project management. I think we can safely say that if nothing is being mapped or located, it is not surveying, and has no place in this article

-- 216.57.220.248 (talk) 19:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed Topcon biased manufacturer section

the truth is i really want to just remove the whole section, but for a more subtle and minor edit i decided to just remove all the Topcon product garbage, and revert that section to Timaar31's first edit, keeping the manufacturer list to Topcon, Nikon, Sokkia, Leica. Anyone who wants to add to that list is welcomed. Finally, i highly disagree with Timaar31's inclusion on product description for Topcon... hence, my edit. that's all. 61.231.10.17 (talk) 09:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

and then self righteous User:Neurolysis goes and reverts the edit... suit yourselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.231.10.17 (talk) 09:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC) resolved. 61.228.240.210 (talk) 15:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I felt that entire section seems out of place for an article about surveying and not surveying equipment. While a list of surveying manufacturers might have been some what related, that section seems more like product description that is very out of place. Perhaps it would be better in an article about surveying equipment. I would think the entire section would be better off gone (at least from this page). What do you guys think? 68.231.215.218 (talk) 09:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I also think the whole section should be removed. I don't see what it adds to the article. It's also misleading as there are surely many more companies than those listed that manufacture equipment used in surveying.--Mooksas (talk) 00:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It's been 4 days, so I'm going to delete the section as that seems to be the consensus opinion and nobody has offered any justification for it's inclusion.--Mooksas (talk) 23:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

"Basis of Bearing" or "Basis of Bearings"?

Which of these two phrases is correct? In my mind, it should be "Basis of Bearings" - as in: "The Basis of the Bearings shown hereon". To state the singular one would say: "Bearing Basis" - as in: "The Bearing upon which the following bearings are based." Any thoughts? Thanks, Jamie L.^talk 18:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The Art of Surveying

Is this section helpful? I have, before, seen surveying defined as a science and an art, but I never really bought in to the art portion. Perhaps that was added to assuage the sensitivities of people who feared that science was perceived as a sterile discipline. The stated rationale for calling it an art here seems to be that surveying can be difficult and require judgment. So that makes it art? I would favor deleting the section. Does anyone care to defend it?--Geometricks (talk) 17:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Suppose a surveyor hears two conflicting stories from people in the neighborhood about where a boundary lies, and the other evidence is equally divided between the two possible locations. The surveyor makes a judgement about which story is more credible, and places monuments accordingly. Is deciding who is more credible really a science? Maybe someday, but not yet. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 17:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not find that argument compelling. Surveyors sometimes have to make subjective decisions. Ergo, they are artists? No matter. I promised myself that if even a single contributor defended the art section, then I would leave it alone. Now I can go to work on an NEA grant.--Geometricks (talk) 14:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Surveying is primarily an ART. Of course it's something of a science, and a set of techniques, but there is quite a bit of latitude in how a surveyor can accomplish his ambiguity (measurement) using arbitrary abstractions like the meter (a pure circularity). This makes the whole enterprise a construct of convenience, and its practice an art form.

Surveyor as an elected official

Many counties have an elected office of surveyor. I feel this deserves some mention under Surveying#Surveying as a career, (especially since many county articles enumerating elected officials link here). A description of the surveyor's duties for Salt Lake County is here. Does anyone know of a more general reference discussin the office or of statistics of how often it is an elected vs. appointed position. -- Kirk Hilliard (talk) 02:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for info re: surveying

Hi - I'm a non-informed generic member of the Public curious about surveying... specifically, how the issue of vertical variations affect the definition of acre/hectare/etc or whatever is being surveyed... perhaps a section or paragraph or sentence to explain if all surveyed dimensions are expressed as linear distances along the ground or as projections onto the non-perfect surface... e.g. a square kilometer in the Himalayas vs. in Iowa. Not sure if it's the best article for this subject, but seems like a basic issue of land surveying that needs some light shed on it somewhere... thanks! 63.226.223.79 (talk) 03:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

There are three issues. The more obvious one is that surveyors almost always make horizontal measurements. If this is not convenient, they will make a measurement along a slope, measure the vertical angle, and use trigonometry to find the equivalent horizontal distance. Areas will be reported as the area of a figure that lies in a horizontal plane.

A second issue is that if the survey covers a large area, the direction of the force of gravity changes by measurable amounts, so the methods of Geodesy must be used.

A third issue is that if you project a horizontal figure on the surface of the earth toward the center of the earth, it becomes smaller and smaller, until finally, at the center of the earth, it becomes a point. In some cases, surveyors just ignore this effect. But there are standard grid systems used by surveyors, such as state plane coordinate systems. These systems typically project shapes to sea level. If the measurements are made at a high elevation, there may be a measurable difference between the raw measurements on the ground compared to the distances projected onto a state plane coordinate system. --Jc3s5h (talk) 03:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Building surveying

I just deleted a few sentences that seemed to be country-specific that didn't indicate the country. My only objection is that the country wasn't indicated. Maurreen (talk) 07:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Question on terminology

For starters, I am not a surveyor. I have however worked with many in North Amaerica over the last 22yrs. The question I have is on the term "sweeding", as in "sweeding in a line"(not clear on the spelling of this so please forgive me). I know what it is, I have done it. I know that with todays resources things of this nature should not be condoned for major or commercial projects, but does still happen on small private jobs.

Where did this term come from? I learned it many years ago from an old dirt hand that was teaching me the earth moving business.

I am from the mid-west, but have heard this term used may times and many places in North America, but still run into many that have never heard of the phrase, or why it is used. Any help on the history here would be appreciated.

Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.90.31.2 (talk) 12:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Survey Gear

That picture from the German Federal Archives is I do not believe a piece of surveying equipment....--Oracleofottawa (talk) 02:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Underground surveying

Hi. I was surprised to find nothing on the main Surveying article page on underground surveying generally, including cave surveying, Mine surveying, or automated-underground surveying equipment or techniques. I found the two articles linked above (Mine surveying is a redlink) but am wondering if there exist any other Wikipedia articles on the subject. Am I looking in the wrong place? Either way, it seems to me that the addition of a section on underground surveying to this article might be warranted. What do other editors think? Cheers. N2e (talk) 18:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

"Senior Evidence - Priority #1" section

I'm strongly of the opinion that the aforementioned section was inserted by someone speaking from personal experience, and the section contains few (if indeed any) references.

There were numerous spelling mistakes and syntax errors, typical of one writing from the mind and not from a physical reference point; there was a blatant self-promotion tagged onto the end (see records; to paraphrase, "search for 'name' for more information"); on several occasions the writer used the phrase "most all", from experience a synonym for "mostly I've seen it happen like this: ..."; and multiple other clues suggest that this was not authored primarily to get information across, but as a personal ego booster.

I have thus cleaned up some of it, replacing or removing clumsy phrases while hopefully retaining the intended meaning, and entirely erased the parts that were a) purely anecdotal or b) purely personal advertising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.145.162 (talk) 10:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It could be, but I don't know enough about the subject to tell. But one can say that not a whit of that section is verifiable, which is core policy for something appearing in Wikipedia. So to me, the solution is simple: either it receives verifiable, reliable secondary source citations for the substantial claims, or any editor can remove the material after a reasonable bit of time has passed with the citation requested.

I've kicked off the process and requested citations. In a month or six weeks we should know whether any editor wishes these claims to remain in the encyclopedia. Cheers. N2e (talk) 01:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Misuse of sources

This article has been edited by a user who is known to have misused sources to unduly promote certain views (see WP:Jagged 85 cleanup). Examination of the sources used by this editor often reveals that the sources have been selectively interpreted or blatantly misrepresented, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent.

Please help by viewing the entry for this article shown at the page, and check the edits to ensure that any claims are valid, and that any references do in fact verify what is claimed.

I searched the page history, and found 7 edits by Jagged 85 (for example, see this edits). Tobby72 (talk) 20:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Edits

I have chosen this article for a project for my technical writing class that I am currently enrolled in at the New Jersey Institute of Technology. I planned to revise some of the items in the Land surveyor section, specifically some of the paragraphs that have the tag citation needed. I have reviewed some of my textbooks and found that I could not only provide a citation to these paragraphs but also I could expand some of them in detail. If anyone has any objections or questions as to my sources please add a comment and feel free to see my profile page for a more in-depth review of my proposed changes. Meb23-NJITWILL (talk) 00:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Level gun?

Is this a common term? I am familiar with Dumpy and laser levels, theodolites, spirit levels, sextants, but never heard of a level gun. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Local Attraction

In the absence of available sources, it doesn't appear that Local Attraction is significant enough for a separate article Flat Out let's discuss it 06:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose: delete Local Attraction if it's insignificant; don't merge junk in here. Fgnievinski (talk) 14:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I am told that Local Attraction is another term for Magnetic deviation so happy to redirect. Any other thoughts? Flat Out let's discuss it 03:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, indeed; I've tagged Local Attraction for merger accoringly. And I've also found compass surveying, so I've removed the tag from the present generic land surveying article. Fgnievinski (talk) 21:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Re: Proposed split, 2014

I don't necessarily agree with the split proposal; I'd prefer the main article to remain as just surveying, focusing on the science of spatial measurement. A sub-article on construction surveying is fine by me, I definitely agree that the section headed 'building surveying#profession' had to change, it was only relevant to an undefined but relatively small part of the world.

Finally, I'm dubious on the paragraph currently in construction surveying headed 'Distinction from land surveyors'; That only applies to the section 'Building surveying' and not to the rest of the information in constrution surveying. Site surveys and marking out the location of proposed construction are most definitely a form of land surveying and would be performed by either by someone recognised as a general land surveyor or by the constructors themselves in most of the world.

TBP25 (talk) 12:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The intent with the split proposal is exactly so that Surveying can focus on the cross-cutting aspects of "science of spatial measurement". There's already separate articles for hydrographic surveying and construction surveying, cadastral surveying, etc. Fgnievinski (talk) 15:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I made a mistake when I commented the other night - I didn't notice the second split notice partway down the page. That could certainly be split off, I believe it describes Cadastral surveying rather than land surveying as a whole, at least as I know the terms. (I believe that Cadastral surveying is a worldwide term, but perhaps I should do more research.) :) TBP25 (talk) 07:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Overall Organization Suggestions

Wow this topic is poorly explained and poorly organized. Consider rating it a D. Please move all historic methods and pictures to the "History" section. 80% of the article is on out-dated methods. In my opinion, "Modern Surveying" should talk only about current surveying methods. Perhaps the heading "Modern Surveying" should be changed to "Pre-Modern Surveying" or "Renaissance Era Surveying". Majermike (talk) 02:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)