About Amerisurv| Contact    
Magazine | Newsletter    
Flickr Photos | Advertise    
HomeNewsNewsletterAmerisurv DirectoryJobsStoreAuthorsHistoryArchivesBlogVideosEvents
 
advertisement


Subscriptions
Product Reviews
Software Reviews
Sponsored By

Continuing Series
     RTN
An RTN expert provides everything you need to know about network-corrected real-time GNSS observations.
Click Here to begin the series,
or view the Article PDF's Here
76-PageFlip Compilation
of the entire series
Test Yourself

Got Answers?
Test your knowledge with NCEES-level questions.
  Start HERE
Meet the Authors
Check out our fine lineup of writers. Each an expert in his or her field.
Wow Factor
Sponsored By


Partner Sites

machinecontrolonline 

LiDAR News

symbianone
lbszone.com

GISuser.com

GeoJobs.biz

GeoLearn

 

Spatial Media LLC properties

Associates

ASPRS

newsnow 

Home arrow Archives   The American Surveyor     

FeedBack Print E-mail
Written by Letters to the Editor   
Saturday, 09 January 2010

A 318Kb PDF of this article as it appeared in the magazine—complete with images—is available by clicking HERE

Clarification Regarding 2009 Manual
I found the article "Why a Federal Surveying Manual is Relevant to the States," by Steve Hansen intriguing [Sept. 2009]. I interpret the author to mean that the new manual soon to be published (2009) is binding on all recovery, restoration, and retracements of the Public Land Survey regardless of the date of the original establishment. If this is the author's intent, then I would disagree. If I misunderstood the author's intent, then the following might be moot.

In actuality the Manual is only binding on Public Domain (PD) and Tribal Lands, as the BLM has the authority to do whatever they please on these lands. Once land is patented or transferred out of federal ownership, a new set of rules applies. Surveys of patented or transferred land fall under the state purview, so the required use of the Manual only occurs by incorporation in rules, laws, and through published court cases.

Minnesota Statutes Chapter 389.04 "Rules for Surveys" states, ". . . In subdividing townships, sections, or parts of sections, as established by the United States survey thereof, and in restoring lost or obliterated government corners, the county surveyor shall follow the rules established by or pursuant to acts of Congress, and all such surveys shall be made in strict conformity to the original survey made by the United States."

This statute applies to the County Surveyor but, in actuality, Minnesota surveyors generally abide by this rule. The key phrase however is ". . . surveys shall be made in strict conformity to the original survey made by the United States." This statement clearly indicates that the rules to be followed must be those in effect at the time of the original survey­for example, restoring Public Land Survey corners originally established by the BLM in 1955. This action would require the use of the 1947 Manual and any special instructions provided by the Surveyor General to the Deputy Surveyor and the accepted township plat. The restoration pamphlet in circulation at the time would only serve as a guideline to interpret the manual.

As a land surveyor in Minnesota I can survey patented lands up against PD and Tribal Lands, but my surveys are only valid for the patented lands. These surveys have no status against the PD or Tribal Lands unless I am operating under special instruction from the BLM prior to the survey or my survey is subsequently accepted by the BLM.

Respectfully submitted,
Ken Whitehorn
Via the Internet


Hansen Replies
If I gave the impression that it is my belief that the 2009 edition of the Manual of Surveying Instructions is binding on all recovery, restoration, and retracements of the Public Land Survey System (PLSS) regardless of the date of the original establishment, then my article gave the wrong impression. I agree with Mr. Whitehorn that State licensed land surveyors need to perform the necessary research within their own jurisdictions to determine whether the Manual has been incorporated in rules, laws, and through published court cases.

Some states have incorporated the Manual, or portions of it, through appropriate authorities. In certain situations it could be binding within that jurisdiction. For instance, the Manual might be cited in a State's statute laws, administrative laws, attorney general opinions, and State court cases. These competent jurisdictions are what bind the practice of land surveying in Minnesota, not the Manual. Whatever authority the Manual has or does not have in any particular state needs to be determined by investigating the state laws and regulations and then applying the controlling principle to the specific case at hand.

The Minnesota Supreme Court has summed up the relationship of Federal surveying rules and the practice of surveying private land in Chan v. Brandt, 45 Minn. 93 (1890):
The monuments and boundary lines as established by the United States government survey control the description of lands patented by the United States.
Mistakes in the surveys cannot be corrected by the judicial department of the government.
State statutes are inoperative when it comes in conflict with the rules established by acts of congress for subdividing sections.
The rights of parties who purchase according to the government survey cannot be affected by an act of the legislature.

Mr. Whitehorn correctly interprets the limits of Federal authority. U.S. v. Reimann, 504 F.2d 135, 1974 states:
Prior to title passing from the United States, it is undisputed that the Government has the power to survey and resurvey, establish and reestablish boundaries on its own lands.
Once patent has issued, the rights of patentees are fixed and the government has no power to interfere with these rights, as by a corrective resurvey.
The government is bound by the last official survey accepted prior to its divestment of title.

There is a separation between state and federal land surveying and boundary laws. The ownership and jurisdiction of the lands normally determine which law controls. The various states regulate the practice of land surveying within their boundaries, while federal authority surveyors operate under U.S. statutes, regulations, case precedent and the Manual. There are situations where the Manual is relevant to the private surveyor, and situations where it is not.--S.H.

Harping on Corrections
Shawn Billings' review of the Altus APS-3 in the last issue is a very good article. I have a technical suggestion regarding localization. He states that he established control previous to the tests by conventional total station and performed a least-squares adjustment on the results. He also states that since he set the base on a known point, he didn't need to perform a localization. I would maintain that this is exactly a situation in which he would want to perform a localization. Although the differences obtained here may not have been significant for standard use, it is especially important to localize for purposes of testing the GPS. For this test, I would have localized using three horizontal control points (including the base) and one vertical control point with a geoid model. I would have used the remaining points as the check points to gather statistics.

The reason this is true is that there generally will be orientation and scale differences between a conventional survey and a GPS survey. (Depending on how Carlson implemented the localization, scale may be more or less important­if they implemented it the way we did at TDS, and if you were at any significant elevation above sea level. For example, if you were 1,000 feet above the ellipsoid, the scale difference would amount to about 0.14 feet on a 3,000-foot baseline.)

I keep harping on this on one of the online bulletin boards, but the RTK base does not transmit corrections; instead, it transmits its raw carrier data to the rover. I know that some vendors use the term "corrections", but that is either because their English is not so good or because it serves as convenient shorthand. (The rover may transmit corrections in addition to the raw data, but it is the raw data that is used by the rover to compute the baseline. There is research into performing RTK in correction-mode because this mode requires at least an order of magnitude less bandwidth in the radio link, but I don't believe that the precision is quite up to RTK levels.)

I should also state that VRS-type RTNs do use corrections, but these are refinements applied to the normal RTK solution.

Jay Goldfarb
Via the Internet


Billings Replies
I appreciate your comments, Jay, and having read your comments on the bulletin board for quite a while now, recognize your experience and knowledge regarding GPS methodology. Regarding the localization, I'm afraid you pointed out a weakness in my ability to clearly communicate the test area. The control segment was based on a conventional survey mixed with GPS static surveying. The least squares adjustment (from Columbus) reported actual State Plane coordinates. So, my thoughts were that setting the base up on a point with low residuals (or better a fully constrained point) from the adjustment would work fine without a localization. I then collected points with the Altus and compared the collected coordinate values as projected on SPC to the control point coordinate values as projected on SPC.

As to the use of the term "corrections" I agree. I have a few pet peeves like that myself, and while I could no more write the code that processes GPS data than I could build my own Buick, I do understand that the data being sent are the direct observations from the base unit of the phase data from the satellites, and that the RTK rover is what is doing all of the heavy lifting. I will make an effort to be a little more precise in the future on how I communicate that.

I do appreciate you taking the time to read the article and I particularly appreciate you taking the time to write and comment. Feel free to do so in the future (pro or con).--S.B.

Taking a Peak at the Datum
One sentence in particular caught my eye in "Measuring Granite Peak" in the August issue. Barron Parks (a cool name, by the way, for a Rocky Mountain surveyor) and his Billings, Montana survey crew, not to mention Selby's and Angry Hank's Brewery as their sponsors, should be commended for their efforts in validating the published height of Granite Peak using precise GPS surveying methods. We should be thankful to the folks at NGS as well, for providing American surveyors with OPUS as a convenient tool to access both CORS data and the processing software for achieving millimeter accuracies in geodetic positioning.

I took exception to Parks' wording however, when he proffered Curtis Smith's notion that: ". . . gravity really plays with GPS, especially in mountainous terrain." In all fairness to gravity it would be more fitting and proper to turn that statement around. It would be more accurate to say that GPS is the one really playing with gravity.

Gravity is what defines the coordinate origin of WGS 84, which is fixed at the earth's center of mass, and gravity, of course, is also what keeps our GPS satellites in their predictable orbits. In addition, variations in potential of the earth's gravitational field cause the satellite clocks in outer space to tick just a little bit faster than do our control clocks down here on the ground. But other than that, gravity does not play with GPS nor does gravity in any way affect the computation of earth-centered earth-fixed GPS coordinates.

GPS, on the other hand, does play with gravity in the sense that any GPS elevation reading is only as good as the datum to which it is referenced. To secure a true and accurate elevation of Granite Peak, or any other mountain peak for that matter, it is necessary to accurately reference the localized equipotential surface of the geoid as the datum. To complete that mensural task a dual-frequency GPS receiver is of little use. A level is what you need.

So, while the Billings crew has indeed validated 12,807 feet as the true elevation of the peak based on NAVD 88, the fact remains that there exists a local six-foot difference between that datum and the previous NGVD 29, which still leaves open the question of how accurately the new datum conforms to the geoid at Granite Peak, which, of course, also leaves in some doubt the true and accurate elevation of the peak. The only practical way to empirically verify the published height would be to run a few level-loops up to the peak and back. To anyone like me, who has yet to climb Granite Peak, that might sound like a simple enough task to accomplish, but are there any takers?

Douglas Critchfield, LS
Via the Internet


Got some feedback? We always enjoy hearing from our readers. You can contact us via our website at www. theamericansurveyor.com, or send a letter to: The American Surveyor, P.O. Box 4162, Frederick, MD 21705-4162. We reserve the right to edit letters for clarity and length. Due to the variety of titles used by licensed surveyors throughout the U.S., we use the title LS after the name of any registered land surveyor.

A 318Kb PDF of this article as it appeared in the magazine—complete with images—is available by clicking HERE

 
< Prev   Next >

 American Surveyor Recent Articles
Editorial 
Editorial: The Fire Alarm
Based on the reaction to our exposé of an attempt to remove boundary experience from the requirements to sit for a licensing exam, we seem to have struck a nerve. An educator from New Mexico chastised me for allowing the magazine to be "divisive, vilify the efforts of other ....
Read the Article
Wendy Lathrop
Vantage Point: Introducing TMAC-2
One of the closing suggestions of the first Technical Mapping Advisory Council to FEMA (TMAC-1), which convened from 1996 through 2000, was for an ongoing advisory group of technical users, something more permanent than its own five-year statutory span. The recommendations of TMAC-1 ....
Read the Article
Michael J. Pallamary, PS 
The Curt Brown Chronicles: The Future for the Land Surveyor
Curt Brown spent a considerable amount of time and energy in advancing the interests of the profession and, as he astutely noted, notwithstanding the evolution of measuring equipment, the fundamentals components of the profession merit consideration and attention. Then, as now, the future ....
Read the Article
Jason E.
Foose, PS 
The HP 35s Calculator—A Field Surveyor's Companion—Part 5- Inverse to a Line or Perpendicular Offset
This program is comparable to "inverse to line" and "station/offset" routines. The user enters a base point and defines a direction by point or azimuth, then selects a third point for reference. I use this routine frequently ....
Read the Article
Natalie Binder 
Moving London Safely Forward
Paddington Station, ­famous worldwide not only for its creator Isambard Kingdom Brunel, but also for a small marmalade loving bear. Built in 1854, Paddington Station is a fine example of an English Heritage grade 1 listed building and is site to the ....
Read the Article
Smith,
Roman, Youngman 
Recent Activities at the National Geodetic Survey—Part 2 of 4
The Gravity for the Redefinition of the American Vertical Datum (or GRAV-D) project got off the ground, literally, in 2007 when NGS's first airborne gravity flights took place. Today the GRAV-D airplanes continue to fly! With a second airborne gravimeter acquired in December 2011, NGS has been ....
Read the Article
Jerry Penry,
PS 
The Pole of Inaccessibility
The most challenging location to reach due to its remoteness from geographical features is known as a pole of inaccessibility. Generally, this calculated position is furthest from any coastline and would be the location where you would least like to be ....
Read the Article
Larry Trojak 
Use of Total Station Spawns Improvements in Salmon Monitoring Program
Think surveying equipment and it's not likely that an organization working to ensure the survival of the Pacific Northwest's salmon population comes to mind. Yet that is precisely what's ....
Read the Article
Albert “skip” Theberge 
Artillery Surveyors in WWII—Africa & Europe: Part 3: Survey Officers
Lieutenant Colonel Earle Deily, on loan from the USC&GS, was Survey Officer for the V Corps and the 17th Field Artillery Observation Battalion providing survey control to the battalion, training survey teams, and advising the V Corps Artillery Commander. He helped plan for the D-Day invasion and ....
Read the Article
Feedback 
FeedBack
I read with great interest your editorial and comments concerning Chad and Linda Erickson's article on an Idaho initiative to redefine the definition of surveying in Idaho state statutes. I am not familiar with the specifics of what is being proposed and will leave it to others to decide the ....
Read the Article
Bill Chupka,
PS 
100 Years Too Late?
There have been times in my life when I had more than just a foot in the past. Ever feel like you are one of those people who was born a hundred years too late? I remember feeling that way at times when I was young, but I was able to put all those thoughts to rest this summer over the span ....
Read the Article

deliciousrssnewsletterlinkedinfacebooktwitter

Amerisurv Exclusive Online-only Article ticker
Featured Amerisurv Events
List Your Event Here
please
contact Amerisurv


Google
 
AMERISURV TOP NEWS

Topcon Announces
IP-S3 MMS

GOT NEWS? Send To
press [at] amerisurv.com
Online Internet Content

Sponsor


News Feeds

 
Subscribe to Amerisurv news & updates via RSS or get our Feedburn
xml feed

Need Help? See this RSS Tutorial

Historic Maps
Careers

post a job
Reach our audience of Professional land surveyors and Geo-Technology professionals with your GeoJobs career ad. Feel free to contact us if you need additional information.

 

Social Bookmarks

Amerisurv on Facebook 

Amerisurv LinkedIn Group 

Amerisurv Flickr Photos 

Amerisurv videos on YouTube 

twitter

 




The American Surveyor © All rights reserved / Privacy Statement
Spatial Media LLC
905 W 7th St #331
Frederick MD 21701
301-620-0784
301-695-1538 - fax