Questionable Practices in Land Surveying: Observations from 18 Years of Surveyor Community Management
Questionable Practices in Land Surveying: A Call for Modernization
Intuition starts to kick in for a land surveyor after 20 years of surveying. For some, it never kicks in. I'm no expert, but I've been paying attention. As the community curator for Land Surveyors United, I've had the unique opportunity to support and interact with land surveyors for over 17 years. Throughout this time, I’ve seen many practices evolve, while others, even those outdated or inefficient, continue to persist. This article will highlight some questionable practices in land surveying that have been debated within our community. Drawing from a wealth of collective expertise, I’ll provide historical context, explain the reasoning behind these methods, and share real-world examples that illustrate why some of these practices may need to be reconsidered. This is the primary motivation behind building the L.E.A.R.N Program. We'll cover that more in a bit.
The truth is we can gradually eliminate the following scenarios from the profession over time by just casually talking about them, locating the elephant in the room and asking it a few questions. The elephant won't go away unless we acknowledge how much damage it has done.
The following curated scenarios illustrate that questionable practices in surveying often stem from attempts to save time or reduce workload. Yet, in the high-precision field of land surveying, such shortcuts rarely pay off. The impacts resonate beyond the immediate project, influencing reputations, future job prospects, and even entire professional networks. In an industry where meticulous detail and credibility are invaluable, surveyors must remember that every decision today can affect their standing tomorrow. But before we begin, here is a deep dive audio podcast about the subject at hand.
Wrapping Angles
History and Reasoning
Wrapping angles is a technique that dates back to the use of repeating theodolites. The purpose was to distribute potential errors across multiple readings, reducing the impact of human error in manually reading scales. The practice involved carrying the lower scale to the backsight, spreading out errors by making several observations, which was necessary before the advent of modern total stations.
Real-World Example
In a large urban development project, a surveyor was tasked with high-precision work near existing structures. Adhering to outdated municipal standards, they wrapped angles using an electronic total station, simulating the traditional method. This approach led to unnecessary complexity, time delays, and did not significantly improve precision. The delays impacted the project timeline, demonstrating that some traditional methods, though historically effective, may no longer be necessary with today’s technology.
Unadjusted Control
Detailed Explanation and Impact
The practice of leaving control points unadjusted, even when they fall within acceptable survey closure tolerances, is grounded in the idea that minimal discrepancies won’t significantly affect the outcome. Historically, this mindset may have been suitable for less exacting work, like rural land boundary surveys. But in today’s high-stakes projects—like constructing skyscrapers, bridges, or other critical infrastructure—even slight deviations in control can cause cascading problems.
For instance, consider a coastal city high-rise construction project where surveyors set up control points around the site. The initial closure fell within acceptable limits, so the team opted to forgo further adjustments, assuming any errors would remain negligible. Months later, as the building’s steel framework reached higher levels, a secondary survey exposed discrepancies between control points. The building’s vertical alignment was slightly off, leading to issues in connecting pre-fabricated structural elements. These inconsistencies required rework on several floors, delaying the project timeline, increasing labor costs, and wasting materials.
Such a situation doesn’t just impact the current project. The decision not to adjust control points might haunt surveyors on future projects as well. A reputation for unadjusted or “sloppy” control data could lead to mistrust among engineering and construction partners, who may choose more meticulous survey teams for high-stakes work. In a field where accuracy and reliability are paramount, overlooking precision in control can tarnish a surveyor’s career.
Moreover, advanced monitoring technologies used in modern construction (like laser scanning and GPS) have exposed these control-related inconsistencies more readily. Surveyors who rely on outdated or unchecked control methods might find themselves frequently overruled by project managers who demand greater accuracy, potentially losing valuable contracts in competitive markets.
Reading Angles on One Face
Detailed Explanation and Impact
The practice of reading angles on only one face of a theodolite was traditionally discouraged because it could introduce systematic errors—especially if the instrument’s trunnion axis is slightly misaligned. By measuring angles on both the direct and reverse faces, surveyors could cancel out these errors. Today, even with high-tech instruments that claim to minimize such discrepancies, relying solely on one-face readings can still introduce inaccuracies, particularly in uneven or challenging terrain.
Imagine a scenario in which a survey team is working in a rugged mountainous region, aiming to establish precise boundaries for a new resort development. Due to time constraints, they opt to measure angles on only one face. In the steep terrain, even minor angular errors compound quickly. When they finally close the survey, they discover the boundary line has drifted off the intended path, crossing into an adjacent property. The entire boundary needs to be resurveyed and adjusted, resulting in costly delays and potentially legal issues if boundaries overlap improperly.
This decision to save time by reading only one face not only affects the current project but sets a troubling precedent for future surveys. Surveyors who consistently skip double-sided readings might gain a reputation for hasty or imprecise work. This can become particularly problematic in areas like urban planning or environmental conservation, where even small boundary errors can lead to legal disputes, loss of permits, or environmental violations.
Moreover, modern clients are becoming increasingly informed about best surveying practices. Failing to uphold these standards could lead to future clients requesting alternative surveyors, knowing the critical importance of accurate angle readings. Surveyors must remain aware that while time-saving practices may seem appealing, they come at the cost of long-term trust and credibility in the industry.
Radial vs. Gridline Staking
Detailed Explanation and Impact
Gridline staking—staking based on a predefined grid—was historically the go-to method because it allowed for easy verification, alignment, and error reduction. However, with technological advancements, radial staking (staking from a central control point) has become more popular. It’s faster and provides flexibility, which appeals to time-sensitive projects. But gridline staking’s value shouldn’t be underestimated, especially for projects where precise alignment is crucial.
Consider a commercial building project in which a senior surveyor insists on the traditional gridline method for staking the foundation layout. A younger team member, eager to try modern techniques, proposes radial staking to speed things up. After some debate, they proceed with radial staking. While they complete the task faster, issues arise when construction crews start laying the foundation. Certain sections are misaligned because radial staking didn’t provide the redundant checks that gridline staking would have naturally ensured. They have to re-stake sections, leading to increased costs and frustration among crew members.
In the present, this choice might seem efficient. However, in the long term, it impacts surveyors’ approach to future projects, where they might routinely overlook gridline staking’s advantages in favor of expedience. Over time, surveyors who continually bypass gridline staking could gain a reputation for prioritizing speed over precision. This can have lasting implications, particularly in sectors like structural engineering, where tolerance for errors is extremely low.
Moreover, as urban projects and infrastructure become denser and more complex, the absence of gridline staking’s structure can lead to compounding errors across multiple sites, affecting city planning and public infrastructure. Surveyors who maintain the versatility to employ either method as the project demands are often more respected and trusted within the industry. In an era where innovation is essential, respecting traditional practices ensures that foundational skills remain intact, ultimately benefitting both present and future projects.
Refusal to Round a Reading
Detailed Explanation and Impact
Rounding readings in field surveys is a common practice, primarily used to maintain efficiency without significantly sacrificing precision. However, an outright refusal to round can slow fieldwork considerably, resulting in an inefficient workflow that ultimately offers minimal benefit. In scenarios where rounding would have little effect on overall accuracy, stubbornly avoiding it can lead to disputes, delays, and diminished team morale.
For example, in a highway survey, one team member persistently refused to round rod readings, insisting that absolute precision was necessary. This insistence led to repeated checks, prolonged debates, and frequent recalculations. By the end of the day, the survey team had fallen behind schedule, jeopardizing the project timeline. While accuracy is paramount in surveying, the refusal to round minor readings in cases where it wouldn’t significantly affect the outcome only hinders progress.
In the long term, such a practice could damage a surveyor’s professional relationships and reputation. Clients and teams expect efficiency alongside precision, and surveyors who refuse reasonable rounding may be seen as inflexible or difficult to work with. This can lead to reduced job opportunities and lower team morale, as constant re-measurements and debates disrupt the flow of work. Surveyors must find a balance between efficiency and precision, recognizing that some level of rounding can often be acceptable in the pursuit of practical fieldwork.
EDM vs. Chaining
Detailed Explanation and Impact
Chaining was once a go-to technique for measuring short distances accurately, especially in ideal environmental conditions. However, the advent of Electronic Distance Measurement (EDM) has revolutionized the field, allowing for faster, more accurate readings even in challenging terrains. Despite this, some surveyors still favor chaining, particularly in familiar environments, where they may feel comfortable with traditional tools and methods.
Imagine a rural survey in uneven terrain where a team initially used chaining, as dictated by their firm’s guidelines. As they worked through obstacles like rocks and varying environmental conditions, they began noticing small discrepancies in their measurements. Switching to EDM midway significantly improved their results, demonstrating that the modern technology was better suited to the uneven conditions, ensuring both efficiency and accuracy.
While chaining has its uses, especially for short, straightforward measurements, clinging to this traditional method in complex terrains introduces unnecessary inaccuracies. The preference for chaining over EDM may limit a surveyor’s adaptability in future projects where difficult terrain or extensive measurements require greater precision. Clients and project managers increasingly expect surveyors to leverage modern technology to enhance productivity and accuracy; surveyors who avoid EDM in favor of chaining might find themselves overlooked for larger, more complex projects that demand this versatility.
Divining Rods as Locators
Detailed Explanation and Impact
Divining rods, or dowsing rods, have a long and storied history, once believed to detect underground water or minerals. Although this method lacks scientific support, some contractors or traditionalists still attempt to use them in modern surveying. This reliance on outdated, pseudoscientific methods can pose serious risks, as it introduces an element of chance rather than precision into fieldwork.
In a water management project, for example, an older contractor insisted on using divining rods to locate underground pipes, despite the survey team’s suggestion to use ground-penetrating radar (GPR). While GPR accurately identified the pipes’ locations, the divining rods yielded inconsistent and unreliable results. The survey had to be repeated using GPR, highlighting the importance of abandoning pseudoscientific methods in favor of proven technology.
Using divining rods in modern surveying can severely undermine a surveyor’s credibility, as it signals a refusal to adopt scientifically sound practices. Relying on folklore rather than technology erodes trust with clients and risks professional integrity. In the long run, surveyors who indulge in such methods may be excluded from professional circles or advanced projects that demand strict accuracy and the use of reputable tools. To maintain credibility, surveyors must distance themselves from outdated practices and embrace the advancements in detection technology.
Point-On-Line
Detailed Explanation and Impact
The point-on-line technique has been widely used in surveying to help navigate around obstacles while keeping alignment with control points. This approach is effective when used sparingly, but overuse can lead to cumulative angular errors, especially over extended distances or in dense terrains like forests. It’s a practice that can easily spiral out of control, introducing compounding inaccuracies across a large area.
Consider a team conducting a boundary survey in a heavily forested area, where they frequently use the point-on-line method to skirt around trees and other obstacles. Over time, however, this repeated use of point-on-line caused angular errors to accumulate, leading to boundary discrepancies that became evident only during verification. The survey had to be repeated, adding time and cost to the project and demonstrating the risks of relying too heavily on this technique.
In the future, surveyors who habitually overuse point-on-line risk compromising their projects, especially as control data is often scrutinized during construction or legal proceedings. This method should be a tool of necessity, not convenience, and surveyors who rely on it too often may inadvertently damage their reputation for precision. In competitive projects, surveyors who can demonstrate precise, minimal-error methods are highly valued, whereas those who frequently fall back on point-on-line risk being overlooked for projects where uncompromising accuracy is essential.
Conclusion: A Call for Continuous Learning and Adaptation
In surveying, the choice to resist or adopt certain practices doesn’t just impact the immediate project; it influences a surveyor’s reputation, client trust, and long-term viability in the industry. Embracing balance, respecting modern tools, and recognizing the limitations of traditional methods ensures that surveyors can maintain both accuracy and efficiency in a field where both are critical to professional success.
Learn how the L.E.A.R.N Surveying Program—a collaboration between Land Surveyors United and NSPS—empowers surveyors to share their expertise, earn PDH credits, and receive royalties by creating educational courses for the next generation of professionals.
Encouraging best practices across the surveying community ensures that surveyors approach challenges with a blend of historical knowledge and modern adaptability, equipped to meet the demands of both present and future projects with precision and confidence.
Â