Tackling the Geomatics - Surveying Gap

By Curt Sumner, American Congress on Surveying and Mapping (ACSM)

I recently read an article entitled, Bridging the gap between geomatics and surveying, and my inference from this was that there must be those who perceive geomatics and surveying to be two completely separate endeavors that somehow must be unified.

“There really isn't a gap between surveying and geomatics, but rather there is a lack of understanding for how the two are intertwined”
-Curt Sumner

In reviewing the US Infrastructure website to choose from the topics to be discussed in the April issue, I found a topic labeled, “Bridging the gap between geomatics and surveying”. My inference from this was that there are those who perceive geomatics and surveying to be two completely separate endeavors that somehow must be unified.

Perhaps a good place to begin is by exploring definitions. One of the more precise definitions of geomatics comes from the Department of Surveying and Spatial Information Science at the University of Tasmania.

It states, “The science of Geomatics is concerned with the measurement, representation, analysis, management, retrieval and display of spatial information describing both the Earth's physical features and the built environment. Geomatics includes disciplines such as: Surveying, Geodesy, Remote Sensing & Photogrammetry, Cartography, Geographic Information Systems, and Global Positioning Systems.”

In addition to including the word “surveying”, this definition encompasses several disciplines, the activities of which have been carried out by surveyors since long before the tools of new technologies made it possible for those who are not surveyors to engage in them. Surveyors have been using Geodesy for centuries to determine position. The remote elements for the Global Positioning System (GPS) they employed for this purpose were the celestial satellites known as the sun and the stars. Today’s celestial bodies are the ones in the GPS constellation of man-made satellites. Before Remote Sensing and Photogrammetry (as we define them today) were the processes used for mapping, surveyors were creating maps and charts (Cartography) using ground-located data. In fact, they still do that today when appropriate. The Geographic Information Systems (GIS) of the surveyor have for centuries been the collection of deed records, field notes, maps, and plats stored in file cabinets or on digital media. While the comparisons noted herein are somewhat simplistic, they illustrate the fact that surveying and geomatics are undeniably linked.

Other evidence of the link between surveying and geomatics is the fact that many of the college and university educational programs that are intended to prepare graduates for careers as professionals in the field of surveying have the word “geomatics” in their name. A primary reason for this is to demonstrate that graduates will be prepared to pursue careers in all aspects of the profession, from traditional land boundary surveying to those activities included in the definition of geomatics that is stated above.

If the perceived “gap” cannot be determined by definition, where would one look to find it, and what does it have to do with infrastructure?

In my experience as a professionally licensed surveyor for almost 30 years, and as the executive director for ACSM, I believe any gap between geomatics and surveying is one of perception.

I posed the question to couple of friends with diverse experiences in the infrastructure field. Harry Ward, PE, heads up Harken-Reidar, Inc., a recently formed company that provides infrastructure and land development solutions in civil design, surveying, and construction, comprising implementation, training and education. Jeff Warner, LS, owns Jeff Warner Land Surveying, a small business with extensive experience in transforming the data presented on approvable, but not buildable, design plans into data from which construction can be accurately and correctly performed.

Acknowledging that the design goals of plan approval are different from the goals of construction, Ward notes that the data models created for machine control (without the preparer having the proper understanding of those diverse goals and the requisite skills to address them) can result in “building an incorrect model very accurately”. What he means by this is that machine control (or traditional stake-out procedures for that matter) has the capability to build infrastructure in a very precise location, but if that location is not the intended one, there is a problem. The situation is exacerbated by the fact that the attention once given to insuring that design plans incorporate the required 3 Dimensional (3D) geometric accuracy for proper construction is rare in today’s world of digital plan preparation. Among the many issues raised by this circumstance is the one of liability. If a data model for machine control is created from a digital design plan that has 3 Dimensional (3D) geometry flaws, but the data prep practitioner does not have the ability to identify the flaws, who is liable for any damages resulting from construction?

Like Warner, Ward realizes that the surveyor has traditionally been the “buffer” between design plans and correctly constructing what is intended by the plan. During the annual meeting of the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES) last summer, Ward stated that the “new buffer” will be the “construction site data manager”. In reply to his definition of the expertise required, and the functions to be performed, I retorted that the person he described already has a name. It is “surveyor”. The challenge for the surveyor in maintaining that role is one of perception, Ward believes, thus, his perception of the “gap”. He concludes that the perception of the surveyor is one of a field person, not of a professional data analyst. Truly, the only frame of reference related to surveying for many people is, “those guys standing on the side of the road looking through something that looks like a telescope, and blocking traffic.”  Therefore, Ward concludes, it is difficult to sell the surveyor as a geomatics expert. Consequently, he offers that the “construction site data manager” will be a more marketable commodity, with the surveyor being perceived to be out of step with the new technology, and on the wrong side of the gap.

Warner agrees that “data prep” is a critical element in construction, but contends that this has always been true. Even in the days of the hand-drafted plan, someone had to check the plan as data was being extracted from it for construction. This skill, he says, is not one gained from sitting in a class for a few hours or days, nor is it inherent. It is only achieved through the knowledge and experience that develop expertise. Even surveyors, with their grasp of geometry, may not make good data prep providers if they haven’t prepared themselves to understand the intricacies of the data, and the computerized equipment used for both survey control and earth movement in today’s construction environment.

An example of the types of issues involved is one’s understanding of the difference between the grid (or mapping) coordinates utilized to construct the plan (digital design file) and the “ground” coordinates that must be used in the construction process. If this difference is not considered, Harry Ward’s assertion regarding “building an incorrect model very accurately” will certainly take place, and result in some feature being built in the wrong place.

My conclusion is that there really isn’t a gap between surveying and geomatics, but rather there is a lack of understanding for how the two are intertwined. Clearly, one cannot always simply accept the data that is included in a digital design file, and expect that converting it directly into a data prep model for GPS units mounted onboard grading equipment will result in a correctly constructed site. Likewise, one cannot expect that anyone (including some surveyors) without knowledge of the issues associated with such situations will be able to identify where the plan-related problems lie.

With regard to the matter of whether or not surveyors are recognized only as “field personnel” versus being recognized as “data analysis professionals”, there certainly is some truth to such perceptions by the general public. However, I don’t agree that the creation of new titles will necessarily create a more marketable profile. The solution I have always espoused for surveyors who wish to be recognized as the true professionals they claim to be lies with the behavior of the surveyor, regardless of whether they are referred to as surveyor or geomatics expert (as is the case in much of the world outside of the U. S).

Curt Sumner is a licensed surveyor in the states of Virginia and Maryland. He is a Past-President of the National Society of Professional Surveyor (NSPS), a member organization of the American Congress on Surveying and Mapping (ACSM) for which he has served as Executive Director since 1998. He is a widely read author of articles in numerous publications; a keynote speaker and presenter of workshops nationwide; he serves as a Commissioner on the ACSM Delegation to the international surveying organization, FIG; and was named among the “Surveying Profession’s Top 25 Most Influential Individuals” by Professional Surveying Magazine during that publication’s first 25 years of existence, 1981-2006.