Q&A
Q: Why has O.Reg 216/10 s.31(a) not been updated to include NATRF?
A: O.Reg 216/10, s.31 did not include NATRF 2022 as a reference frame because it has not been officially adopted in Canada. The Regulation will be updated once the new reference frame has been adopted
Q: “Added signing a plan or deliverable that is beyond the scope of the licence or certificate of registration granted to a member”. Looking for clarification--if passed, will OLS’s require the corresponding C of R to offer services to the public in the fields of Geodesy, Photogrammetry, Hydrography and Geographic Information Management? Also, if passed, any C of R holders would need a C of R for each field where they offer services to the public? Would this not result in fewer C of R's being issued to individuals currently outside of AOLS; and result in more a greater percentage of individuals, outside of the Association, offering these services?
A: This addition to the definition of Professional Misconduct makes it clear that members are expected to only take on work they can competently perform, and within any scope limitations on their licence, as is the case for limited licence holders. If a licenced member takes on a photogrammetry project and they are not competent to undertake that work based on their training and experience, they may be found guilty of professional misconduct under section 35.18 under the current regulation, so the misconduct isn’t necessarily a new one, but puts the focus on scopes or work.
Q: Proposed Changes to Regulation 216/10 of the Surveyors Act #4, Section 12
The addition of 'or by agreement with a previous survey of equal or better accuracy'
I would appreciate some clarification.
Firstly, the rational provided is "[t]o reflect modern practices" . I am not clear on what modern practices are being referred to. This was asked during the lunch session, but the answer didn't really clarify the intent.
Secondly, has the possibility of a surveyor misusing this change to skip redundant measurements in the field been considered? This isn't the intent, but is this opening up a loop hole that could be abused?
A: The rationale provided for changes to s.9, O.Reg. 216/10 being ‘To reflect modern capabilities of measuring tools’ refers to the modern total station and GPS GNSS capabilities that demonstrate improved accuracy and reliability of survey measurements. The rationale for changes to s.12, O.Reg.216/10 to include ‘agreement with previous survey of equal or better accuracy’ reflect modern surveyors’ practices to agree with existing published bearings and distances, where they are deemed to be reliable. This is in addition to surveyors practices of taking ‘independent’ and ‘redundant’ measurements as outlined in the AOLS Guideline – Preparation of Field Survey Notes.
Q: Field Error Tolerances - It is my opinion that this not a necessary change and more a mathematical academic exercise and seems only applicable to wide open flat fields that can utilize GPS technolgy in southern Ontario. This is not a practical change and many surveys north of the GTA we are still cutting survey lines through coniferous bush (yes, we still use chainsaws), over cliffs, steep terrain, short sights and having to use traditional survey traversing methods. I think that changes like this need to be brought forward by active practising members. Those of us north of the GTA and southern Ontario cannot be forced to adhere to an impractical tolerance by the majority of members who only work in ideal field conditions.
A: It was recommended by the AOLS Professional Standards Committee that changes to the performance standards O.Reg.216/10 are needed to better reflect the capabilities of the surveyor to achieve higher accuracy and reliable survey measurements using modern total station and GPS GNSS technology and methodology.