geomatics engineering

In response to the findings from a recent poll by the Geomatics Professional Group Board (GPGB) of RICS, Brian Coutts traces the evolution of the word 'geomatics' and argues that the time has come to consider a change. That geomatics word has reared its (ugly) head again. The Geomatics Professional Group Board (GPGB) of RICS recently conducted a poll regarding the use of the word “Geomatics” to describe what used to be its Land and Hydrographic Surveying Division (LHSD). Gordon Johnston, Chair of the GPGB, reported recently that “insufficient responses have been received to progress the issue”. So it seems that, at least for some, there remains such a degree of antipathy towards the term that a further change might be considered. Geomatics was a term that was contentious at the time of its introduction in 1998, and has remained so. It is frequently assumed that the term came from Canada and progressed to Australia and then to the United Kingdom. The debate in Britain that resulted from the proposed change of surveying university course names, and the division of the RICS, to embrace the new term was contentious at the time, and makes interesting reading in the annals of what was then Surveying World . Stephen Booth’s call for “. . . more promotion of what geomatics means . . .” appears to have gone unheeded in 2011. At that time it did not catch on. It was not until Michel Paradis, a Quebec surveyor, picked up the term that it began to be used more extensively. Laval University brought the term into academic use in 1986 with the introduction of a bachelor’s degree programme in Geomatics (Gagnon and Coleman, 1990). From Quebec it spread to the University of New Brunswick, and then to all of Canada. The bilingual nature of Canada was most likely an important factor in its adoption and spread in that country. It comes, therefore, as somewhat of a surprise that senior members of the surveying profession, when the term “geomatics” was introduced to Great Britain, maintained that it could be adopted and given whatever definition those who adopted it chose to suit their own needs. The reasons given for the need to change were firstly to improve the image of surveying by sounding more modern, up-market and embracing of new and developing technologies. Secondly (and possibly, in reality, more importantly) to improve the attractiveness of the profession to prospective candidates of university surveying programmes. In hindsight it would seem that this was an optimistic prognostication. Surveying university programmes have generally been absorbed into schools of engineering. Numbers of students have reputedly continued to drop, or at least have not improved, and the profession at large has not adopted the term to incorporate it into the titles of the practices nor been inclined to call themselves “geomaticians”. Neither, it seems, do the public know what geomatics means. The use of geomatics to replace surveying, particularly land surveying, seems to have failed on all counts. Furthermore, the evidence suggests that the GPGB of the RICS is no longer convinced that geomatics is a term that it wishes to continue to use in its title. In many of the Canadian provinces, geomatics has been attached to engineering, suggesting that surveying might be another branch of that discipline. This is particularly true at the University of New Brunswick where “geomatic engineering” stands alongside other branches of engineering, such as civil and mechanical. So if geomatics makes its practitioners unhappy, what might replace it? One of the common factors in its unacceptability is the loss of the reference to surveying. If one can have geomatics engineers could one have geomatics surveyors? Probably not, I would venture to suggest. That would likely lead to even greater confusion. While “land surveying” has a long and proud history, the reference to land has probably outlived its usefulness and relevance. The skill-set of the modern surveyor now en