3 Surveying Myths LGUs Need to Let Go Of in 2026
- Clinton Bravo
- 3 days ago
- 5 min read
Planning can look “okay” on paper until the site proves otherwise. Across LGUs, three assumptions keep showing up in feasibility, DRRM, and infrastructure planning, and they all lead to the same problem: decisions made without a survey-grade baseline.
So let’s name the myths, unpack what they really cost, and define the better standard plus how AB Surveying & Development (ABSD) has helped teams turn these exact challenges into stronger outcomes on the ground.
Myth 1: “Our old topo/as-builts are still okay.”
This myth usually comes from familiarity: there’s an existing topo plan or as-built drawing in the office, and it has “worked before,” so it feels safe to keep using it.
The issue is that cities don’t stay still.
Roads get widened. Drainage lines get clogged or altered. Informal structures appear along waterways. New developments reshape flow paths. The map remains neat but reality changes underneath it. ABSD’s work with Naga City highlights why “updated terrain + structures” isn’t a nice-to-have; it’s what enables practical decisions for flood planning, safer roads, and even better tax mapping.
When base data is old, chain of small wrong assumptions that stack up:
A low-lying area isn’t flagged early, so drainage design underperforms later.
Evacuation routing looks fine on paper until roads become impassable during flood conditions.
Zoning and land-use decisions drift away from actual topography and waterways.
In Naga City’s case, ABSD’s LiDAR-based Topographic Survey dataset enabled terrain and structure-aware planning outputs like identifying where floodwater accumulates, which routes stay passable, and how exposure changes by barangay so planning moves from “estimated” to “actionable.” Read more about Naga City LGU article
Actually we’re working in the dark because of the absence of this map. Sa CPDO dito kami nagtetake time a lot dahil manual na ginagawa and hindi realistic pero this time malaking tulong samin”
– Reynor Rodriguez (Assistant City Administrator/CDRRMO OIC Naga City LGU)
For years, planning and disaster preparedness in Naga meant working with manual, incomplete data. Today, the city has access to a high-density topographic map that shows real ground conditions, helping teams plan faster, respond smarter, and protect more lives.
Myth 2: “Google Maps is enough for planning.”
Free basemaps are useful (to some extent) just not for what most LGUs end up using them for.
Google Maps (and similar platforms) can help with orientation, basic location referencing, and quick visual communication in presentations. The problem starts when a basemap quietly becomes the foundation for technical decisions like drainage design, flood risk analysis, right-of-way planning, or engineering layout.
What free basemaps can’t guarantee (and LGU decisions often require) is survey-grade truth:
Ground elevations accurate enough for drainage and flood modeling.
Current, on-the-ground conditions (new roads, obstructions, altered waterways, expanding built-up areas).
Survey-grade mapping gives you measurable, on-the-ground accuracy you can actually build from so you can see real water streams, confirm drainage paths, and measure distances/elevations with confidence for design and implementation.
This is why ABSD’s projects repeatedly emphasize “design and decision-ready” datasets because planning that moves into procurement, construction, or permitting needs data that can stand up to engineering scrutiny, not just visual reference. In ABSD’s large solar project, the risk wasn’t simply “being fast” it was being fast with proof: survey-grade capture at scale, with quality checks, progress visibility, and ground validation to support confident design and permitting decisions. That distinction matters because “map-looking” is not the same as “decision-ready.”
Myth 3: “LiDAR [survey] is only for mega projects.”
This myth sounds practical (“LiDAR is expensive”), but it often becomes an expensive delay because what truly drains budgets is not LiDAR; it’s rework caused by incomplete and inaccurate data.
When a project advances using fragmented or outdated baselines, the cost shows up later as:
Rework and change orders when terrain assumptions are wrong.
Delays when site realities contradict the plan and approvals need resetting.
Misprioritized spending (fixing the wrong areas first because the baseline was unclear).
Lower investor and partner confidence because the plan isn’t defensible.
ABSD’s casework shows the opposite framing: LiDAR isn’t “mega-project-only” it’s a scalable approach that can be sized to the decision risk and the urgency of implementation. A clear LGU example is Baguio City, where ABSD completed the first-ever citywide LiDAR mapping of the city’s 5,750-hectare area and produced survey-grade outputs that LGUs can actually use for planning DSM/DTM, topographic and waterways maps, and as-built maps of buildings, roads, drainage systems, and surface utilities.
What makes this relevant to the “LiDAR is too expensive” myth is that the value wasn’t “big for the sake of being big” it was speed and decision-readiness in a complex terrain: ABSD conducted the aerial LiDAR survey via helicopter with a total flight scan of about eight (8) hours, and the LGU publicly highlighted the efficiency of citywide mapping through LiDAR compared to conventional methods.
So if the cost of being wrong is high flood corridors, dense urban growth zones, critical facilities, and revenue-related mapping the baseline has to be right, whether the area is “big” or not, because the downstream cost of revisions, delays, and rework will almost always exceed the cost of getting the baseline correct early.
How ABSD Turns These Challenges Into Successful Outcomes
Here’s what ABSD’s published projects show consistently: the win is not “LiDAR for LiDAR’s sake.” The win is decision velocity + decision defensibility.
1) Turning “outdated basemaps” into LGU-ready planning layers
In Naga City, ABSD’s LiDAR-based topographic data (covering roughly 3,000+ hectares) was positioned as a governance tool, not just a map supporting flood modeling, evacuation route planning, road design decisions tied to terrain behavior, and improved tax mapping through clearer visibility of structures and elevations.
What that changes for an LGU:
Flood response becomes route-specific and barangay-specific, not generic.
Road upgrades consider slope/ponding risks earlier, not after failure.
Tax mapping becomes more measurable and defensible, not purely record-driven.
2) Delivering speed without sacrificing credibility
For utility-scale development, ABSD demonstrates a pattern: compress timelines, but keep quality auditable.
For LGUs, the goal isn’t just “being fast”, it’s being fast with proof. What matters is delivering survey-grade mapping at the scale LGUs need, backed by quality checks, transparent progress, and targeted ground validation, so planning teams can move from concept to design and implementation with confidence. That distinction is critical because a map that looks complete is not the same as a dataset that is decision-ready one can support presentations, but only the other can reliably support drainage design, flood mitigation, road works, and defensible approvals.
3) Solving “land-to-sea” complexity as one dataset (not stitched files)
Many projects fail at interfaces: mountain to coastal, land to port, site to corridor. ABSD addressed that by running a single campaign that captured topographic and bathymetric requirements together delivering an integrated 3D model across site, transmission corridor, and port area.
In the 11,000-hectare project, ABSD delivered combined topographic and bathymetric outputs in 45 days, emphasized consistent alignment (no datum mismatch), and even included a Global Mapper license + training so the client could immediately work with the outputs internally.
Integrated data reduces rework when layouts change, because every downstream check (corridor, port, site) stays inside the same coordinate truth.
4) Operating in high-constraint environments (where “just do a quick survey” fails)
In NAIA, one of the most constrained environments possible ABSD completed a LiDAR survey covering 571 hectares, with acquisition completed in two days despite tight airspace windows and security requirements, using a dual-system approach (aerial + terrestrial) to capture both broad coverage and ground-level engineering detail. This is exactly what LGUs face in different forms limited access, limited windows, and high consequence if the baseline is wrong.
The real question LGUs should ask in 2026
It’s not “Do we have a map?”
It’s: Does your baseline map still reflect what’s actually on the ground enough to defend decisions, budgets, and outcomes?
Because once you adopt the better standard decision-ready basemaps, refreshed on a cycle, built with right-sized LiDAR and targeted ground checks planning stops being guesswork and starts being implementation-ready.
Click this link to get a quick quotation so that your next project is always decision-ready.
Comments