Is RTK certification necessary? 4 points that implementation managers should know

One of the first concerns when introducing RTK is whether qualifications are required for the equipment or the work. In particular, for staff at construction companies, infrastructure management firms, equipment companies, and local governments, whether the equipment can be used immediately after purchase or whether operation requires a person with a national qualification is an important issue that can influence the decision to adopt it.

To conclude, handling RTK equipment itself does not always require a uniform national qualification. However, the qualifications and organizational arrangements required vary greatly depending on the purpose for which it is used, who produces the results, whether the services are provided externally as a business, and whether it involves public surveying or official survey results. In other words, whether qualifications are required for RTK should be considered not as an issue of the equipment but as an issue of the positioning of the work. The Geospatial Information Authority of Japan’s guidance states that implementing public surveying requires work regulations and procedures, and the Survey Act establishes the systems of licensed surveyors and assistant surveyors. The Manual for Public Surveys also indicates that results created by qualified personnel engaged in surveying are a required condition.

Legal Search

On site, this distinction often remains unclear and is commonly interpreted as "it's easy because it's RTK," "no qualification is needed because it works on a smartphone," or "you can do the same work as a surveying company without hiring one." However, in reality, using the technology for simple positioning or inspection assistance and producing surveying results that carry legal or contractual responsibility require entirely different mindsets. Those responsible for introduction must not simply compare device specifications and prices; they must separate the question of whether qualifications are required for each work category and design internal rules, the scope of outsourcing, and the handling of deliverables.

In this article, we organize how those responsible for RTK implementation should think about qualifications from four perspectives: statutory qualifications, in-house training, differences from surveying work, and on-site operational precautions. From a practical standpoint aimed at preventing confusion between situations that require qualifications and those that do not, we provide a detailed explanation of the key points to confirm before implementation.

Table of Contents

• Introduction

• Point 1: The need for qualifications depends more on the role of the task in operations than on RTK itself.

• Point 2: First clarify the situations in which statutory qualifications are involved

• Point 3: Without in-house training, operations are unstable regardless of whether staff hold certifications.

• Point 4: Not conflating surveying tasks with on-site use is the key to successful implementation

• Summary

Introduction

RTK is a system for obtaining high-precision position information by correcting errors in satellite positioning. In recent years, advances in receivers and apps have made it easier to use than before, and not only surveying firms but also construction companies, maintenance management departments, equipment maintenance departments, and infrastructure inspection departments have begun considering its adoption. As a result, on-site departments are increasingly saying, "If it can be used without qualifications, we'd like to adopt it."

At this stage, what those responsible for implementation most want to avoid is confusing situations where the equipment may be used with situations where it should be treated cautiously due to insufficient understanding of the required qualifications. For example, RTK can be highly effective for on-site position checks, construction support, and assigning location information to inspection records. Conversely, for public surveying, the production of formal survey deliverables, delivery of results to external parties, or use as material for decisions involving boundaries or property rights, simply being able to operate RTK equipment is not sufficient. It is necessary to sort out matters including laws and regulations, contracts, accuracy guarantees, and the assignment of responsibility.

The Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism requires registration as a surveying business to conduct surveying operations and mandates that each office have a full‑time surveyor. Furthermore, under the Surveying Act, surveyors are responsible for preparing and implementing plans, while assistant surveyors are positioned to carry out surveying in accordance with plans prepared by surveyors. In other words, the question of qualification is determined largely not by “whether one handles RTK equipment” but by “which surveys one is involved in, in what capacity, and with what responsibility for the results.”

What is required of those responsible for implementation is neither to treat qualifications as an absolute necessity nor to dismiss them outright. What matters is correctly understanding the areas of work that require national certification and, even in situations where certification is not required, putting in place in‑house training and operational rules to ensure accuracy and safety. From here, we will examine this approach in four points.

Point 1: Whether a qualification is required depends more on the role of the work than on RTK itself

When introducing RTK, the first thing to understand is that asking "Do you need a qualification for RTK?" is itself somewhat off. More precisely, the qualifications and organizational setup required depend on "what you will use RTK for" and "how you will handle the results of that work."

For example, tasks such as setting out positions for in-house construction management, recording the locations of equipment, assigning coordinates to inspection photos, grasping the overall conditions on site, and confirming the placement of temporary structures do not necessarily have the same meaning as public surveying or the production of official survey results. In such uses, it cannot be said that a nationally certified surveyor must always operate the equipment on site. Many companies start with these kinds of on-site applications as an entry point to introducing the equipment.

However, what should be noted here is that "no qualification required" and "free to do anything" are completely different. Even if, under the law, a national qualification is not immediately required for a particular use, the level of reliability required rises sharply depending on whether the outcome will be treated as an external deliverable or reflected in as-built/completion records, ledgers, drawing revisions, inspection documents, or client explanatory materials. If something intended for auxiliary on-site use is, before you know it, treated as equivalent to an official deliverable, internal responsibility becomes unclear.

Particularly problematic is that RTK data, which was used as "reference values" when introduced, begins to be treated the same as "actual measured values" as its use becomes established. The more convenient something is on site, the more people want to broaden its applications. What began as a construction memo may next be used for preliminary checks of as-built conditions, and eventually become the baseline data for drawing revisions and the preparation of delivery documentation. If this expanded use is left unchecked, there is a risk of venturing into areas that should require the involvement of qualified personnel and the establishment of surveying procedures without proper qualifications or procedures in place.

Therefore, those responsible for implementation must document the following delineations when introducing RTK. First, which uses are limited to internal use only? Next, which uses are to be used only as reference values? Furthermore, when data are to be submitted externally or used as formal deliverables, whose approval must be obtained? And in what cases is the involvement of licensed surveyors, surveyor assistants, or external surveying firms required? If these boundaries are clearly defined, field personnel can use the system with confidence, and managers can more easily prevent improper use.

Companies that fail when introducing RTK tend to focus only on equipment accuracy specifications and postpone designing the division of operational duties. However, whether qualifications are required is not written on the spec sheet. It is determined by operational rules. Those responsible for implementation should spend as much time on use-case design and defining the scope of responsibilities as they do on technical selection.

Point 2: First organize the situations in which legally required qualifications are involved

Next, let's outline the situations where statutory qualifications come into play. If this area is left ambiguous, the decision "RTK is convenient, so let's bring it in-house" can lead to unexpected legal and contractual risks.

Under the Survey Act, a system of surveyors and assistant surveyors is established. Surveyors prepare and/or carry out plans related to surveying, and assistant surveyors are to engage in surveying in accordance with plans prepared by surveyors. Furthermore, the guidelines for public surveys indicate that, as one of the requirements for using private survey results in public surveys, the surveying must be carried out by a qualified person and the produced survey results must have been created by such a person. When conducting public surveys, procedures such as approval of the work regulations are also necessary.

Legal search

Also, when engaging in surveying work, registration as a surveying business is required regardless of whether you are an individual or a corporation, or a prime contractor or a subcontractor, and it is a requirement to have a full-time surveyor at each office. In other words, the regulatory measures required will change significantly depending on whether your company simply uses RTK equipment or will undertake surveying work on behalf of others.

When translating this into practical work, the person in charge of implementation should first confirm the following four points. First, whether the task falls under public surveying. Second, whether the survey results will be delivered externally. Third, whether the work will be undertaken as surveying business for which remuneration is received from external parties. Fourth, whether existing basic survey results or public survey results will be used, and whether any required notifications or approvals will arise. The Geospatial Information Authority of Japan’s Q&A also indicates that even if the work does not fall under public surveying, when it is carried out using the results of basic surveys or public surveys, notification under Article 46, paragraph 1 of the Survey Act and procedures for the use of survey marks and survey results may be required.

A common misunderstanding among those responsible for implementation is to assume too readily that “because it’s our company’s site, it isn’t surveying.” In reality, depending on how the results are used, it may not be possible to treat the work merely as an internal extension of company operations. For example, as-built documentation submitted to the client, deliverables related to public works, ledger maintenance, and drawing updates that require alignment with known control points differ in nature from field notes. Materials from the Geospatial Information Authority of Japan also assume that public surveys and GNSS surveys are conducted based on known points, accuracy standards, and work regulations.

Therefore, when determining whether qualifications are required, it is not sufficient to simply ask the on-site department. The person responsible for implementation must confirm "what the data will ultimately be used for," including legal, technical, construction management, quality control, and, where appropriate, the client-relations department. It is not that RTK should not be used for tasks that require qualifications; rather, it should be used on the premise that the necessary qualified personnel and organizational structure are in place.

Keeping this perspective in mind makes discussions about RTK implementation much more constructive. Rather than a simple either/or of "it's impossible because certification is required" or "we can do everything because no certification is required," you can make realistic distinctions such as "this use can be handled with in‑house training," "this use requires supervision by a licensed surveyor," and "this use is appropriate to outsource."

Point 3: Without in-house training, operations will be unstable regardless of qualification status

A point often overlooked when introducing RTK is that, more than whether staff hold qualifications, the presence or absence of in-house training determines on-site quality. Even when RTK is used in contexts that do not require national qualifications, the reality is that stable operation is difficult without training.

RTK appears simple to operate at first glance. Open the app, receive the correction information, and if you get a fixed solution it looks highly accurate. But in reality there are many prerequisites: positioning conditions, satellite geometry, sky visibility, communication status, consistency with known points, coordinate systems, handling of the geoid and elevations, antenna height, observation time, re-observation checks, and so on. If field personnel use it without understanding these factors, they may be reassured simply by the fact that a position was obtained, resulting in variability in quality.

The minimum topics that should be covered in internal training are, first, the difference between a fixed solution and standalone positioning. If you cannot tell whether you have a fixed solution, a float, or whether effects of a communication outage remain, you cannot judge the reliability of the numbers. Next is the coordinate reference. Even at the same site, mixing plane rectangular coordinates, latitude/longitude, and local coordinates is a breeding ground for trouble. Furthermore, the handling of elevation is also important. If you use values without understanding the difference between ellipsoidal height and orthometric height, you can end up with a situation where only the height values are offset and you cannot determine the cause. The Geospatial Information Authority of Japan has also issued guidance in recent years on revisions to elevation results and adaptation to geoid models, indicating that software and operational assumptions may be updated.

Moreover, classroom instruction alone is insufficient. Because RTK is heavily influenced by field conditions, practical hands-on training is necessary. By deliberately exposing trainees to environments that typically produce errors—next to buildings, under trees, near slopes, in areas with heavy vehicle traffic, and locations with unstable communications—they can physically understand the equipment’s limits. Those responsible for implementation should include not only success scenarios but also failure scenarios in training.

Even more important is not to end in-house training with equipment-operation instruction. Those responsible for implementation need to design training as an integrated package that includes operational-rule instruction such as “treat this use as a reference value,” “make re-observation mandatory for this use,” “perform known-point verification for this use,” and “require a qualified person or supervisor approval for this use.” Many of the problems that occur on site arise not from equipment failures but from inadequate operational rules.

Even in organizations that have qualified personnel, quality will not be stable if training is insufficient. Conversely, even for applications that do not immediately require certification, RTK can become a very powerful operational improvement tool if training and rules are in place. What those responsible for implementation should aim for is not to be reassured solely by "whether qualified personnel are present," but to create a state in which "anyone can operate using the same decision criteria."

Point 4: Avoiding confusion between surveying work and on-site use is the key to successful implementation

The final point is not to confuse surveying tasks with on-site use. RTK is a technology that easily blurs that boundary. Because it outputs coordinates with high accuracy, field personnel are prone to think, "It's surveying equipment, so it can be used for any task." However, those responsible for implementation must separate convenience from the scope of responsibility.

For example, temporary layout checks at construction sites, management of material yard locations, recording the positions of inspection targets, assigning coordinates to photo logs, and managing the locations of patrol results are uses well suited to RTK. In these applications, reproducibility, operational efficiency, and the shareability of position information are prioritized over strict conformity to surveying accuracy standards as survey deliverables. The benefits of implementation are also easy to realize, and it is an area where site personnel can readily perceive the value.

On the other hand, boundary verification, surveying results submitted to government authorities, formal determination of as-built conditions, public-survey-related deliverables, and formal updates to design drawings and registers are distinct from on-site assistance. In these cases, not only the output of measured values but also which regulations they were carried out under, which instruments were used, which procedures were followed, and who was responsible for execution are called into question. Even in materials concerning public surveying, GNSS and network RTK methods are treated on the premise of known points and accuracy management, and simply having obtained a position is not sufficient.

When those responsible for implementation confuse on-site use with surveying work, the following problems arise. First, on-site personnel may treat reference values as official values. Next, when accountability to external parties arises, they cannot show the observation conditions or verification procedures. Furthermore, when asked by the client or supervisor, "Who produced those results, and with what qualifications and organizational structure?" they cannot answer. If this happens, the RTK introduction could become a cause of diminished trust.

Therefore, those responsible for implementation should design the scope of RTK applications in stages. In the first stage, limit it to internal uses such as position recording and construction support. In the second stage, expand to semi-formal uses that incorporate checks against known points and double-checks. In the third stage, progress into areas related to official deliverables, assuming the involvement of qualified personnel and coordination with external surveying firms as necessary. By taking these staged steps, sites can enjoy the convenience of RTK while avoiding institutional constraints.

Also, at the time of implementation you should confirm the relationship with the client and the prime contractor. This is because, in addition to statutory qualification requirements, there may be separate demands in the contract specifications, internal standards, quality standards, and inspection standards. Even if there is no violation of law, it can still constitute a contractual nonconformance. A major practical caution on site is not to end the qualifications discussion with the law alone, but to verify them including the contract and internal standards.

RTK is becoming less and less the exclusive tool of surveying companies. However, that does not mean that the responsibilities of surveying work have disappeared. Rather, because more people can use it, those responsible for deployment need to clearly define what constitutes formal surveying and what counts as on-site support. Whether they can fulfill this role will be the deciding factor in the success of the deployment.

Summary

When considering qualifications for RTK, the conclusion that those responsible for deployment should grasp is clear. Using RTK equipment itself does not always require a uniform national certification. However, that does not mean anyone can use it for any purpose as-is. Whether a qualification is required is determined not by the RTK device itself but by what tasks it is used for, what deliverables are produced, and who bears responsibility.

First, whether qualifications are required depends on how the work is positioned. Internal position checks and inspection assistance should be considered separately from the production of formal survey deliverables. Second, before implementation you must sort out situations where statutory qualifications or registrations apply, such as public surveys, contracting for surveying work, and the preparation of deliverables for external parties. Third, even for uses that do not immediately require qualifications, quality will not be stable without in-house training. Practical training is essential on topics such as interpreting fixed solutions, coordinate systems, elevation, re-surveys, and verification against known points. Fourth, it is important not to confuse surveying operations with on-site utilization. Clearly define the boundaries between reference values and official values, and between internal use and external deliverables, and design the scope of implementation in stages.

What those responsible for implementation need is not simply to decide "whether a qualification is required or not." Rather, it is to design "what kind of system can operate safely for this application." RTK is a very effective technology, but its value is realized only with appropriate delineation and operational design. If, before selecting equipment, you can organize the division of tasks, scope of responsibilities, training system, and whether outsourcing is necessary, RTK implementation becomes not merely equipment procurement but a way to build a system that balances on-site productivity and quality.