Two basis of bearings

LS 4722 · Post by **LS 4722** » Fri Mar 22, 2013 7:37 am

Concerning the survey I recently posted about, I decided that two basis of bearings notes would aid in the understanding of the readers of the map while comparing it to the deeds that describe the lands.

This is the first time I have done this and may just make it standard practice.

land butcher · Post by **land butcher** » Fri Mar 22, 2013 8:23 am

I hope it doesn't become a requirement on ALL maps.

RAM · Post by **RAM** » Fri Mar 22, 2013 8:29 am

interesting, so I take it you had one BoB but provided a reference to corelate the deed to your map?

LS 4722 · Post by **LS 4722** » Fri Mar 22, 2013 8:46 am

RAM wrote:interesting, so I take it you had one BoB but provided a reference to corelate the deed to your map?

Yes, that is correct. The angular difference between measured and record was slight, 1' 15", so instead of adding confusion to a deed reader comparing a deed to the survey I decided simplify the whole thing with two notes.

pls7809 · Post by **pls7809** » Fri Mar 22, 2013 8:47 am

Why not just show the record bearings given in the deed for the respective lines shown on the map in parenthesis around the property? I think that would be the most clear way to show the difference between record deed bearings and the measured bearings of the lines?

LS 4722 · Post by **LS 4722** » Fri Mar 22, 2013 8:48 am

land butcher wrote:I hope it doesn't become a requirement on ALL maps.

I doubt that it will. To do so, the LS act would have to be revised. The issue is just too minor to do that.

LS 4722 · Post by **LS 4722** » Fri Mar 22, 2013 8:49 am

pls7809 wrote:Why not just show the record bearings given in the deed for the respective lines shown on the map in parenthesis around the property? I think that would be the most clear way to show the difference between record deed bearings and the measured bearings of the lines?

That method is more trouble than helpful.

pls7809 · Post by **pls7809** » Fri Mar 22, 2013 9:56 am

I don't agree, because when I am looking at a deed and a map and they have different bearings, I always just pencil in on the map the deed bearing in parenthesis. It makes things easier for me when going line by line.

What's your thinking that it is more trouble? More trouble putting it on the page? or???

land butcher · Post by **land butcher** » Fri Mar 22, 2013 10:58 am

LS 4722 wrote:I doubt that it will. To do so, the LS act would have to be revised. The issue is just too minor to do that.

Famous last words.

Map checker "I would like to see a deed B/B"
LS "It's not needed"
MC "I would like to see it anyway"
LS " It's not needed"
MC "Put in on or I won't approve your map"
LS "Files map with objection stated on it."

LS 4722 · Post by **LS 4722** » Fri Mar 22, 2013 11:23 am

Map checker "I would like to see a deed B/B"
LS "It's not needed"
MC "I would like to see it anyway"
LS " It's not needed"
MC "Put in on or I won't approve your map"
LS "Files map with objection stated on it."

Map checker "I would like to see a deed B/B"

Fine...show me in state law where it is required.

MC "I would like to see it anyway"

People in Hell want ice water.

MC "Put in on or I won't approve your map"

Does the word 'Blackmail' ring a bell? Lets you and I go chat with the City Attorney..shall we? File my map and keep your personal preferences to yourself.

E_Page · Post by **E_Page** » Fri Mar 22, 2013 12:42 pm

Map checker "I would like to see a deed B/B"

Fine...show me in state law where it is required.

MC "I would like to see it anyway"

People in Hell want ice water.

MC "Put in on or I won't approve your map"

Does the word 'Blackmail' ring a bell? Lets you and I go chat with the City Attorney..shall we? File my map and keep your personal preferences to yourself.[/quote]

Trying not to laugh out loud. This would be a good entry in an article titled "Diplomacy for (dealing with) Dummies".

I haven't yet looked at the RS you posted, but the statements, and the significance of having two would be clearer if you included a correlation between the two BoBs, similar to the explanation you have in your reply to RAM.

pls7809 · Post by **pls7809** » Fri Mar 22, 2013 1:04 pm

Evan,

I agree with that last statement. Also the LOL part, but that's not as important as the subject of the post. ;) See you in Reno.

bruce hall · Post by **bruce hall** » Fri Mar 22, 2013 1:32 pm

I love to see my measured bearings shown. Also I like to shown the record bearings(either deed or otherwise) shown in some type of brackets next to or beneath the measured data.

The reader of the map can easily ascertain horizontal and angular discrepencies if this "record data" is shown.

As to the two BoB's. It doesn't do a thing for me without some kind of comparrison.

What highway will I be on now, Paul?

Dhanrion · Post by **Dhanrion** » Fri Mar 22, 2013 2:34 pm

I think a mathematical correlation between the two should be included. We each have our preferences, so the initial intent is met: namely, to explain that there is a difference between record/measured data across differing datums. I have typically used (brg/dst)(r?) or [brg/dst][R?] in smaller text heights along the line/arc segments to link the record data of referenced maps to the measured data.

However, when dealing with instances where it is merely a rotational difference of datums, I'll use verbage at the end of each cited referernce, i.e. "... rotate bearings of said map (or deed, etc.) x*xx'xx" clockwise (or counterclockwise) to match the basis of bearing of this survey.

Of course, I never have instances (dealing with GLO surveys) where all of the course distances and/or bearings match the current survey data. LOL

LS 4722 · Post by **LS 4722** » Fri Mar 22, 2013 5:59 pm

The attached is part of the RS that will be submitted.

Dave Karoly, PLS · Post by **Dave Karoly, PLS** » Sat Mar 23, 2013 6:02 am

Maybe I'm not too bright...

I'm confused by the two BofB statements. Which one is the bearings on the map related to?

LS 4722 · Post by **LS 4722** » Sun Mar 24, 2013 4:19 am

kwilson wrote:.... Reading what you have stated on your map would not help me understand what you are doing. .....

It would if you had the entire map, street grant deeds done in 1934, clients description done in 2012 and various other instruments of adjoiners with various dates to review

In other words - based on how the expression Basis of Bearings is used on a Recorded Survey in California - you can only have one.

Only one?? Must have missed that in the map act..care to point me to the specific area where an RS BOB has to be singular..

LS 4722 · Post by **LS 4722** » Sun Mar 24, 2013 4:22 am

Dave Karoly, PLS wrote:Maybe I'm not too bright...

I'm confused by the two BofB statements. Which one is the bearings on the map related to?

Both

Peter Ehlert · Post by **Peter Ehlert** » Sun Mar 24, 2013 9:55 am

First: I think the "Basis of Bearings" statement id outdated and unnecessary.

Second: Paul, respectfully I think your statement is confusing.

I suggest you use a "conventional" BoB statement to satisfy the bureaucrats and the anal... and if you feel it is necessary add your bearing explanations in a "surveyor's notes" in some other place on the plat.

Peter Ehlert · Post by **Peter Ehlert** » Sun Mar 24, 2013 10:02 am

Paul:
First: I think a "Basis of Bearings" statement is both out dated and unnecessary. It had a place in historical times, but not today.

Second: I find your double note confusing.
Probably it would be better to use a "conventional" BoB statement to satisfy the bureaucrats and the ultra anal.
If you feel that something like that needs to be said I suggest you make a "surveyor's note" on another place on the plat.

btaylor · Post by **btaylor** » Sun Mar 24, 2013 10:05 am

Peter Ehlert wrote:Paul:
First: I think a "Basis of Bearings" statement is both out dated and unnecessary. It had a place in historical times, but not today.

Totally agree. There are some exceptions, but in general I always feel like it is a waste of space on my ROS maps.

bruce hall · Post by **bruce hall** » Sun Mar 24, 2013 11:56 am

one believe that a basis of bearing is not outdated. Whether or not it is necessary, I don't know, but I certainly like to see it. Smarter guys than me thought that it was a good idea to have one, at least I hope that they were smarter.

If it is outdated/unnecessary then I guess I will just have to figure out if the bearings on a map are based on some recorded map, star shot, some unrecorded map, some deed, or maybe it is just an ARBITRARY or ASSUMMED basis that doesn't relate to nothing nowhere nohow.

land butcher · Post by **land butcher** » Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:54 pm

bruce hall wrote:one believe that a basis of bearing is not outdated. Whether or not it is necessary, I don't know, but I certainly like to see it. Smarter guys than me thought that it was a good idea to have one, at least I hope that they were smarter.

If it is outdated/unnecessary then I guess I will just have to figure out if the bearings on a map are based on some recorded map, star shot, some unrecorded map, some deed, or maybe it is just an ARBITRARY or ASSUMMED basis that doesn't relate to nothing nowhere nohow.

I agree

Dave Karoly, PLS · Post by **Dave Karoly, PLS** » Mon Mar 25, 2013 5:18 pm

You can call the bearing from monument 1 to monument 2 anything you like, I don't care that much. There is too much focus on the wrong thing. If I can find some of your monuments then I can get on your bearings, whatever it is, with no special effort.

LS 4722 · Post by **LS 4722** » Mon Mar 25, 2013 9:07 pm

The RS was not specifically prepared for an LS, it was prepared for others..

There is too much focus on the wrong thing.

Want to expand on that David?

California Surveyors Forums

Two basis of bearings

Two basis of bearings

RAM

Butcher

Ryan

Butcher

Tell ya what guys,

Dhanrion - mathematical correlation

Wilson

David

Well, I for

Karoly