David Kendall wrote:
I would appreciate any constructive criticism on how to handle this situation. Should I:
A) Go move the pipe (set in concrete) a couple of tenths one way or the other so it matches record bearing perfectly?
B) Adjust my reported bearings to make them match in spite of what I actually measured?
C) Send the form to our local private entity who maintains an unrecorded survey index that all of the local surveyors and county offices use (which is essentially the same as recording around here as far as survey research is concerned) and request my $16 back?
D) none of the above
I have to admit, I'm a little confused too, so I would go with:
E) Add some notes on the plat clarifying how you established the point.
Thanks for the comment. That sounds like sensible advice. They have previously indicated an unwillingness to record anything that is not "technically correct" so I will try to file it as is but previously it has to be their way or the highway.
The topography is rough. Some of the pipes were out of position and not held but shown for reference only. The pipe along the highway is a point on line at an unspecified distance from the centerline of the highway which we are not inclined to survey in this instance. That could be made clearer and I would accept that sort of comment but it was not requested. We could go round and round with alternate solutions but I can't see anything sensible that will move it more than a foot or two one way or the other which is still minor for this country. The point is set and documented. I spoke with the mapchecker (who I know well and genuinely appreciate personally) last week to clarify the annotation and our position and stance on where it falls. Essentially it was a bearing-bearing intersection. I would be willing to note that as well if it was requested and I may do it anyway.
I was half expecting to be requested to file a record of survey on this corner. Inconsistincies such as this (pipes out of position by a foot or two) are common in this subdivision so I suppose it could be argued either way.
I wrote "approximate" by the highway (which is asinine in my opinion but I am willing concede) for clarity and I would like to put it to rest. At this rate it will be filed by next April. An hour is an hour and they all add up to something on every project over and over again. At this point I am trying to make the maps as simple as possible and leave off any big words so nobody gets wound up for too long trying to review them. I don't think this is the intent of the LS act or the SMA. Extra page on an RS is an extra $100 dollar deposit. Any wild guess as to what effect that has on the maps?
Bear in mind that PLSA section 8773.2 (b) addresses disagreement with methodology in the same fashion as with a record of survey. There is space on the CR for CS Comments, and the county surveyor "shall file the corner record within 10 working days after receipt of the resubmission." Following surveyors will certainly take notice.
Thanks for the tips. Valid points, all. So Olin, to clarify, if I calculate a bearing-bearing intersection then stake it out, set reference points and dig a hole and set a pipe and pour concrete, then come back later when it's dry and tie it, I should report record bearings regardless of what I measure? This is a very common situation as my staked points very seldom match precisely what I intended them to be. I would like to know how everyone else handles this situation as well. My inclination is to report what I find, not what I want to find but I am open-minded. My engineer friends prefer all lines to be at right angles and parallel on paper and I have a hard time doing that on the ground and carrying angular precision out to seconds.
The corner record is documenting your retracement procedure. Your error budget for setting your tag at the calculated corner is about the same as someone else following. It's clear that the monuments you are relying on have a larger area of uncertainty. It appears that they were set by transit and tape.
Okay, I got it. I will revise my sketch to clarify these fine points. I learned something here this morning guys, thank you for helping me turn my indignation into something productive!
How do you handle a County Surveyor who decided not to check a Record of Survey because he decides it is within his discretion to do nothing, claiming he has no duty to the survey community or the public?
The dimensions between three of the eastern monuments shown on your Corner Record which you "accepted as set per (record)" differ from record by 5' or more. I would consider this a material discrepancy and require the filing of a Record of Survey per PLSA section 8762(b)(2). This should have been the main comment of the review.
Frank Romano PLS wrote:The dimensions between three of the eastern monuments shown on your Corner Record which you "accepted as set per (record)" differ from record by 5' or more. I would consider this a material discrepancy and require the filing of a Record of Survey per PLSA section 8762(b)(2). This should have been the main comment of the review.
Perhaps. While I appreciate your opinion, I only see one monument that may have been out of position and it is the southeast corner of the southerly lot. It had no bearing on my solution. I only showed it as a public service because I consider that the more monuments we have on current record then the better off we are as a community. If I leave that number off then does the material discrepancy disappear and it turns back into a corner record situation?
I saw someone else mention the possibility of incurring "liability" from showing more information than I absolutely have to. I don't really see any other than the liability of possibly being required to file a record of survey at unspecified expense due to someone overthinking a relatively simple solution. It seems that some others on this forum also don't see any material discrepancy here. This map filed in 1966. I expect that Warren is correct in estimating it was measured by chain and transit (I'm not sure how he knew that and I must say that I am impressed by the discernment). If that pipe is in dense forest on the side of a 45 degree slope it wouldn't surprise me too much that it was 5' off. It was tied several years previous to this survey and we did not revisit it. All of the other monuments were confirmed and fit the previous survey accurately. Many of the corner monuments in this very large scale subdivision are 2 or 3 feet off one way or the other so I consider that sort of discrepancy relatively typical (although I chose not to hold that pipe or the one on the other end of the line just because I did not have enough information to know exactly what was going on there). I think this kind of local knowledge would need to be considered in evaluating a material discrepancy.
Both the NE & SE corners of Lot 9 are shown out of position by 5' or more. What triggers the RS requirement is the "discovery" of the discrepancy, not weather you show it on a Corner Record or not. Section 8762 states "... if the field survey discloses any of the following: . . .a material discrepancy in the position of points or lines, or in dimensions." [emphasis added]. That's when professional ethics comes into play. It would be unethical to not show a discovered discrepancy to avoid a legal requirement. The fact that there may be many monuments or dimension that far off, only supports the need to file a new record map to inform the public as well as other surveyors. While I would agree, one or two feet in that type of terrain would not be considered a discrepancy, anything more than that is stretching it, especially five feet.
" I expect that Warren is correct in estimating it was measured by chain and transit (I'm not sure how he knew that and I must say that I am impressed by the discernment). "
The HP3800 EDM was the first EDM available to the general land surveying community. It came out in 1971.
What triggers the RS requirement is the "discovery" of the discrepancy
I disagree. In my opinion, "disclosure" as used in §8762 pertains to the dissemination of information to persons other than the licensed professional and his subordinates. If I encounter a material discrepancy that doesn't affect the lines or corners pertaining to my survey, I'm under no obligation to undertake the effort to verify and document it. I may choose to do so in the interest of promoting the maintenance of an accurate cadastre, but it's elective, not required.
"disclosure" as used in §8762 pertains to the dissemination of information to persons other than the licensed professional and his subordinates.
I guess that definition must appear in the white part of the page of the PLSA. I mean, it's a good pitch and all Jim, seems to be a reasonable look at it. Just hope you don't have to defend it against someone who doesn't hold to your definition, i.e.an administrative law judge.
"disclosure" as used in §8762 pertains to the dissemination of information to persons other than the licensed professional and his subordinates.
I would disagree.
8762 states “if the field survey discloses” not "if the surveyor, party chief or chainman discloses." The “shall file” speaks of the surveyor’s obligation to disseminate, or make known to the public (and other surveyors), the information that was disclosed by the field survey. The field survey is disclosing the information to the surveyor and/or his subordinates. They are the ones taking the measurements. Once the field survey has disclosed to the surveyor that there is a discrepancy, he is then obligated to make that discrepancy known by filing the RS, whether or not he ends up needing that point to complete his work. That is how I read it.
"Field survey" doesn't refer to a collection of raw measurement records, it refers to information gathered, processed, analyzed and compiled into a coherent form (e.g. a map) that can be understood by others to represent the work of the surveyor, and it's not a completed "field survey" until the licensed professional puts his signature and seal on it and passes it along to someone beyond his control. Until then it's just data, and not subject to the provisions of §8762.
Jim Frame wrote:"Field survey" doesn't refer to a collection of raw measurement records, it refers to information gathered, processed, analyzed and compiled into a coherent form (e.g. a map) that can be understood by others to represent the work of the surveyor, and it's not a completed "field survey" until the licensed professional puts his signature and seal on it and passes it along to someone beyond his control. Until then it's just data, and not subject to the provisions of §8762.
Is this just a fancy way to say that you don't follow up a material discrepancy discovery with an RS if it doesn't affect your particular survey?
The key words from the statute: "after making a field survey in conformity with the practice of land surveying."
I think Jim is right. The section refers to the Survey of boundary lines which you are performing, not every pair of pipes you might just have happened to measure. If you are Surveying a Subdivision lot and find a material discrepancy on that lot then it is no longer a Corner Record, a Record of Survey is required.
"Gee, I wish we had one of them doomsday machines." -General "Buck" Turgidson
