Basis of Bearings on a Land Description

[Warren Smith]

Magee has a good point about the proofreading aspect of map reviews. Once a procedural issue arises, it's time for the licensee who will signing off on the map to have that conversation with the submitting surveyor. That generally is along the lines of ensuring that the graphic depiction - or narrative, if necessary - is sufficient for retracing surveyors. Often, this occurs before the first submittal when a good rapport is had with the CS.

[rmaher]

"Magee", I'm happy your experiences have been so positive, but let's not be dismissive of the issue so often stated in different ways in this thread (add me to the list as well):

I have had several descriptions sent back by local jurisdiction for revisions because I did not include a Basis of Bearings Statement. <...> I've run into agencies with PLSs reviewing descriptions who are making these comments. It's been incredibly frustrating. And it's getting worse.

I generally just add it since it is not worth it for me to battle over.

I have actually been required by them, to write "secondary bearings". I do not agree with this "checking process" with these local agencies, in that, they are telling a land surveyor how to write his/her description.

Everyone has their own experiences, mine is that things are mostly good out there w/ a few exceptions, but these exceptions can be a headache. I previously shared a recent experience I had on this forum, while I was ultimately successful in keeping my professional autonomy, it was not without multiple phone calls, emails and a formal letter which was a real time suck.

I think we’re suffering the effects of management (who sometimes don’t understand the legal aspects of surveying themselves) handing what they see as technical review tasks to “greenish” technicians who are given checklists that will supposedly guide them brilliantly through the process. These technicians work cheaper and are neither properly trained nor given follow-up oversight. The fact you were asked for closures on a rectangle is a big flag someone knows nothing about the job they are doing.

Our latest experiences have been that city "engineering techs" have no clue as to how to write descriptions. They turn lot and block descs into metes and bounds, basically turning one small paragraph into a full page legal desc.

Additionally...

<...> In my experience, I would say generally the redlines I've received were typically the reviewer questioning certain aspects of the item, and generally not determinations warranting a stamped report. <...>

8726. Land surveying defined
A person, including any person employed by the state or by a city, county, or city and
county within the state, practices land surveying within the meaning of this chapter who, either
in a public or private capacity, does or offers to do any one or more of the following:
<...>
(l) Determines the information shown or to be shown within the description of any deed,
trust deed, or other title document prepared for the purpose of describing the limit of real
property in connection with any one or more of the functions described in subdivisions (a) to (f),
inclusive.
<...>
The review, approval, or examination by a governmental entity of documents prepared or
performed pursuant to this section shall be done by, or under the direct supervision of, a person
authorized to practice land surveying.

How can the law as it is written be "assessed" any other way than that it is plainly written? There isn't some graduating scale of where the law is warranted. Review, approval, examination ...

What's nice about the idea of increasing compliance with this is that as Warren Smith states, then a discussion can be had between surveyors.

Why would this association not be excited about making things better?