"The Pincushion Effect"

[CBarrett]

Why would anyone not provide these files upon request?

Seriously, you never saw stubborn surveyor who digs their heels at some arbitrary 'you can't make me do this' regardless of whether it makes sense or not. You romanticize local egos and personalities wee bit too much.
I have a longer post coming, but this statement made me snort diet coke from laughing, and I have to run, lunch is over.

[khuerth]

Why would anyone not provide these files upon request?

Once I start providing CAD files and open that can of worms, where would the requests end? Do you need our equipment calibration records, the raw data files, are you going to go into the field and verify our measurements? What if you don't agree with our SOP or you don't like the Topcon gear I used?

While I don't review maps, I do understand your frustrations with some of the maps that get recorded (and I only see them after the reviews). Some surveyors are more concerned with profits than ethics, which hurts the entire profession. I used to moonlight and do drafting for a surveyor out of the area and I would cringe when he sent me some corner records to draft, he would take the "two point tango" or the "spin to win" to a whole new level.

The County where I practice, we have to provide a $3400 deposit for a review of a Record of Survey (when the map is within City limits) and it is because some of the map reviewers are going way overboard on these reviews. Maybe "technically correct" needs to be better defined?

[hellsangle]

Hear hear, Kyle!

Crazy Phil - Surveyor to Recorder

[Ian Wilson]

“Technically correct” applies to subdivision maps. Records of Survey and Corner Records are reviewed to be “mathematically correct” [SMA §§ 66442 & 66450, PLS Act §8766(a)(1)]

PLS Act §8766 also reads:
(b) …shall not require the…surveyor…submitting the record of survey to change the methods or procedures…

It goes on to read:
(c) Nothing in this section shall limit the county surveyor from including notes expressing opinions regarding the record of survey, or the methods or procedures utilized or employed in the performance of the survey.

Alameda County RS review fee is a flat $500. When my staff has to get the submittal ready for review, scan the submittal. Make sure all the documents are available for the review, process the payment, etc. a big chunk of that fee is already gone before an LS looks at the map. Having to run closure calcs to check for mathematical correctness takes time and eats more dollars. That’s’ why we ask for closure calcs. BTW, it still costs nearly double that to review the map a few times and process it for recording. The reason we have gone to our current electronic filing set up is to reduce our costs and keep the BOS from upping that fee.

And…I currently have a map in for review that is a “No Point Rumba”! One set of curb splints around an angle point south of the site, nothing in front of the site, north of the site, or on the block behind the site. One no record cut cross (rejected). The rectangle doesn't close (different bearings on north and south lines). All four corners of the site set…on a Corner Record.

[khuerth]

When my staff has to get the submittal ready for review, scan the submittal. Make sure all the documents are available for the review, process the payment, etc. a big chunk of that fee is already gone before an LS looks at the map.

I will say I appreciate Dave, Ian and other surveyors who review maps, a thankless job for sure.

I would like to argue (for RS review's) the info listed above should be considered a part of the indexing under PLS Act §8769 "The charge for filing any record of survey, and for indexing the same, shall be the same as provided for subdivided land under Section 27372 of the Government Code."

Since scanning documents and processing payments isn't listed under PLS Act §8766 (a)(1) Its accuracy of mathematical data and substantial compliance with the information required by Section 8764. or (2) Its compliance with Sections 8762.5, 8763, 8764.5, 8771.5, and 8772.???

This is a discussion I recently brought up in my home County that requires a $3400 deposit, when they have non licensed staff doing these tasks, yet still charge $172 per hour to the deposit.

[DWoolley]

Why would anyone not provide these files upon request?

Once I start providing CAD files and open that can of worms, where would the requests end? Do you need our equipment calibration records, the raw data files, are you going to go into the field and verify our measurements? What if you don't agree with our SOP or you don't like the Topcon gear I used?

While I don't review maps, I do understand your frustrations with some of the maps that get recorded (and I only see them after the reviews). Some surveyors are more concerned with profits than ethics, which hurts the entire profession. I used to moonlight and do drafting for a surveyor out of the area and I would cringe when he sent me some corner records to draft, he would take the "two point tango" or the "spin to win" to a whole new level.

The County where I practice, we have to provide a $3400 deposit for a review of a Record of Survey (when the map is within City limits) and it is because some of the map reviewers are going way overboard on these reviews. Maybe "technically correct" needs to be better defined?

I have not worked in all jurisdictions. Locally, surveyors are somewhat accustomed to providing their CAD files for parcel maps and final maps as required by local ordinance when the map is ready to file. This has been the case for over 25 years in Orange County.

As a contract City Surveyor and having several map checking contracts over the last 25 years we occasionally perform field inspections and occasionally, field surveys. This work is 100% on our own dime - we do not get paid for this work by the client. The primary driving factor is a surveyor stating "searched found nothing" on a map and we believe monuments exists and if they exist, they will change the boundary establishment. I would estimate we hit pay dirt 90% of the time.

The last map check we field surveyed put us in the field three separate days with another two days in the office. We suspected/knew something was wrong with the boundary as submitted, but could not prove it without a field survey. The surveyor of record had assured us, in a less than cordial manner, he had recovered all of the boundary evidence and there was no original monuments in the field. Our crew went out and recovered three original monuments from 1923. Two were 18" down through two layers of asphalt (the 1919 notes explained they paved the original road 12" to low - which explained two layers of asphalt). Another original monument required us to sawcut out a portion of a sidewalk (that was scheduled for demo anyway). We also verified the monuments to the barely visible/recoverable ties set in '23. The original monuments, together with the 1919 field notes documenting a problem in the original subdivision, resolved the boundary substantially different than was submitted by the surveyor of record. We're not splitting atoms here. This was not a difficult survey, maybe a 4 or 5 on the boundary scale. In this instance, which is not usually the case, I do not think the surveyor was being nefarious.

Again, we do not get paid for this work. It costs us about $8000, but was well worth it when you see that the final map bridged the gap between 1923 and 2022 through to 2122 - in addition to the consequences for the neighborhood by having filed an incorrect map expanding over several blocks. A thankless job - our client couldn't understand why our map check was taking so long. Someday, 100 years from now, some surveyor will look at that map and think "wow, this was a really diligent surveyor" giving the surveyor of record full credit, lol, fine by me. I can sign the map with a clear conscience as being "technically correct". Map checking has its burden.

Think about this, if a survey cannot stand up to a routine map check, how it could ever survive a judicial review? The hardheaded folks seem to bounce twice as high off the bottom when they hit.

DWoolley

[DWoolley]

...
This is a discussion I recently brought up in my home County that requires a $3400 deposit, when they have non licensed staff doing these tasks, yet still charge $172 per hour to the deposit.

Map checking, like expert work, should be performed by a well trained person. I have seen entire jurisdictions in the crapper largely due to poor map checking standards.

Equally, I have seen entire communities elevated by a high standard of map checking. In my opinion, it is a very important function for public protection and professional practice. Unfortunately, I have also seen good mapping standards falter and drag a the professional community down.

Map checking by qualified people is essential to a professional land surveying ecosystem.

As a contract map checker, I can tell readers there is little to no money in the endeavor. Based on a 10% profit margin - in other parts of the business- I will have to successfully complete $80k in business to make up for the map check i described above. In fact, I can go so far as to say I do not much care for the work. It is professionally depressing. However, folks put a lot time in training me some 30 years ago on the importance, dare I say duty, of map checking.

DWoolley

[PLS7393]

Map checking, like expert work, should be performed by a well trained person. I have seen entire jurisdictions in the crapper largely due to poor map checking standards.

Equally, I have seen entire communities elevated by a high standard of map checking. In my opinion, it is a very important function for public protection and professional practice. Unfortunately, I have also seen good mapping standards falter and drag a the professional community down.

Map checking by qualified people is essential to a professional land surveying ecosystem.

DWoolley

Now Dave, what is your viewpoint when more and more filed maps I'm finding have wrong info/data shown?
Having 17 years of map checking (9.5 strictly PM & Tracts), if you have a good solid procedure to map checking, finding these typos are not challenging or time consuming. These typos are technicalities to be reviewed, as well as record data (bearing & distance) shown on previous mapping.
During revisions to my CR's and RS maps, I am finding more and more technical items not checked (or caught) during reviews and red-lines due to typos. Yes I review my own documents during the revisions, along with noting my finds on the next submittal. Is it wrong to point out the issues I find during the follow up submittal? Are these issues not the same as typing the wrong LS # for your set points in the legend, due to transposing numbers, again these are "technicalities" to be checked. It is happening more frequent than I would expect if the map checking is being done by qualified individuals, as you reference.

By your statement, who do you blame?

[PLS7393]

Why would anyone not provide these files upon request?

Seriously, you never saw stubborn surveyor who digs their heels at some arbitrary 'you can't make me do this' regardless of whether it makes sense or not. You romanticize local egos and personalities wee bit too much.

Oh they are out there more than you know ! ! ! I've been told when asked if one contacted the other surveyor and they told me "No because I don't want to make them mad as I may need something from them later."

[PLS7393]

In my opinion, just like a RS or CR, the map is my professional opinion as informed by many (including the Board).
Technicalities should be checked, but there is NO need for some of these comments on a CR which is a retracement of a filed tact map that previously was signed off as being technically correct by the appropriate jurisdiction. If someone doesn't like my survey, feel free to do your own work and file your map.

Seldom are comments necessary, except for a very few incidences when zero progress can be achieved with a civilized discussion between a CS and private surveyor. Unfortunately some feel just because they can add a note to a map, they will.

[DWoolley]

In my opinion, just like a RS or CR, the map is my professional opinion as informed by many (including the Board).
Technicalities should be checked, but there is NO need for some of these comments on a CR which is a retracement of a filed tact map that previously was signed off as being technically correct by the appropriate jurisdiction.
...

PLS7393:

If it was singularly a "professional opinion" there wouldn't be a requirement for a second signature. Does it seem logical the Legislature was concerned about spelling, formatting and north arrows - which should be correct - in creating the position of County Surveyor? Frankly, the County Recorder could easily check formatting and "technical" information. Read 8764 (g), a lot of latitude for the County Surveyor to comment. Also, why would there be 8766 to add a note? I do not believe that note is to address spelling or missing north arrows.

The testimony from 1889 as to the need for a Land Surveyors' Act (passed in 1891) it is clear the practice in California was in pretty poor shape and the Legislature required licenses and a County Surveyor. I imagine the Legislature wouldn't create the law out of concern for misspelled words, a school marm in the Recorder's office would have been sufficient.

What do you do if the "retracement of the filed tract map" was a poorly constructed, poorly reviewed donk map, does that relieve the retracement surveyor of the responsibility of a proper survey procedures?

DWoolleey

[CBarrett]

Why would anyone not provide these files upon request?

Seriously, you never saw stubborn surveyor who digs their heels at some arbitrary 'you can't make me do this' regardless of whether it makes sense or not. You romanticize local egos and personalities wee bit too much.

Oh they are out there more than you know ! ! ! I've been told when asked if one contacted the other surveyor and they told me "No because I don't want to make them mad as I may need something from them later."

I hear you, I want to say those attitudes are prevalent. One only needs to sit in couple local CLSA meetings and hear the grumbling about they have no right to "....." any time anything different is being proposed. This extends into "I'm not giving the mapchecker anything more than I am required by law..." If I had a dime for each time I heard that... Then there is the 'my way is better than his way' camp.

It is the advantage of having worked on both sides of the coin for a number of years, the land development design firms, and on the map checking and side. You get to see and live through both philosophies. I see this forum has a lot of map checking folks present, so we are seeing a slightly lopsidedly presented situation.

There is also a large number of those who will be 'nice to the mapchecker' face to face, then grumble for months on end. This is so prevalent that I think it is actually hurting the profession.

There is a number of mapcheckers who are great at the 'we are all in this together' approach. I really like this approach, because less unnecessary friction often produces great results. Some people tend to confuse nice with permissive - let me point out that by 'nice' I don't mean more permissive. Then there are others who tend to act like police looking to negatively judge every little error, and tend to create a huge amount of unnecessary friction and lost time. Well intended, with a very ham-handed execution. It results in a lot of people digging their heels in over nothing.

[CBarrett]

Speaking of of mapchecker requests, I have a city checker asking me to add radial bearings to all tangent curves on the map (street curves and curb returns).

I had another gem last year where I was asked to change direction of all radial bearings from the usual mapping (North) style, to point from BC or EC to the radius point (or it may have been the other way).

How do you tell them nicely they are overstepping their authority???
How does a firm hired by a city to act as a City Engineer or a City Surveyor not know this?

[Edward M Reading]

...How do you tell them nicely they are overstepping their authority??? ...

Ask them to show you in the PLS or SMA Act where they have the authority to require that change.

[CBarrett]

...How do you tell them nicely they are overstepping their authority??? ...

Ask them to show you in the PLS or SMA Act where they have the authority to require that change.

There is none.
I just don't know how they will react if I do, and whether my client can afford that battle. Historically, it is frequently an inflammatory issue. For example, with the checker who asked to flip the radials, his response was "you do want the map to record, don't you? I will send you our company's drafting manual" - and so they did. Then we had powwow in the office about the city surveyor attitude and decided that 2 days of drafting will be cheaper/more efficient than fighting him.

Current one, I need to make a decision on what to do and get it done before the weekend is over.

[Edward M Reading]

...How do you tell them nicely they are overstepping their authority??? ...

Ask them to show you in the PLS or SMA Act where they have the authority to require that change.

There is none.
I just don't know how they will react if I do, and whether my client can afford that battle. Historically, it is frequently an inflammatory issue. For example, with the checker who asked to flip the radials, his response was "you do want the map to record, don't you? I will send you our company's drafting manual" - and so they did. Then we had powwow in the office about the city surveyor attitude and decided that 2 days of drafting will be cheaper/more efficient than fighting him.

Current one, I need to make a decision on what to do and get it done before the weekend is over.

Go up the chain, and don't approach it as a "battle".

[Olin Edmundson]

monuments of record are overrated

[LS_8750]

"In the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth." - Genesis 1:1

But forgot to set the corners.

[CBarrett]

"In the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth." - Genesis 1:1

But forgot to set the corners.

It that like, um, some sort of proof that the earth is not flat - even God did not set corners?
this gives me chuckles because I heard of several survey types (randomly across the US) who claim the earth is flat.

Sorry to digress so far off topic.

[DWoolley]

"In the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth." - Genesis 1:1

But forgot to set the corners.

I think He struggled with curvature, refraction and grid to ground - probably the lost chapter of Genesis. Besides,
Clark didn't have the spheroid until 1866.

DWoolley

[kwilson]

I couldn't. resist.
"And I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth." - Revelation 7:1
But Isaiah says "the circle of the earth" too.

Ken Wilson

[Jim Frame]

typing the wrong LS # for your set points in the legend, due to transposing numbers

I started in business in 1993, having worked the previous 10 years for one firm. During those 10 years I set a lot of monuments and drafted a lot of maps featuring that employer's license number.

In 1996 I filed a routine ROS and set 6 monuments bearing my tag. In 1999 I filed another ROS on an adjoining parcel. While reviewing my 1996 ROS for the latter job I discovered -- to my horror -- that the legend indicated that all set monuments were tagged with my former employer's number (oops). The CS in 1996 either didn't notice or didn't find it unusual, as there was no comment about it on the redlines.

[Olin Edmundson]

Oh, monuments were set and lines were marked alright. He just failed to anticipate that surveyors would come to require such hand-holding, in the form of recorded maps, to figure things out.

[mbstanton]

The biggest thing I got out of the book was that fact that there are times when you need to accept the prior surveyor's monuments, even though the prior surveyor's methods and procedures were wrong. This is especially true when the landowners have accepted the prior monuments, relied on them, and built fences and homes based on the prior monuments. No judge is going to require a landowner to move his home to fit new monuments, set by a "better" survey. See Kneer V Mauldin, a California case where the later (better) survey was disregarded by the court. Accepting previously incorrect monuments is something that California surveyor's have a hard time accepting.

[Jim Frame]

Accepting previously incorrect monuments is something that California surveyor's have a hard time accepting.

I had to grit my teeth and do that last week while retracing the exterior of a 1994 Parcel Map done by a local grandfathered civil. I'm familiar with his work and had low expectations, but even still I was surprised (and dismayed) to find discrepancies between his map and the monuments of 0.3' to 0.7', with no consistency in direction. There are no improvements other than some wandering fences, and his is the first field survey of record, so I bit the bullet, accepted them and moved on.