Standards of Care - Standards of Practice

[CBarrett]

And CLSA sees this as acceptable behavior in the business????
The BOYS are clueless how many times this still happens when people, like this anonymous harasser, think they are getting away with it. Usually when there is just one of you, and 2-5 or more out there, they are sure they can get away with this.

Sad state of affairs, and illegal too.
It would be nice if board considered these kinds of behaviors unfit for licensure, under moral character clause?

I sent this to the CLSA to evaluate their gender harassment policy, to the board for an opinion and to my company's HR, and a national level organization.
Mr. Proud, I believe CLSA does have a record of who you are, beyond your forum user name anonymity.

This is not acceptable, and extremely unprofessional.

[LS_8750]

CA CCP Section 2077(TWO): "When permanent and visible or ascertained boundaries or monuments are inconsistent with the measurement, either of lines, angles, or surfaces, the boundaries or monuments are paramount."

LS Act at Section 8726(5) defines a monument as "reference point that marks a property line, boundary, or corner..."

From the original post:
"All found monuments are either of unknown origin or were set by reference to monuments of unknown origin." and,
"Careful analysis of the map and improvements concluded that the line is uncertain and the most likely location of the line is the best-fit of all found monuments. Since the houses are the oldest evidence on the block, this resolution harmonized building setbacks and minimizes encroachments."


Use of the term "monument" on a land surveyor document has a particular meaning. Differentiating between a "monument" and some other object should be "paramount". That right there is the land surveyor's skill.

I'm fine with the ALTA/NSPS Standard for boundary retracement in accordance with "appropriate boundary law principles governed by the set of facts and evidence found in the course of performing the research and field work."

Seems a Voir Dire should slap down those under the Dunning-Kruger spell. But not all boundary dispute cases reach that point, even to the point of questioning the "appropriate boundary law principles" during mediation, etc. It seems we have lawyers litigating boundary matters with insufficient understanding of what they are doing. And that I find to be troublesome.

[Peter Ehlert]

No Country for Old Men! ... exactly

[CBarrett]

No Country for Old Men! ... exactly

Yes, same old men who work hard at keeping women from getting licensed. Screenshotted and reported as well. Same old men who don't want to let you work in the field, same old men who don't want to tell the board that they hired you on the side to do the fieldwork, because they are afraid of being judged by other old men.

I can insert here all kinds of unprofessionally sounding and 'field' tested comebacks in here, but doing that just continues the lack of professionalism and hurts surveying in general.

As for old men, my grandfathers are a lot older then you, and they did not exhibit this kind of behavior. You are also doing a disservice to men, to try and present that all men act this way. Thankfully, many do not. This is not about "Old Men" this is about the usual group of discriminators and harassers which have existed my entire 33+ year career.

I do thank you for for bringing this systemic problem to the surface. Screenshots of people and names with their commentary will go a long way in assisting the administrative and legal entities in figuring additional measures on how to discourage this kind of behavior. Thank You for showing how willing "good men" are to gang up, and stand on the sidelines while their buddies are 'ridin' dirty'. It is very nice on your end to feel safe in numbers.

[David Kendall]

What is the green book?

[CBarrett]

The issue is not regarding technical standards. There are piles of literature and standards available on what good and ethical surveying practices are.

Issue is behavioral. Too many surveyors think, if it is not illegal, or if they think they are not going to get caught, they will do it, and their peers are afraid of putting pressure on the under-performers. Personal standards need to increase.

[Jim Frame]

Regarding "wokeness" -- a term I dislike, as it's become a culture war dog whistle -- I'm sympathetic to Ms. Barrett's complaints. Although I've been self-employed for a long time now, when I was working for other firms I saw up close how women and minority employees were treated, and in many cases it was shameful, even disgusting. (I got my fair share of hazing as a apprentice, and it was annoying, but the impact was limited because I was an inherent member of the dominant order.) I regret not speaking up back then, and I can even recall instances when I crossed the line myself, though never with the mean-spiritedness that I sometimes observed in others.

I have no doubt that discriminatory practices continue in some firms and with some individuals, and I applaud efforts to eliminate them. Kudos to Ms. Barrett for standing up and pointing them out, that takes a lot of courage.

[CBarrett]

Jim, Thank You kindly for speaking up and for your support.
This is such a rare occurrence that I am sitting here for last 30 minutes or longer dumbfounded trying to find the appropriate response about how much it is appreciated.

[hellsangle]

An great book for women in surveying is "MARKED" by Karen Zollman. (Copyrighted 2014)

(work of fiction based upon experiences) And it's not JUST FOR women. This old geezer loved it. A fun read.

I can't find her email address but NSPS might have it on file?

https://www.amazon.com/MARKED-Adventure ... B00MZGTA76

Crazy Phil

[CBarrett]

An great book for women in surveying is "MARKED" by Karen Zollman. (Copyrighted 2014)

(work of fiction based upon experiences) And it's not JUST FOR women. This old geezer loved it. A fun read.

I can't find her email address but NSPS might have it on file?

https://www.amazon.com/MARKED-Adventure ... B00MZGTA76

Crazy Phil

Thank You for sharing that. I was unaware of it existing, I will look into it.

[LS_8750]

Ok, back to the original post:

Does a "best fit of all found monuments" methodology for boundary re-establishment follow the scientific method?

Has anybody heard of or used such a methodology?

[hellsangle]

Clark,

Many years ago - Mike McGee wrote a DOS program that kinda did that, (I think).

[DWoolley]

Ok, back to the original post:

Does a "best fit of all found monuments" methodology for boundary re-establishment follow the scientific method?

Has anybody heard of or used such a methodology?

There is an acceptable, unacceptable and a few flavors in between to best fit found monuments. Suppose the land surveyor is splitting curbs to determine an alignment, the more information the better, this is also known as a sample set. How does a surveyor set the sample set, each point being equal weight, to represent a single line? Linear regression/best fit/least squares.

Riddle yourself this, if a land surveyor has two centerline monuments and five lot corners set on the right of way on each side of the centerline, how does a land surveyor determine the alignment? All monuments are from the same tract map. What makes those two centerline monuments of more value than the 10 right of way monuments? Nothing. That is not written anywhere. The idea is to afford each monument equal weight in determining centerline and right of way lines. Although the monument do not fit perfectly mathematically, they are not called off, they are held at equal weight and documented.

The video on this procedure is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22W71pw ... y&index=19

This procedure was tested on the 1977 or 78 California land surveying exam. An exam for minimum competence.

An example of the incorrect method is import the measured monuments into the ACAD drawing with the record line and distance map information. The boundary is converted into one figure i.e. a block or closed polyline. Then, the surveyor moves this boundary around in ACAD to determine which monuments are "off" the least distance. This is a much different situation than is described above. I didn't know this was a thing until recent years when an experienced new hire asked me "how far off do monuments have to be before you call them off?". I didn't understand the question. The land surveyor was moving the record figure around to "fit the monuments". I was dumbfounded. I simply asked "why not hold the monuments?" (monuments hold over maps, right?). That's when it got weird. In short, the idea was to show everything measured and record until the monument location crossed a mathematical threshold (described to me as professional judgement) and then, you called the monuments off. I couldn't sleep for two days knowing that logic existed in my sphere, practically despondent. Over the following weekend I sat in my office contemplating the noose I had placed over the rafters and my trusty three legged stool while sipping gin.

There was a guy that wrote a program that did the "analysis" of record to measured, it worked, but I couldn't find a use for it. Monuments are either held or called off based on the several factors, almost none of which are measurement.

Last question, when a monument is called off of the property corner, how was the monument determined to be off? Therein rests boundary determination. Generally, monuments hold over maps and measurement. This goes back to the original PLSS and has carried through to private property. There is a hierarchy for conflicting elements. The closest best fit for the situation described is compass rule or grant boundary method.

DWoolley

[CBarrett]

Ok, back to the original post:
Does a "best fit of all found monuments" methodology for boundary re-establishment follow the scientific method?
Has anybody heard of or used such a methodology?

Best fit would vaguely imply some sort of a statistical analysis, which may or may not include both, measurement confidence weighing and evidence hierarchy evaluation.
I have not seen the term defined, beyond math books using best fit as a synonym for least squares method.

With cogo software, best fit is usually a command that takes you to linear regression calc.
Something more advanced will take you to spatial coordinate transformations, sometimes performed by triangulation of points, and some people will try weighted least squares for a best fit calc..

Sometimes, people will go as far as calling helmert transformation a best fit, but I expect to see that calc in geodetic work, I have not heard of anyone apply that to a boundary. I don't encounter very many surveyors not specializing in geodetic work familiar with Helmert transformation.

Surveyors, on average, need better general education, and more specifically, better technical writing education so they can present and defend their work. (not necessarily formal, however they acquire it to elevate their performance standards is fine at this point in time.)

What is it that you are trying to figure out, beyond pointing out possible deficiency in some other surveyors work?

[LS_8750]

Lots of trees, no forest.

CA CCP Section 2077(TWO): "When permanent and visible or ascertained boundaries or monuments are inconsistent with the measurement, either of lines, angles, or surfaces, the boundaries or monuments are paramount."

Ok then, if monuments are paramount, then how could a "best fit of all monuments" supersede? And by use of the term "monument" you are identifying the objects as monuments subject to CCP 2077(TWO) and not some junk objects, and your least squares hocus pocus just called off 11 known monuments held by your predecessor in a subdivision dating back to 1910. In an era when measurement is dead.

[DWoolley]

Lots of trees, no forest.

CA CCP Section 2077(TWO): "When permanent and visible or ascertained boundaries or monuments are inconsistent with the measurement, either of lines, angles, or surfaces, the boundaries or monuments are paramount."

Ok then, if monuments are paramount, then how could a "best fit of all monuments" supersede? And by use of the term "monument" you are identifying the objects as monuments subject to CCP 2077(TWO) and not some junk objects, and your least squares hocus pocus just called off 11 known monuments held by your predecessor in a subdivision dating back to 1910. In an era when measurement is dead.

As described, it sounds donk, I cannot imagine a valid scenario in which a best fit anything would be appropriate. If it was the appropriate procedure it would be written somewhere. Some survey folks will throw around technical mumbo jumbo - it serves as camouflage. It is dangerous ground for a professional because it cannot stand up to a challenge. Back to where this conversation started, I am not aware of any standard or written procedure that would prescribe the process you have described.

Then again, I learned something new this week that has me rethinking a long held surveying belief/understanding.

Correct me, but didn't this surveyor say the boundary could not be resolved and then, he resolved the boundary? Also, what was the disposition of the case?

DWoolley

[CBarrett]

Ok then, if monuments are paramount, then how could a "best fit of all monuments" supersede?

Who said the measurement would supersede over monuments? The surveyor in your example? Who knows what he did, especially without seeing the survey? I'm not seeing anyone in this discussion saying that???

If you are unclear about least squares and linear regression, Dave has a 10 minute surveyor video on the subject, that's a good start.

[LS_8750]

Ok, explain to me with your professional credentials as land surveyor, your education, your textbooks, your 10-Minute Surveyor episodes, your apparent mystical understanding of statistics, and your experience, how you arrive at your least squares "best-fit" methodology when your established position, that pinpoint of all pinpoints, is over here, when the object depicting the corner, that thing that has been relied on by occupants for nearly a hundred years, is over there by say a few tenths, feet, hundredths, or however deep down that rabbit hole you want to go. Explain it to me in such a way that with my sixth grade education I can understand what your are saying and translate your explanation to the rest of my jury peers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWJX9yUKJeQ

[LS_8750]

I had a great experience once in my engineering practice, a few years before obtaining my LS credential. I was involved in a litigation matter where I became the so called forensic engineer. I had to write up a report. I was about 30 years old. My experience in report writing was limited to technical reports for my peers, employers, or previously for my professors. I spent everything I had in my being and wrote up something and my attorney, bless her heart, was like "dude, what the fuck is this?" She went on to say that she believed that my writing was probably great, but she had no idea what I was talking about and never would no matter how much explaining I attempted. ......... She said I needed to break it all down and explain everything to her as if she was a sixth grader. I had no kids at the time. So I did as best I could. .... One of those pivotal moments in my professional life. ....... I put everything I had into explaining everything I knew and understood into the simplest terms I could imagine. .... I was not long after I was raising babies, toddlers, and now a sixth grader.... My kids are way smarter than I ever imagined for myself.........

If there ever was an introduction to the greatest expert witness book of all time (and it hasn't been written yet), it would include that the interpretation of the scientific method boils down to the art of bullshit. And the bar separating the good from the great is that you cannot bullshit a bullshitter.

So as the World Turns.

[CBarrett]

Ok, explain to me

Already did, you can go back and re-read.
Not my job to teach you and this is not a courtroom.

If you want me to write a professional paper, it's 300 an hour, plus a retainer, you provide the necessary documentation. I can send you a list.

Have a nice day.

[hellsangle]

Well said, Clark . . .

And regardless of what method the surveyor takes to determine a boundary . . . what is a court likely to affirm.

Stay warm!

[Warren Smith]

My best mentor was a land surveyor, a civil engineer, and a member of the Bar. He showed me how to present complicated issues in a straightforward manner.
He's gone, and I'm still learning.

[Mike Mueller]

Riddle yourself this, if a land surveyor has two centerline monuments and five lot corners set on the right of way on each side of the centerline, how does a land surveyor determine the alignment? All monuments are from the same tract map. What makes those two centerline monuments of more value than the 10 right of way monuments? Nothing. That is not written anywhere. The idea is to afford each monument equal weight in determining centerline and right of way lines. Although the monument do not fit perfectly mathematically, they are not called off, they are held at equal weight and documented.

I have always added some additional considerations in my thoughts, and that is repeatability, permanence and replaceability. IE I expect those CL mons to be used by more folks, for a longer time. So to increase future agreement, giving a little more weight to hold a simple line between the found CL mons seems more practical. Another consideration is what would be the next most likely technique used by the next surveyor to reset any 1 or 2 of those monuments from my map.

Functionally speaking I make that simple straight line, and then evaluate the 5 lot corner mons to see if they were within my job's tolerances, IE ±0.02 for most work, more in some situations. There is an additional consideration for the size/type of the monument, IE 2" iron pipes that are open, but originally had a tag I add more hundredths to that ±. If the sideline mons exceed my tolerance I will most likely show their distance to the sideline and hold them for lot lines. If they are significantly and uniquely off, then they are probably going to be called disturbed.

The next step I take is the replacement thought experiment. It has become pretty key to determining when I will call a monument "off line" by a few hundredths. When the next surveyor comes along and is using my RoS to re-set one of the missing monuments, I want to make sure that the "tie two points on line and extend" methodology will still result in the correct position. Calling those 5+ mons all on line even when they might be off a little doesn't matter for most real world situations, but it can result in some pretty large offsets when the extension line length exceeds the tied line length.

The CL mon discussion has always made me smile, since in the most likely situation, those CL mons were set very late in the life cycle of the survey, probably based on 2nd or 3rd generation control points, using straddlers which each have their own slop. From a pure accuracy viewpoint, they are likely the worst thing from a subdivision map for re-establishing the original monuments found by the subdivision map. On the other hand they are often the most physically stable and repeatable monuments 50 years later. They are easy to access, generally are GPS able, and still there after the fences went in and destroyed corner mons. Such low hanging fruit inevitably gets picked by some/most.


Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

[Edward M Reading]

Riddle yourself this, if a land surveyor has two centerline monuments and five lot corners set on the right of way on each side of the centerline, how does a land surveyor determine the alignment? All monuments are from the same tract map. What makes those two centerline monuments of more value than the 10 right of way monuments? Nothing. That is not written anywhere. The idea is to afford each monument equal weight in determining centerline and right of way lines. Although the monument do not fit perfectly mathematically, they are not called off, they are held at equal weight and documented.
DWoolley

The real question is, why do we in California monument the ROW AND the CL? You have double monumentation that is essentially monumenting the same thing (ROW) and of course, they don't fit and you are left with this issue. It's not done like that everywhere.

[Warren Smith]

Up here in snow plow country, centerline monuments are not set, and section/quarter corners very rarely fall within right of way.
Monuments set at R/W corners suffice for measuring setbacks and for fences.