Standards of Care - Standards of Practice

[LS_8750]

Calamity and chaos is their bliss.

[CBarrett]

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.

Newer Construction Phenomenon.

Old cities, old towns etc, tend to work off of building lines and ROW lines. Lines of occupation, sometimes 500 hundred of years old (at least in Europe_
Newer street alignments are engineered off of centerlines, and engineers used to be allowed to survey. Then people perpetuated the idea that CL is the intent, and has a slightly higher evidence hierarchy than ROW lines. Plus, fewer monuments to set or locate later on, if you don't set sidelines.

Old Countries (Europe) only new roads have centerlines.

[Olin Edmundson]

This may be more of a question of map presentation.

We all know and most likely all agree that original monuments hold

When say in a typical type of City block (50' x 100') lots and a string of monuments are found along the frontage, how is this shown on the map?

If original monuments are found at all front corners, how is this depicted?

How many maps have you come across that show a simple inverse between monument to monument, in essence showing slight deflections in the line at every corner? I haven't seen many. We surveyors tend not to like this for some unknown reason. We want to straighten out the world. (There is a seperate question of what direction you go away from the street, but that is a bearing base issue)

What mapping method/technique can be used to accomplish this? i.e. show mathematically where all the monuments are without "calling them off" and without putting a ton of angle points along the street frontage?

There is one way I know of but I haven't heard it taught in survey seminars or classes.

[bryanmundia]

Olin,

I use a method of linear regression that will determine the "best fit line" using a weight given to each monument found based on pedigree. If they are all original and set by the same surveyor, they all get the same weight. The linear regression method allows me to analyze each monument on its own and determine if maybe a single monument was disturbed in the series and I can throw that one out and call it off of the line created. Normally I use my error ellipses that are reported in my least squares adjustment data as my guide as to whether a monument is "on the line" or not. If my semi-major and semi-minor axis are both 0.03' then any monument along my best fit line within 0.03' is stated as being on the line. The other monuments, if truly original, create an angle point if I can prove that they have not been disturbed or altered (think of monuments that are of the same character, i.e. depth above or below the ground as a good identifier of disturbance).

On my map I include a boundary establishment note saying that the line was determined by a "best fit linear regression holding monuments # through # (I number my monuments and put them in a separate table)" I also show a table of my linear regression which states the line created and the standard deviation of each point from the line.

To some in this forum it may sound like witchcraft but I feel it is one of the better ways to give the necessary weighting to each monument while still keeping true to the intention of the original map which was having all of the monuments in a straight line.

[David Kendall]

What mapping method/technique can be used to accomplish this? i.e. show mathematically where all the monuments are without "calling them off" and without putting a ton of angle points along the street frontage?

It is a good question. I tried the point to point method but I got static from a reviewer who was compelled to assert the perfect record width on behalf of their constituents.

Probably the cleanest and least controversial method could be to show a weighted best fit* centerline with each monument offset the exact measured distance down the line. Curves will complicate matters

*weighted best fit on a survey map has always meant (to me) "I surveyor like this bearing the best and if I use a nebulous term then no one will argue with me or know what I am talking about". I've seen this term on maps but never seen anyone explicitly state the weighted parts

[Mike Mueller]

I create a centerline (however that is done IE CL mons, curb splits, offsets from original sideline mons etc) offset it the requirement amount, then trim or extend as needed lines that go through the sideline monuments. if the monument is within my acceptable tolerances (generally 0.02) I call it online, if its much more than that, I label the distance on my map. The same reasoning behind why streets don't get prorated is why I try hard to keep them straight and even widths. I also strive to keep sidelines parallel as that is the presumption of almost every non surveyor out there, especially builders of homes and fences.

I can hear the "why call it off 0.04" debate and my answer is that I assume that the viewers of my map will understand that if the original survey shows distances to the nearest tenth, and I am within 0.049, that I am saying measured and record agree, I am just showing more precision for future surveyors. Its why I strive to show my record data with the same precision as it was originally reported, IE N°32&1/2 E 100' is NOT the same as N32°30'00"E 100.00', and if I my measurement is N32°16'00"E 99.56' then measured and record agree.

Gets tricky when I assert that on a CR :) right Ian?

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9706
Sonoma County

[DWoolley]

This is the episode that describes the mapping process described by others:

https://youtu.be/22W71pwVRuI?si=uXXRluWL8vkjt2bY

I do not understand why a surveyor would not show the field measurements on the survey. Aren't the "measured and record" folks i.e. "M&R guys" modern day Bensons? Readers may know, the folks in Washington DC sniffed out Benson when his plat measurements were "to perfect" [M&R] (section lines closing on township lines). Again, we are only 3-4 generations away from him - obviously and observably his DNA still courses through the profession. Why would the modern surveyor bother measuring [or did he] and call it M&R? Simply drive by, collect a check, and Skeets Nehemiah "feet don't fail me now!"

When I see "M&R" on a map I request the field notes and coordinate file. You know your pick hit pure gold when you get a CAD file [or coordinate file] with more than one field point representing a single monument. We hook arms, dance a jig, it's rodeo time.

DWoolley

[Jim Frame]

When I see "M&R" on a map I request the field notes and coordinate file. You know your pick hit pure gold when you get a CAD file [or coordinate file] with more than one field point representing a single monument. We hook arms, dance a jig, it's rodeo time.

Sacramento County requests the as-staked monument position data for ROS submittals, and the above is the reason I decline to provide it. It's a rare monument that gets set exactly at its intended position, and I see no reason to give anyone the opportunity to say "Please tell the court, Mr. Frame, why the monuments you set aren't, according to your own data, in the positions you claim they occupy?"

Yesterday I set monuments for a ROS I'm currently compiling. The post-survey adjusted values show the two back rebars (which were shot over a 6' fence) to be within 0.02', and the two front disks to be within 0.01'. But that information won't be part of my submittal package.

[DWoolley]

When I see "M&R" on a map I request the field notes and coordinate file. You know your pick hit pure gold when you get a CAD file [or coordinate file] with more than one field point representing a single monument. We hook arms, dance a jig, it's rodeo time.

Sacramento County requests the as-staked monument position data for ROS submittals, and the above is the reason I decline to provide it. It's a rare monument that gets set exactly at its intended position, and I see no reason to give anyone the opportunity to say "Please tell the court, Mr. Frame, why the monuments you set aren't, according to your own data, in the positions you claim they occupy?"

Yesterday I set monuments for a ROS I'm currently compiling. The post-survey adjusted values show the two back rebars (which were shot over a 6' fence) to be within 0.02', and the two front disks to be within 0.01'. But that information won't be part of my submittal package.

Setting monuments and measuring monuments are two different things with different results. We set monuments that our data collectors show results as 0.01x0.01 or better. We then wrap a set of angles and distances and process the measurements through StarNet for the true position. The results? Not usually 0.01x0.01. Again, staking and measuring will have different results.

When it has to be near perfect, we set unpunched discs, scribe a temporary mark, wrap angles, StarNet, adjust the scribe and repeat the process one more time before setting the punch.

Long line surveys, sectionalized land, allows for less diligent measurements. The long lines easily accommodate the standard errors in measurements.

DWoolley

[DWoolley]

We see folks setting permanent monuments and ties with GPS/RTN on short lines. The "as staked" coordinates are completely meaningless.

DWoolley

[Olin Edmundson]

You may be misinterpreting the usage of R&M, or what some might call Record & Calculated. The purpose as I’ve used and seen used is to clearly demonstrate surveyors intent of why a point was set where it was. In other words, say for example you find a pipe at some certain corner, but the next monument is missing and needs to be set. If it is a case where the position of the missing point is determined by using the position of the exiting monument and simply using record bearing and distance to get to the missing point it might be shown as R&M It provides the answer as to how the position of that particular corner was determined. It would never be used to show an inverse between two found monuments. At least that is how it is and has historically been used in this local area. I can see why this might be confusing if one was from out of the area and not familiar with the local practice.

Woolley, I didn’t get a chance to watch your entire video, maybe you could summarize. What is your method to my previous question: How do you show the exact mathematical position of where a monument is without “calling it off”

[CBarrett]

If my error ellipses are 0.03' and my record and measured positions fall within that 95% confidence error ellipse, then my opinion of where the boundary is located is - I am 95% certain that record boundary is within tolerance of measured. I am not doing anyone favors by changing the boundary location by 0.01' or 0.02' to make the internal math look more polished.
Boundary shown on an RS is an opinion of where the boundary sits, not pure mathematics. Saying M and R are the same numbers means, my opinion is that my measurements are 95% certain the boundary can stay where it was originally placed.
If I go out and measure and adjust it again, I may have to adjust the boundary 0.015' in a different direction. What is the point. This is why we need accuracy standards.

Unwritten accuracy standard for suburban boundaries are, for example 0.05' to 0.07'.

Purpose of a record of survey is to show what we surveyed and present the final opinion of where the boundary is. We don't show every setup, turned angle, repeated measurement, base, M1 and M2 and length of observations and adjustment paperwork and every thought that went through evidence evaluation on the RS. If someone decides to require that (some of our contracts do), it is a different work product.

It's a severe leap of logic to assume M&R being the same equates to deficient survey practices. It's a non-sequitur.

[Olin Edmundson]

R&M has nothing to do with accuracy of measurement.

It is a way to show how the position of a particular corner was re-established.

You might have a case when surveying around a parcel where a monument is found, the next monument is missing, then the following monument is found. You of course have to make a determination as to where to set the missing corner using some method. If, for example, one were to choose to use a bearing - bearing intersection to re-establish the position, the bearings of both lines coming into the re-established corner might say R&M to demonstrate your intent, then the distances on the two lines would list both the measured (or calculated) and record distances as they would be different. Instead of R&M you could also just show both the measured and record bearings (both being the same) but the R&M shows a more clear intent as to your methodology.

Or are you all just using computer programs to determine boundary locations?

[DWoolley]

...
Or are you all just using computer programs to determine boundary locations?

Interesting thought, if I hand calculate coordinates using Peters's tables to determine latitudes and departures the solution is better than using a calculator and far better than computer generated coordinates? Best fit lines, linear regression, to resolve an alignment was on the 1977 or 1978 test. A test for minimum competence. I am not aware of anything written that places more weight on centerline monuments over right of way monuments from the same map. Quite likely another procedure the land surveyors simply made up.

Maybe more to your point, CAD programs actually did introduce "boundary solutions" that would never hold up under scrutiny i.e. the procedure is not in any books or law. Boundary procedures in California is ancient and stable law - most of which dates back to the late 1800s. CAD didn't become prevalent in my area until the early 1990s - there is very little boundary law, almost none, in the last 30 years. Bryant v Blevins is the only law effecting procedures that comes to mind. The balance of new cases restates old law. Point being, CAD has not introduced any new boundary /procedural solutions.

If an experienced tech takes the record lines figure, rotates the figure to two monuments and then, looks at the relationship of the record line work relative to the found monuments in a finish drawing, the survey procedure is starting off on the wrong foot. Invariably, record angles, distances, maps most often yields to found monuments. Typically, the procedures are established between found monuments. Generally, record angle and distance only applies to senior metes and bounds descriptions.

DWoolley

[CBarrett]

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disdain

Interesting and unsurprising to see surveyors talk about virtually the same thing, and express so much disdain for one another in the process.

One of very common practices which a harming the profession much more than any slips in technical prowess.

[CBarrett]

Or are you all just using computer programs to determine boundary locations?

Are you measuring with a chain, tape and optical theodolite, doing station and offsets, and using trig and log tables for your calcs? Hand drafting with a rectangular or a polar plotter and inking the mylars?

You speak as if there is something wrong with newer technology? Where is that coming from? Care to explain?

Sure, we can talk about the good ole days, got a week or a few? How old are you, when did you start surveying? Where did you get your degree, when did you graduate? Did you go up-hill both ways in the snow? smh

If an experienced tech takes the record lines figure, rotates the figure to two monuments and then, looks at the relationship of the record line work relative to the found monuments in a finish drawing, the survey procedure is starting off on the wrong foot. Invariably, record angles, distances, maps most often yields to found monuments. Typically, the procedures are established between found monuments. Generally, record angle and distance only applies to senior metes and bounds descriptions.

DWoolley

Exactly, if you are talking about making a calc fit the monuments. One still needs to go through proper established procedures, and every survey will be different. People who don't know that need to keep their fingers out of boundaries, licensed or working "under supervision".

It is usually impossible to have your entire survey be (M, R1) - (unless somehow you are surveying a recently monumented tract lot). I've never had it happen, I've seen 'record maps' claim to have been field surveyed.

Occasional line between original monuments can be found (M, R1)

[Olin Edmundson]

I'm not trying to be disrespectful in any way whatsoever. The question I brought up seems important as a possible source of a misunderstanding between surveyors. (but for the most part it doesn't have anything to do with measurement standards, or accuracy, or boundary determination, or use of technology, or centerline v. sideline monuments, or error elipses, or least squares or best fit lines, etc.).

People are constantly bitching and moaning about survey monuments being called off.

In a way it is a good natural inclination we surveyors have of showing what we've actually measured. (Whenever you see a measured distance exactly the same as record between two monuments, you know they are lying most of the time) With consideration to the fact that there is a certain degree of error in our own measurements. (For example it could be described as a arrogant or ignorant, etc. if one were to call something off by 0.01' when they are only measuring to an accuracy of 0.05')

My question is:

In map form, when a measurement of a monument differs from record (and is outside our own tolerance of error,) how do you show your measured position of monuments without "calling them off" ?

For a simple example, say that 10 monuments are found on the front corners of lots in a city subdivision and a best fit line is used to establish the street alignment. (this may very well be the best way to do it) but in reality you might have some points that are 0.15' to one side and some others that are 0.15' to the other side of this best fit line. If I were to come along later I'd prefer to know where those points actually are.

Is the answer that it's none of your business?

***The R&M topic is an unrelated tangent (no pun intended) as I see it****

[Mike Mueller]

If an experienced tech takes the record lines figure, rotates the figure to two monuments and then, looks at the relationship of the record line work relative to the found monuments in a finish drawing, the survey procedure is starting off on the wrong foot. Invariably, record angles, distances, maps most often yields to found monuments. Typically, the procedures are established between found monuments. Generally, record angle and distance only applies to senior metes and bounds descriptions.

I think I am not understanding what you mean by "in a finish drawing". Is that only for RoS, or for anything?

I ask because I use that exact procedure to evaluate relationships of found monuments to their documents of creations, and I do that in almost every drawing I do. For a RoS I use probably 3-10 maps/deeds with a separate Xref for each and I will be moving and rotating those Xrefs around all the time to evaluate relationships and test ideas. Once I am working on the resolution its also how I hold interior angles or set up bearing bearing intersections, since you can place the xref wherever you need and rotate to whatever is best suited to use for that interior angle. Its like using a jig, so that I don't introduce the chance for finger slips.

It is also how I create/use search points. I will often have each Xrefed map/deed have a group of points that I move around as a unit in the field to come up with multiple locations to search. Then once I find stuff, I use that same idea to test them by translating the calc points to one of the found mons, then rotate to another, and then inverse found mons to calc point for the others. Gives a very quick apples to apples comparison, and helps uncover outliers or cases of mistaken identity of the found monument prompting me to redo the search.

I guess I am wondering what is so wrong about that procedure unless you meant it as a way someone does a RoS and calls every monument out, AKA two point tango?

To get to Olin's question, when I am doing a RoS the lines that connect to that monument will actually connect to the point in CAD that represents that found object and I report the bearing and distance of those lines, with the record data shown in paranthesis with a references IE "99.92' (100.00 R1)". I think the next surveyor will appreciate knowing exactly where I found them, so they can evaluate the monument, my map, my measurements, and my methodology easier. If the measurement happens to be the same, then I write "100.00' M&R1". If I am holding R1's record position for the terminus of that line then it is "100.00 HELD R1".

A trickier situation is when the monument is not correct. An easy example is a bad proration that you can prove the previous surveyor just goofed using the wrong monument or something. In that case I show the bearings and distances of the lines going to the correct position of the corner and have a note "FOUD 1/2" IRON PIPE TAGGED XXXX PER R2 BEARS N25°23'34"E 0.24' FROM DIMENSIONED POSITION" If its a complicated reason that they are wrong, then I add , "SEE SURVEYORS NOTE A" and write a paragraph laying out the facts and my conclusions/opinions why its wrong.

If its a topo map, then R&M will always agree. Either with the record map that shows those lines, or with my RoS that I prepare if I find a trigger per 8762. The material discrepancy trigger 8762(b)(2) is evaluated by using the method Dave outlined above. IE I place the record map on two found monuments (generally the mons controlling the line most needed by the client) and check how it fits the others. If its good enough for the intended use, great! If not, I need to do a RoS.

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

[DWoolley]

...
My question is:

In map form, when a measurement of a monument differs from record (and is outside our own tolerance of error,) how do you show your measured position of monuments without "calling them off" ?

For a simple example, say that 10 monuments are found on the front corners of lots in a city subdivision and a best fit line is used to establish the street alignment. (this may very well be the best way to do it) but in reality you might have some points that are 0.15' to one side and some others that are 0.15' to the other side of this best fit line. If I were to come along later I'd prefer to know where those points actually are.

Is the answer that it's none of your business?

Olin Edmundson:

I will show the evolution of my mapping on this topic. Attached is one of the first maps I applied the best fit logic to boundary establishment.

Read the boundary establishment notes c, d and e on sheet 1 of 2. Note that the centerline monuments, shown as 3 and 4, were called off the centerline. Precisely, I offset the centerline to the right of way lines before I best fit them. The survey shows using all of the found monuments - from the same subdivision map, therefore equal weight - to determine the centerline and right of ways.

The boundary establishment note says the monuments shown are within 0.03' of the position shown. The 0.03' could just as easily be 0.3', but I would have to show a perpendicular bearing from the monument to the line (I tied the monuments to the centerline on this instance). Technically, each of the monuments are being held to establish the centerline. Once mapped, the next surveyor would hold that "record" dimension from the same monuments to the line to re-establish the line (especially in the absence of all monuments shown). The established line is straight, each monument was held to establish the straight line, but the location set and measurement process is imperfect.

Frankly, looking back almost 16 years, this map was correct in the methodology, but the map and notes look a little donk now. At that time I had to make it up as I went along. I knew how to do it, I knew why it was correct, but didn't have a model map to follow. I have since refined the mapping process. I will post another example later.

I welcome any criticisms.

DWoolley

[CBarrett]

My question is:

In map form, when a measurement of a monument differs from record (and is outside our own tolerance of error,) how do you show your measured position of monuments without "calling them off" ?

For a simple example, say that 10 monuments are found on the front corners of lots in a city subdivision and a best fit line is used to establish the street alignment. (this may very well be the best way to do it) but in reality you might have some points that are 0.15' to one side and some others that are 0.15' to the other side of this best fit line. If I were to come along later I'd prefer to know where those points actually are.

Assuming these are all original monuments and you intend to 'hold' them so to speak, you could describe and detail out the monument fallings related to your linear regression calc, and describe that how were all properly weighted and accounted for when calculating it, and assuming those were intermediate lot corners, emphasize that they were held for sideline.

This way if regression deviations are significant enough to be of use to another surveyor, they are documented.

I am also likely to give the original tract layout methodology some thought. While there is no legal precedent in centerline monuments carrying more weight (yet), in practice we know that the way tract lines are calculated, lot depths determined starts with the centerline layout. I also know from practice that most party chiefs tend to take more care when setting centerline monuments, vs. front lot corners are sometimes relegated to apprentice or chainman training, or just people prone to zoning out. In extreme cases, while it can be a bit risky, it is possible to conclude there is a blunder at play.

Also, recently I had a series of maps where the monuments were set on 0.25' offset, because some engineer decided to place the PL at the gutter FL, or on a rare occasion at the back of curb. SO, while we have theoretical non-negotiables, like "the original monument holds", sometimes you need to evaluate the entire body of evidence. Recently I saw someone insisting on setting a series of monuments on the face of standard 6" curb. I'd like to see how those will have weathered next 30 years...

Other times you are dealing with an area where common practice was to not monument the centerlines, and use ROW monuments for street alignment. Of course, the minute you introduce an odd angle point or a broken back curve, and there is a traffic accident, some attorney will include you in the lawsuit for 'busting the street geometry' and making it design-substandard - just to see if the insurance payout sticks - and good luck defending yourself.

[LS_8750]

Care and Practice......... Interesting words when you look them up in the dictionary.
Practice Care.... Interesting combination of words.

[LS_8750]

Those paying attention may be aware that in December 2023 there was an amendment to Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence to took effect.
It is applicable to this topic because as land surveyors in performance of our duties are are conducting ourselves as witnesses when performing boundary or any other work within our purview.

Amended Rule 702:

A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if the proponent demonstrates to the court that it is more likely than not that:

(a) the expert's scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;
(b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;
(c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and
(d) the expert's opinion reflects a reliable application of the principles and methods to the facts of the case.

The big change was the in the language of Item (d). Note the "reliable application of the principles and methods to the facts." No more voodoo folks.

CA Evidence Code Section 801 refers to expert testimony and by comparison with Rule 702 is soft and mushy. Expect a Rule 702 challenge in cross examination.

A reliable application of the principles and methods to the facts of the case sounds to me like standard of care and standard of practice.......

[DWoolley]

Those paying attention may be aware that in December 2023 there was an amendment to Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence to took effect.

In my experience, the Rule 26 (2) (A) will bar most, err, "experts" from qualifying in federal court. There is little room for land surveyor shenanigans in federal court i.e. applying beyond a reasonable doubt standard comes to mind.

DWoolley

[Jim Frame]

Rule 26 (2) (A) will bar most, err, "experts" from qualifying in federal court.

Rule 26(2)(A) simply requires disclosure of the identity of expert witnesses. How does that bar most surveyors?

[DWoolley]

Rule 26 (2) (A) will bar most, err, "experts" from qualifying in federal court.

Rule 26(2)(A) simply requires disclosure of the identity of expert witnesses. How does that bar most surveyors?

"...be accompanied by a written report prepared and signed by the witness. The report shall contain a complete statement of all opinions to be expressed and the basis and reasons therefor; the data or other information considered by the witness in forming the opinions; any exhibits to be used as a summary of or support for the opinions; the qualifications of the witness, including a list of all publications authored by the witness within the preceding ten years; the compensation to be paid for the study and testimony; and a listing of any other cases in which the witness has testified as an expert at trial or by deposition within the preceding four years."

In my experience, the written reports with a "basis and reasons therefor;" coupled with the fact most land surveyors do not have peer reviewed publications authored keeps most of the "experts" out of federal court. The generic land surveyors "basis and reasons therefor;" can get pretty funky [see the current standard of care thread for first hand accounts and examples]. Federal judges and the respective attorneys are unlikely to be hoodwinked by a land surveyors throwing out industry nomenclature and and his showing up in shirtsleeves.

For context, I have been deposed more than 40 times. The only time a deposition went to the legal limit of 7 hours was a federal case. The defense attorney filed and received a court order to have me return for a continuation of the deposition. The preparation and efficiency of the attorney taking the deposition remains unmatched. The attorneys defending the deposition were equally smart, prepared and efficient.

DWoolley