Who is the audience of your RoS?

[Mike Mueller]

I have been working on and off on an article about this topic, and was curious what you all thought?

Short version of article is this:

Debates about what is correct to show on a RoS is really a discussion of who is the intended audience/user. So until we have an understanding of what the audience is, we will be debating the topic with different definitions of words, which is generally not very useful. We have been discussing/debating about what is the correct amount of information to show, (think narratives or accuracy statements, M&R etc.) often on this forum, but we don't seem to address this important premise.

Personally I think more is better, until it becomes less intelligible/digestible. The word I always come back to is "elegance", but that is a doozy to define :) Reminds me of Justice Potter's famous line. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it)

I fully expect this to have a wide range of opinions, but I would ask everyone to also consider the following assumptions I have made:

1. The reason we are required to file a RoS is because it protects the public.
2. The public is protected when there is agreement within the surveying community.
3. Insufficient information on a RoS will result in the next surveyor redoing the same work, possibly with different results.

My ideal audience is a freshly minted LSIT 50 years in the future who may not know my local jargon.

Mikey Mueller, PLS
Sonoma County

[mpallamary]

Whenever I perform or prepare an ROS, I always assume it will end up in litigation and it must stand alone. I generally add many detailed notes as a prophylactic measure to head off any unnecessary comments or criticisms early.

I try to reference as many plats and "non-record" monuments as I can. As another general rule, far too many surveyors do not appreciate the value of unrecorded plats and unrecorded monuments.

Even if there are too many notes, they will likely serve as a good buffer.

Years ago I asked Norman Glover why he set such large monuments. He said, tongue in cheek, "everyone know the biggest monument has to be the best one." He then said seriously, if the next surveyor used his monument, that is his problem!

[Ian Wilson]

Statutes of California / Chapter 506
Approved by the Governor May 24, 1933 / In effect August 21, 1933

Section 11.

(d) Such a record of survey shall be a map made in good draftsmanlike manner on one or more sheets of tracing cloth of good quality, of a uniform size of eighteen by twenty-six inches, and shall show al the data necessary to enable any competent surveyor to retrace the survey.

Audience: Future "Competent" Surveyors.

[Mike Mueller]

Michael,

Thanks for the feedback, and don't take this the wrong way, but I think you are at one end of the spectrum when it comes to experience and their "typical" record of survey. I have yet to go to actual litigation on a survey and I think for most surveyors its a never or low frequency event.

Ian:
I didn't realize you were such an optimist! After being a CS? You are a rare soul :)
Joking aside, I have used that in discussions of standards with others, but as we all know from our licensing exam, it is only to prove "minimum competence" and I would be willing to bet you have seen some maps from licensed folks that prove that is a very low hurdle. Unless it is the average competence of the licenses folks? Makes you wonder why it has the word "competent" in there :)


Mikey Mueller, PLS
Sonoma County

[mpallamary]

I am not offended in any way. I spend a lot of time defending other surveyors when they get in trouble.

My approach to field notes and record keeping is similar. if you cannot retrieve your old notes and remember everything you did, and the decisions you made in ten minutes or less, you did not do a good survey. Regardless of possible litigation, if I do a good job, no one will have any questions.

Good forum topic!

[mpallamary]

Differences are caused by numerous circumstances, some of which can never be remedied by the surveyor, but in all too numerous instances surveyors cause differences. We, in California, have overcome much of this by certain practices that ought to be a part of all registration acts. Specifically these are:

1. Filing public records of surveys showing all evidence found and all points set.

2. Placing the surveyor’s license number on every monument set.

The surveyor is given exclusive privilege to monument property lines, and in exchange for this exclusive privilege he ought to and does have obligations to the public. Original monument evidence should never be the exclusive property of one; it should be the knowledge of all.
Deeds have a chain of title back to their inception. The validity and correctness of a deed is based upon that chain of title. Similarly, monuments should have a continuous chain of history. The original surveyor sets a stone mound for the section corner. Surveyor number two finds a stone mound for the section corner and sets a 2” iron pipe. Surveyor number three finds the 2” pipe and sets reference points 30 feet on each side of a new proposed road. Surveyor number four finds the reference monuments and resets the true section corner in the centerline of the new road. Surveyor number five finds the new monument in the centerline and wants to prove its identity and the correctness of its position. How can he do this without a continuous record of what surveyors numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4 did? The surveyor who discovers and alters evidence has a duty to record and maintain a record of what he did, and unless that record is a public record, it will soon be lost with the death of the surveyor. This is the reason that California has a law that makes it mandatory to file a record of survey under certain circumstances, and these circumstances are:

(a) Material evidence, which in whole or in part does not appear on any map or record previously recorded or filed in the office of the County Recorder, County Clerk, municipal or county surveying department, or in the records of the Bureau of Land Management of the United States.

(b) A material discrepancy with such record.

(c) Evidence that, by reasonable analysis, might result in alternate positions of lines or points.

(d) The establishment of one or more lines not shown on any such map, the positions of which are not ascertainable from an inspection of such map without trigonometric calculations.

On the record of survey must be shown all evidence found and all new points set.
Whenever a monument is discovered it has little value without evidence of its origin. By requiring a license number on every point set by a surveyor, the identity of the point can usually be established by calling the surveyor. This is an incentive to exchange information and maintain liaison between surveyors. If a discrepancy is discovered, the first surveyor can be immediately notified and differences worked out prior to a client’s display of a desire for revenge on a hostile neighbor.

- Curt Brown, March 1961

[LS_8750]

My intended audience is the adjoiners and their surveyors and attorneys. The RS map lays out the foundation for the litigators, when it comes to that. The bulk of the survey, the evidence, facts, evaluation, etc., is archived in the file. The RS is like a trail of bread crumbs leading to the file.

My experience with disputes is not about measurement, but about weighing the evidence and the facts. I get the sense that boundary disputes are an eye rolling headache for the litigators, costing a lot of money and work and leading damn near nowhere.

And yes, I have been called out on several occasions due to insufficient information being shown on recent survey maps resulting in disputes. Usually costing several orders of magnitude above that of the previous survey.

Definitions of words is an important and interesting topic. Kris Kline recently put together an article about "Acquiescence" (I will post in separate thread). Words have definitions, and surveyors should know those definitions when placing words on recorded maps.

[CBarrett]

Your audience is the minimally qualified, and sometimes those just short of being qualified.
Actually not that different from subdivision maps. This is because records of survey and subdivision maps are often used together when trying to understand a boundary.
Very often after we 'survey a property and monument it's corners' an RS ends up in the hands of a homeowner who hired us and they wave it around as 'proof' of the property being in a certain place.

What I see in practice, sadly is that it takes more than a minimally qualified LS to understand a difference between an RS and a subdivision map. Especially in a crowd that has a "mainly construction Party Chief to LS career path", and now they are freshly licensed and started doing 'ma and pop' boundary surveys on the side, because they and now licensed by answering 70% of 25 generic boundary questions correctly, and can pick up an extra $1000 or so over the weekend.

[mpallamary]

1 of 2

[mpallamary]

2 of 2

[Mike Mueller]

Michael P:

Got a couple letters from that same era from Richard Hogan's papers dealing with CLSA (then CLLSA) and its efforts related to 8762 etc. and as they involve Mr. Brown I figure you might get a kick out of em.

I particularly like Mr. Brown's last 4 paragraphs, and think his advice is as good today as it was then.

If they were debating it then, and we are still debating now, I hope at least its a spiral, so we might be at least moving vertically :)

Mikey Mueller, PLS
Sonoma County

P.S.Richard Hogan is my boss's father, and has given me permission to pass them on.

[mpallamary]

Wow! Great stuff! Thanks for sharing. It is great to read. I appreciate the civility in the discourse.

[Warren Smith]

A sign of the times that these two missives were dated two days apart. Now we enjoy the benefit of nearly instantaneous replies - witness this thread.

[mpallamary]

Indeed!

[Olin Edmundson]

Great question. Glad you brought it up. The audience is other surveyors. 99% of a map is gibberish to the “public” (attorneys included) The only piece of info relevant to the average person is whether there is a monument at a corner and perhaps a brief description of it. A rough drawing on the back of a napkin would suffice.

[Olin Edmundson]

In my opinion, this “surveyor” audience would be your basic competent LS practicing within their area of competency (locality included) This lowest common denominator handholding approach is too burdensome and ultimately costly to the public. If someone happens to be granted an LS number who really shouldn’t have, god bless ‘em. All the notes in the world will not help. The market will eventually sort these things out. You can’t fix stupid.

[DWoolley]

In my opinion, this “surveyor” audience would be your basic competent LS practicing within their area of competency (locality included) This lowest common denominator handholding approach is too burdensome and ultimately costly to the public. If someone happens to be granted an LS number who really shouldn’t have, god bless ‘em. All the notes in the world will not help. The market will eventually sort these things out. You can’t fix stupid.

Olin Edmundson:

I think we may be in agreement. I am sincerely concerned the market will sort out licensing all together. If the bar was intended to be set low, in a world in which everyone can measure, and the land surveyors worry more about the cost to the public rather than the cost to document and protect property rights, a legitimate questions is why bother to license surveyors? That is the question being asked of most Legislatures. The California Little Hoover Commission has already recommended abolishing most of the occupational licenses because "they serve as barriers to entry for...".

It is my understanding we have not been deregulated in those states is mostly due to insurance companies, not our advocation for the profession. How long until a company can bond out of the land surveying? General contractors are self performing tens of millions in "surveying" work. Why would any run of the mill boundary survey differ so much from an ALTA minimum standard boundary survey? Is it a leap to think local standards that cannot meet minimum national standards is an acceptable standard that justifies the necessity of licensure? Frankly, anyone can put math on the ground and drive a stake. The new L5 receiver will put a GPS unit in every DIY garage.

Although anecdotal, I have watched the local field staff diminish to approximately 22% of those working in 1990. The hemorrhaging union pension fund supports the the profession is in decline - more pension qualified people than contributors, approximately 2:1. The County Surveyor's staff is 50% of what it was in 1990 - which is artificially high because they have moved other departments under the local CS umbrella - remove those departments and the staff is closer to 30% over 30 years. What will keep the profession from losing another 60-80%? Low cost services to the public? Please explain the corollary. Anyone over 55 probably doesn't need to be to concerned in California.

A couple of things we will not hear most surveyors say (myself included):

1. During the recession I had to go back to Wall Street to put food on the table.
2. I gave up land surveying to go to Silicon Valley to code.

Joe Bell notwithstanding, PLS 5081, he was a bona-fide medical doctor that decided to become a land surveyor. He could legitimately say "well, I guess I will have to go back to practicing medicine".

If someone is on the bubble of life, get licensed and be one of the last people standing. If licensed, but are on the same bubble, go to an agency. They cut staff through attrition rather than layoffs. Sure, you may be a dog catcher after they no longer provide surveying but you'll be employed and the pension is based on your best three years.

Due to my age, I probably won't lose my gig. But I firmly believe land surveyors, properly trained and practicing according to Hoyle, have a valuable contribution to society.

Land surveyors can make a good living considering many folks limited credentials - maybe we should be concerned and focused on earning it and preserving it. Otherwise, next stop for most of us is driving a Budweiser truck in Texas (if our former neighbor puts in the good word).

DWoolley

[kwilson]

Olin I believe you nailed it. Who and only who can legally determine a boundary line that does not agree with your or my boundary determination? Another LS and the State Licensing people. Convince your fellow LS that you did a good job and you are “In Like Flint”.

When other Surveyors agree with your boundaries you don’t end up in court.

[LS_8750]

I saw an article recently that stated our target audience when developing a RS map should be an LSIT.
I do not agree.

[hellsangle]

Crazy Phil will second that Clark . . .

[CBarrett]

I saw an article recently that stated our target audience when developing a RS map should be an LSIT.
I do not agree.

Is that to account for low performers being able to understand it too?
...................................................... ..... ducking and running......>>>>>>>>>>>>

[Mike Mueller]

Is that to account for low performers being able to understand it too?
...................................................... ..... ducking and running......>>>>>>>>>>>>

That is the idea. Successful communication is determined by the person listening/reading. A few cryptic comments generally leaves questions in the minds of those trying to understand. 20 minutes of effort while drafting a RoS to write a few extra comments about the how/why is generally a small percent of the budget, while it will have a large impact on those trying to figure out what was done.

I saw an article recently that stated our target audience when developing a RS map should be an LSIT.
I do not agree.

I am left wondering at which step in the logic LS8750 stopped agreeing. Was it the assumption that a RoS should convince the next surveyor to agree with it? Or was it with the presumed competence of the viewer? Or something else? Confusion rather than communication.

Phil: I would love to know more what you are thinking. Is the LSIT level too high? or too low? I know you are an advocate for straight to recorder, so it seems logical you would support a professional standard that is high enough that maps wouldn't need the "lowest goal post" review the CS provides?


Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

P.S. Full disclosure I wrote the article, so I am clearly biased :)

[hellsangle]

Phil: I would love to know more what you are thinking. Is the LSIT level too high? or too low? I know you are an advocate for straight to recorder, so it seems logical you would support a professional standard that is high enough that maps wouldn't need the "lowest goal post" review the CS provides?

Mikey,

The LSIT has no legal standing and/or opinion if a Record of Survey was challenged requiring an expert witness. The Record of Survey should be prepared as though another competent surveyor is going to review and opine.

Years ago, I prepared a metric Record of Survey that went to the appellant court, (unpublished), and nobody questioned the map being in meters. To them it was just a picture of conditions relative to my opinion. The "audience", in that case, was the other surveyor.

Long story . . . but I used the Mike-Durkee-Esq.-line when the judge asked me why I didn't opine more ground for my client . . . I said, "Your honor, pigs get fat. Hogs get slaughtered". She smiled and got it.

The reasons I advocate for Surveyor to Recorder is due to the wide-ranging review comments and fees.

Sorry I didn't have more to offer, Mikey.

[Mike Mueller]

Sorry I didn't have more to offer, Mikey.

Always happy to hear what you are willing to share Phil :)

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

[LS_8750]

Regarding the above referenced article:

Fifth paragraph the author goes on that the audience, or reader, of the RS map is, or should be, reasonable and intelligent and that "only the most competent of a surveyor's peers are the audience of a RoS...."

First of all, the LSIT (the claimed target audience of the RS Map per the article) is not at a peer level with the LS. As Phil pointed out, an LSIT is not going to be called on as an expert to interpret a RS map, except maybe in an academic environment.

Second, and more importantly, those most interested in the RS map are going to be property owners, real estate professionals, appraisers, title officers, attorneys, developers, adjoiners, judges, government authorities, and so on. Or in other words.... Peers.