Who is the audience of your RoS?

[Warren Smith]

This thread goes to show that the intended audience of an article in California Surveyor is, of course, our peers - but also LSITs ...

After all, under the direction of a licensee, LSITs are involved in the preparation of records of survey and, hopefully, the field work as well. That is why it's called training.

[E_Page]

I like to prepare my maps not only so that the competent surveyor can understand what I did, but so that I can readily explain the various lines, symbols, notes etc. to a non-technical audience should that become necessary. The ability to make the complex easily understandable has proved very helpful for me when on the stand several times.

[Mike Mueller]

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.

I appreciate the response and specific issues. I am still quite new to this whole writing article thing and can really use the feedback. I should have made it clearer in the article that the target audience they should be thinking of is only when trying to figure out how much to explain on the survey. IE wondering if they should write out "Angle point reestablished by bearing bearing" or just leave the M vs R deltas on the map for they next person to figure it out. It is specifically because it is a lower target that lets the non licensed folks using the map understand it better.

I can see that I need improvement on my writing as the whole point I was trying to get across in the article is that surveyors should be thinking of more than just themselves in how their map is going to be interpreted and used and think more of the non surveyors like you mentioned.


Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

[pls5528]

A per Mr. Pallamary stated: "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."
I totally agree with that, and if any planimetric features relative to that boundary are shown relative to that survey, it is useful for future surveyors, which include public records.

[SueDonim]

Mr. Walters! I hope you are well.

I've known Mr. Pallamary for a very long time. We have spoken about this issue a number of times. I, too, believe that my Record of Survey should stand on it's own without having to flip between multiple maps.

Further, I can get a feel for what the surveyor held in importance in terms of maps and evidence when all is revealed on the map. It helps me understand the "story".

Be well both Michaels!

[CBarrett]

I will go out on a limb and offer one of mine up, instead of talking about it.
I don't operate under the illusions that it is perfect, but it will do.

[Mike Mueller]

Connie,

Nice map :)

Off topic question: Do you prepare many RoS maps on Grid? If so how are you handling the different combination factors of the references?

It hasn't mattered on most of our grid jobs (ie smaller flatter sites) but we have had some larger projects with enough elevation change where the combination factor at one extreme of the map is different enough that a proper apples to apples comparison of the M vs R required us to convert the old record maps to grid with a different combination factor for each map. We were debating internally if we should just start listing the combination factor/theta used for each reference in a table as a SOP, and show all record measurements converted to grid and identify where on the map we determined each references combination factor and theta. We worried it would not get through mapchecking easily since we would be reporting record distances and bearings that were not listed on the referenced maps.

Seemed overly tedious to do it for each reference map, but not sure what else to do when our maps are on grid and we want to show how we are holding a particular measurement to reestablish a position. For example on your map, along Main Street, your map shows measured 839.87 and record (839.89 RO2) which may or may not be the same depending on if R02 was also on grid? (839.87/0.9999776126=839.89) For what its worth, I don't really think the 0.02 matters in terms of actual location over 800', but it is often very important in demonstrating what you held. In this case I know the note on this map makes it clear :)

Thanks for sharing it :)

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

[CBarrett]

Several county surveyors in southern california have sort of a rile that reference data is shown the way that reference is showing it, without conversions of any kind.

M. Vs R. distances are not going to benefit much from being converted. Noone cares much what happens within a tenth or a few hundredths. Significant figures for comparison are within a few tenths.

If I am holding a particular measurement, per legal description, for example, that gets converted to grid. Cross my fingers I have not had to deal with a large number of record calls which need to be converted from ground to grid. Once I had a map where my 120' wide street wanted to be few hundredths short of 120' when converted to grid.

I'm also not too fond of what happens to radiuses. I'm of the school of liking to hold even radiuses on street cl's, because the intent came from minimum city or county standards for certain streets, or from design speed calcs... so if you make the radius smaller, and the engineers need to do additional improvements requiring street plans, you will end up with a construction centerline of a few tenths off, so they can pass their design criteria.

We are doing more and more RS's in grid, especially when the entire project, like this one is in grid.
Usually with grid RS's I don't label the areas.