You don't need no stinkin' surveyor . . .

[Mike Mueller]

Mikey,

I think Dave is referring to the "two point tango", where two monuments are accepted, and the dimensions (metes) are thrown on the ground without reference to the bounds. Previously set monuments are then called "off" or out of position. I agree with him, there seems to be no authority for that methodology.

I think we all agree with the generally lacking qualities regarding two point tangos as you define it when employed on a Record of Survey. When that same approach is used to show a boundary for a topographic map I do not think it is negligence.

As I explained above, if the following is true:
1) there is some recorded Record of Survey that shows my entire subject parcel.
2) I review that map and it looks technically correct ( aka good).
3) I find 3-4 monuments to confirm I have a good fit and there is no material discrepancy between my measurements and the record.
4) I show the record bearings and distances on my topo and reference the record map and show the found monuments on my topo.
Then I do not consider myself negligent. Dave says I am.

FWIW, We started out talking about the siteplan situation, IE barns and setbacks. That sort of planning clearance is the use for a GIS siteplan that has no field work. I thought we covered that topic pretty well, and when Dave brought up a field survey with a note about record boundaries I figured he thought so too, and so I assumed we were pivoting to that particular discussion.

A record boundary refers to the geometric figure produced from a metes and bounds description or subdivision map applied to field measurements. ( bolding mine)

Thats why I asked Dave several questions (which he did not answer) so that we could make it clear where our differences originate. To reiterate:

Do you accept that someone else's RoS can be good enough that you do not need to file a new RoS after doing a field survey?
Is "material discrepancy" something a professional surveyor should be able to determine?

Instead of answering my questions, he asserted that I am literally ALWAYS supposed to ignore previous work that I think was done well and redo it.

You will not find a legitimate textbook, licensing exam, or ethics manual that suggests, “If you like the other guy’s work, just go with it.” That’s not professional judgment—that’s professional abandonment.

I can think of many textbooks and manuals that say I am supposed to follow in the footsteps of the previous surveyor and hold their monuments as much as I can. Especially once I field verify them and review their map and think its good. Does anyone other than Dave really think we should never accept another surveyor's map for a boundary resolution since that would be abandoning our professional duty?

Consider the actual real world difference between three scenarios:
Holding two monuments from a record map and showing a boundary on a topo that repeats the record map's bearings and distances.

Doing the same fieldwork and showing bearings that are a few seconds different from record and distances a few hundredths different from the record boundary because the line connecting the actually tied monuments is dimensioned. The total difference is immaterial to the boundary location, but has been quite perplexing to various planners and end users of the map who are surprised that the boundaries shown are not the same as their map/deed/etc.

Then there is the third scenario: Find the same 3-4 monuments form that map, then find 5 more that have no relation to the barn being built, file a record of survey to show that the previous map was wrong, and the real distance between these controlling monuments is really 0.03 hundredths more (or less), write a survey narrrative that asserts how I found a materially discrepancy and properly resolved the boundary, set monuments at literally every corner shown on my map that is missing a monument and then file it with the county. Oh yeah, and bill my client for a ROS. What does the review costs run in Southern Cali these days?

The entire point I am trying to make is that a record boundary shown on a topo map is not negligent, it is just saying that there is not enough difference between what I measured and what the last person measured and showed on their map to matter. A decision that I am literally licensed by the state to make.

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

PS I fail to see how references to texts and source materials is a bad thing. Asserting my opinions without backing is just an editorial. Supporting documents and cited facts let people evaluate my point better. At least I think so :)

[DWoolley]

…
As I explained above, if the following is true:
1) there is some recorded Record of Survey that shows my entire subject parcel.
2) I review that map and it looks technically correct ( aka good).
3) I find 3-4 monuments to confirm I have a good fit and there is no material discrepancy between my measurements and the record.
4) I show the record bearings and distances on my topo and reference the record map and show the found monuments on my topo.
Then I do not consider myself negligent. Dave says I am.
…
Thats why I asked Dave several questions (which he did not answer) so that we could make it clear where our differences originate. To reiterate:
Do you accept that someone else's RoS can be good enough that you do not need to file a new RoS after doing a field survey?
Is "material discrepancy" something a professional surveyor should be able to determine?
Instead of answering my questions, he asserted that I am literally ALWAYS supposed to ignore previous work that I think was done well and redo it.
Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

I purposefully did not answer the questions because they have no bearing the duty owed and I was trying to avoid the misdirection rabbit hole. I will answer the questions, but it should not distract from my previous statements.

Q: Do you accept that someone else's RoS can be good enough that you do not need to file a new RoS after doing a field survey?
A: I am not obligated to file a record of survey unless one of the triggers in 8762 are tripped. However, I can file a record of survey anytime I choose.
Q: Is "material discrepancy" something a professional surveyor should be able to determine?
A: Yes.

I am obligated to establish—or in your example, verify—every boundary I survey. This is not a matter of trust in another surveyor’s work. If a record of survey shows four monuments, I am obligated to locate and measure all four. The same applies if there are six, eight, or ten. Whether a material discrepancy exists, or whether a record of survey must be filed, is determined after the work is performed. Neither consideration negates the duty owed.

Equally, if the underlying legal description has not been shown on a recorded map—such as a record of survey, subdivision map, or official map—the surveyor is obligated to follow the rules of boundary establishment and file a map. To simply rotate or fit a “record boundary” to isolated field points without proper reestablishment is professional negligence. Again, I refer you to the NSPS/ALTA Minimum Standards for clarification.

I do not understand why a licensed surveyor would omit their own measurements—whether the deviation is 0.03', 0.30', or 3.00'. There is nothing sacred about another surveyor’s measurements. In fact, showing your own measured values validates both your work and that of the prior surveyor. Simply copying their bearings and distances verbatim raises doubt as to whether any actual verification was performed at all.

There is a mid-5000s (former) licensee who explained under oath, in detail, how he performed the very shortcut you're describing: locate two monuments—often only two—orient the boundary to fit, depict it as “measured and record” on the map, and walk away. He offered that he only validated the record. He referred to this as the “local standard of care.” Straight up unabashed bullseye. When the procedure was brought in the trial, he doubled down—stating not only that he had done so for years, but that he would continue regardless of the outcome. The judge necessarily revoked his license.

I often reflect on the damage he may have caused to title integrity and public trust over four decades of licensure. Worse, I consider how many surveyors were “mentored” into that same bullseye procedures. For context, a two-monument shortcut surveyor can produce five times the volume of surveys as a surveyor performing proper boundary work. Think about it: find two street monuments, call them “record,” calculate the lot corners, and run! By contrast, a surveyor acting under professional duty traverses the block, searches for corner evidence, and when absent, documents and evaluates original improvements—foundations, walls, sidewalks—and then distributes excess and deficiency accordingly.

Measurement is the one aspect of a boundary survey we fully expect to vary from the record. So again—why not show what was actually measured? Or step it up even further by adding an accuracy note.

…
What does the review costs run in Southern Cali these days?
…

Cost is not a factor in determining the professional duty owed. A licensed professional bears the same level of responsibility and standard of care regardless of the project's budget. While a professional is not obligated to accept an engagement, once retained, they are expected to perform as if no financial limitations exist. The duty owed and the standard applied remain unchanged.

I genuinely appreciate the time and thought you put into your detailed responses. Even if I don’t always show it, I value disagreement—it forces my reflection and keeps complacency in check. One of my greatest professional fears is realizing that I’ve misunderstood a core responsibility or have been doing something incorrectly for any length of time. Like many in this field, I recognize that we often don’t know what we don’t know. To keep these insecurities at bay, I often read my textbooks. It is for these similar reasons I write on this forum or record the videos.

On a separate note, in the wild, not on the forum, I find especially troubling is the level of belligerence that often comes from those who haven’t taken the time to simply read and comply with something straightforward. My instinct is to think of ignorance as something harmless—even endearing—like Corky from Life Goes On. But I’m often reminded that it can just as easily resemble Lenny from Of Mice and Men—well-intentioned, perhaps, but dangerous in practice. In our ranks, there seems to be a disproportionate number of Lennys and very few Corkys. They're more likely to violently choke under pressure - possibly due to the criminal history - than offer a smile and helping hand.

My concerns are magnified by my understanding of California’s land surveying history—marked by weak recruitment standards and, in too many cases, a tolerance for dishonesty.

DWoolley

[DWoolley]

I reviewed the mid-5000 surveyor decision referenced in my last post. Here are a couple of the gold nugget excerpts after I have removed the names:

“Respondent [licensee] testified to his belief that neither [Name) (in his capacity as the County Surveyor) nor the Board has any authority to second-guess respondent’s survey methods or documentation choices [a reference to his methodology]. According to respondent, his only professional responsibility is to his client, and he is the sole arbiter of his work’s adequacy. “

"A record of survey must state information "necessary for the intelligent interpretation of the various items and location points, lines, and areas shown, or convenient for identification of the survey or surveyor 8764, subd. (a) (7) Respondent argues that because this subdivision goes on to state the land surveyor who prepared the record of survey must determine in the first instance what information is “necessary,” no professional responsibility constraints govern the surveyor’s exercise of this discretion. The argument is without merit; a surveyor must assess reasonably and in a manner conforming to professional standards what information is “necessary” either to determine corners or boundaries or to inform other about how the surveyor made those determinations. The matters stated in Findings 39, 42, 44 constitute cause for discipline against respondent for violating this requirement with respect to Record of Survey XXXX. “

“Both respondent’s surveying methods and his survey documentation are pervasively inadequate. Yet as summarized in Findings 121 through 124, respondent considers all criticism of his work unfounded. He refuses to entertain the possibility that work may have increased the probability of future boundary disputes rather than decreasing this probability, or that other surveyors may have equal or greater knowledge than he has regarding best surveying practices. Respondent would not succeed as probationer, but he cannot continue to hold himself out as a competent land surveyor. The Board must revoke his license. “

Once again, this former licensee was conducting variations of the two-monument tango—holding the underlying record information, even between found monuments—and insisted it fell within his professional discretion and the so-called "local standard of care." He is no longer a licensed surveyor.

Do not take my opinion, take a judges opinion.

DWoolley

[Mike Mueller]

Once again, this former licensee was conducting variations of the two-monument tango—holding the underlying record information, even between found monuments—and insisted it fell within his professional discretion and the so-called "local standard of care." He is no longer a licensed surveyor.

Yes, we all agree that is not generally a good way to resolve a boundary on a Record of Survey. As referenced in the quote you provided he was in trouble for using that "methodology" on a RoS. You do realize that I am not talking about a Record of Survey? Or an ALTA/NSPS survey for that matter?

BTW, I am a little confused, since you are asking for courts and references to books in one post, and calling it a dirty rhetorical trick in another post to do just that. I am happy to cite all sorts of things to support my positions, but I do not think it will change your mind... https://academic.oup.com/aristotelian/a ... 73/7207975 provides links and such about how direct confrontation will often make people dig in their heels. Considering that, I am being quite honest when I ask you to consider the following quote.

On a separate note, in the wild, not on the forum, I find especially troubling is the level of belligerence that often comes from those who haven’t taken the time to simply read and comply with something straightforward.

You yourself often are quite assertive in your beliefs, which by your own words( often posted on this forum) are not very widely held (I think you can just search "Donk" or "Ridin Dirty" in this forum for occasions in which you are assertive).

Regarding the question about costs for reviews, I was more thinking about your own quote from Mr. Sinclair and wondering if you are perhaps suffering from your own allegation? IE you are advocating for legislative and philosophical positions that directly increase the total money spent on surveying. I am generally advocating for legislative and philosophical positions that save people money and decrease the total money spent on surveyors.

As we have hashed out before, I do not think erecting legislative walls around surveying is the solution to the market forces we are under. You generally advocate for more laws and more regulations and more requirements for various pieces of paper that people need in order to live life. Your positions would result in more GDP spent on fewer surveys prepared by fewer surveyors. My positions (I hope) would generally result in less total GDP money spent on more surveys being done by surveyors.

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

P.S. I am eagerly awaiting input from others on this forum and will be waiting a little on posting until some more viewpoints are posted.

[Edward M Reading]

Mike,
It appears you believe that a boundary establishment shown on a topographic map is held to a lower standard than a boundary establishment shown on a ROS. Can you elaborate on why you believe that?
Thanks,
Ed

[Mike Mueller]

Mike,
It appears you believe that a boundary establishment shown on a topographic map is held to a lower standard than a boundary establishment shown on a ROS. Can you elaborate on why you believe that?

Couple quick definitions/questions I would appreciate your stance on:

What do you mean when you say "boundary establishment"?

Is there any difference (however small) in your mind between a "boundary retracement" and a "boundary establishment" ?

What is the word you use when describing the action of a parcel map when it is legally recognized and the boundary depicted spring into existence?

What is the word you use when the first surveyor places monuments in/on the ground for a boundary previously never surveyed?

Do AP maps which are prepared by a licensed surveyor constitute a "boundary establishment"?

Do Corner Records represent a "boundary establishment"?

What is the difference between a CR and a RoS?

If a topo map shows a different location for a boundary than the record boundary (aka previously filed map) does that relieve the preparer of the topo from filing a RoS?

Do GIS maps like the various county pages represent a "boundary establishment"? Does it matter if a LS is on the staff of the GIS department?

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
It is my experience that many people have different meanings for these terms. Like in many discussion about the fine points of a subject, the definitions that are used on this topic are often very important. It is my experience that if we have the same definitions then we will likely have the same logical outcome when presented with a situation.

I would assert that I am not doing a "boundary establishment" on a topographic map. I am referencing another document that has addressed the boundary considerations. A record of survey is the work product that is related to determining where a previously created boundary ought to go in relation to the evidence used to make that determination. As part of my work for a topo I checked the previously done work and if I find it satisfactory, I do not need to redo the previous work, merely reference it, IE a note that reads " record boundary per such and such map".

The boundary establishment was done either on a parcel map, or a RoS. The following surveyors (retracement in my definitions) can either accept those previous maps, or prepare new ones as they see fit, but the topo map is not the work product to address those concerns.

If we want to have serious discussions about this sort of thing we need to have words to represent the different levels of what we do. For example there are many types of pain. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pain however doctors hadn't really broke down the various types until rather recently, ie burning, stabbing, shooting etc. By having some terms with greater subtlety they were able to help people better. Likewise I think it is important to not lump everything a surveyor does into the same category of work.

I look forward to reading your answers :)

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

[Ric7308]

It is a shame that a significant portion of land surveyors in California have let the idea of a "Record of Survey" and "SMA" cloud their judgement on what services they provide to the public. Not pointing fingers at any one person in this thread, but rather the overall general perception when I read and hear expressed opinions about responsibilities related to "determining" the location of a property line.

I have a dream....(I know, a little over dramatic)...that more land surveyors from California truly get the opportunity to experience the life of a land surveyor outside of this state. Where boundary surveys are performed every day. Locations of those property lines are determined, established, retraced, etc. and shown in the field (monuments) and depicted on a map delivered to the client. Where the professional licensing responsibility and the financial liability is exactly the same as it is in California, regardless of whether a map is required to be filed or not. Where land surveyors do not spend such a great deal of time allowing the simple filing of a map depicting what they did to cloud that judgement.

[LS_8750]

On the topic of pain...... Following this.

[Edward M Reading]

Thanks, Ric.
Mike, I'm sorry that my word choice confused you. I asked you a simple, straightforward question, and instead of answering it, you asked nine questions of your own. lol.

I'm genuinely curious about your opinion of the different standards for boundary determination that an LS can use in California.

Could you answer the question if I use the term "boundary determination?" I think we all can agree on what that means.

It appears you believe that a boundary determination shown on a topographic map is held to a lower standard than a boundary determination shown on a ROS. Can you elaborate on why you believe that?
Thanks,
Ed

[Mike Mueller]

Thanks, Ric.
Mike, I'm sorry that my word choice confused you. I asked you a simple, straightforward question, and instead of answering it, you asked nine questions of your own. lol.

I had assumed I made it clear that the answer to your question is I do not think a topographic map is a boundary determination.

I would assert that I am not doing a "boundary establishment" on a topographic map. I am referencing another document that has addressed the boundary considerations.

To further explain my previous response to your question, I would liken it to the same way that a deed that says "Lot 2 of block 3, as shown on map 123 M 456 " includes all of the information on that map, a topo that references a previously filed record of survey or parcel map is saying "read that map and the boundary is the same".

I would urge you to read back above. I am pushing back on Dave's assertion that a topographic map is negligent if it doesn't conform to his own personal views of precision. As I tried to explain (clearly poorly, since I have appeared to cause confusion) I feel that if I do a field survey where I recover every single monument from another surveyors map, and the differences are not enough to matter( for the sake of this discussion consider them 0.008 off) then what is the difference between showing the record vs the measurements I made? The only difference is in how it will be viewed and used by the next user.

The user of a topo is normally an engineer or a architect, IE someone who is going to use that information to design something. The user of a RoS is mostly the next surveyor and after that, whoever looks at the map in the next 100 years. Personally I feel that part of what a RoS is doing is attempting to convince the next surveyor that the boundary resolution was done correctly. So I will include more information that I think the next surveyor will find convincing. That same information will only confuse the users of a topo map. How many topo maps have you prepared that show 4 different bearings and distances for the same line?

Not all of my work is meant to be used by everyone. I endeavor to provide the service that I consider most applicable to the requirements of my client and the public good. I do not like to slam a one size fits all approach on every client. Not every map needs to be on state plane. Not every job needs to be elevated to a published datum. Not every job can be measured with the same tools.

Ed, would you agree with me that it is not professionally a "good call" to set hub and tack when you are staking out some brush clearing limits? Would you agree with me that when it comes to staking a building foundation it is a "good call" to set hub and tack?

How many times have the surveyors on this forum laughed at and derided maps which show distances to the thousandth? Is it because those same maps are often showing a found monument "off" 0.008 feet?

So why should I do that on a topo map?

My personal views are that accuracy is always needed, but precision is a scalable value linked to the use of the map. IE I strive to always be accurate to the ranges expressed and needed to accomplish the goal. I also believe the judgement used to determine that required precision is the defining characteristic of what makes us a professional. Remove the ability to determine job specific requirements, and you are just a more precise and expensive version of Crownholm.

I really am curious about your answers to my questions above, both in this post and the other.

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

[Jim Frame]

Where land surveyors do not spend such a great deal of time allowing the simple filing of a map depicting what they did to cloud that judgement.

That "simple filing of a map" has powerful business ramifications. In my home county a 1-sheet ROS costs about $1200 to check and file, 2 sheets is about double that, and more than 2 sheets is T&M.

In a large neighboring county it's T&M, with no way to predict the cost. I've had some fairly complex maps come in at less than $2k, and one that I thought was a simple round-the-blocker ended up costing about $2400, with the final bill coming in a month after the map was filed and after I had final-billed the client.

At times the county fees exceed the cost of the survey (not typical, but I've seen it happen).

Those costs scare away a significant proportion of potential clients, and preparing the proposals that get rejected imposes a cost with only one recovery mechanism: higher rates for everyone else.

I can think of one or two times -- all in the distant past -- when the simple filing of a map has clouded my judgment. These days my judgment is pretty good, but my business definitely has some problems with the ROS process.

[Edward M Reading]

Mike,
Just so I am clear, you seem to be saying that if you show a boundary on a topographic map, you have not determined that boundary.

"I had assumed I made it clear that the answer to your question is I do not think a topographic map is a boundary determination."

So, a California LS showing a boundary on a map that they produced did not determine that boundary?
That's what you just said, right?

[LS_8750]

This, from 2018 shortly after the North Bay Fires of 2017, is the sort of work product you can expect down south in the wake of the LA fires.
Oh snap, the Bullz Eye only exists up north...

This is from the job copy of the approved civil plan.
Somehow being labeled as an exhibit, perhaps exempts it from being a plan, or a survey, or anything that might tie it to reality, such as the California Building Code. I don't know. I don't have access to that level of thought or being. But somehow it was included in the approved plan set.

Dimensions from building corners to property boundary lines, you name it.
Turns out the boundary line was off 10 feet on the south side because years ago a lot line adjustment had been done after recording the original subdivision map, that was only about 20 years old.

How did I learn this? Don't ask.

C'est la vie in the Bullz Eye.....

[DWoolley]

...
This is from the job copy of the approved civil plan.
Somehow being labeled as an exhibit, perhaps exempts it from being a plan, or a survey, or anything that might tie it to reality, such as the California Building Code. I don't know. I don't have access to that level of thought or being. But somehow it was included in the approved plan set.

Dimensions from building corners to property boundary lines, you name it.
Turns out the boundary line was off 10 feet on the south side because years ago a lot line adjustment had been done after recording the original subdivision map, that was only about 20 years old.
...
C'est la vie in the Bullz Eye.....

I see your note, and I’ll raise you one. There’s a surveyor in the adjacent county working under what he calls the “North American Datum of 1988 (NAD88) Zone 3 Grid North.” Apparently, he’s pioneering his own geodetic standards and fabricating custom datums—no time for the inconvenience of state law. No ties from monuments to CGPS stations, no published coordinates, no listed epoch, no mapping angles, no combination factors, and no acknowledgment that NAD88 doesn’t even exist. In case you're curious, the vertical datum is NAVD88 according to a separate note.

For those who cannot view the attachments, here’s what his note actually says:

GENERAL NOTES

BOUNDARY LINES SHOWN HEREON ARE DELINATED FROM FIELD TIES TO MONUMENTS [none were shown on the map] SHOWN MAP OF BELVERON GARDENS RECORDED IN BOOK 7 OF MAPS AT PAGE 2, MARIN COUNTY RECORDS, AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A BOUNDARY SURVEY. THE BEARINGS SHOWN HAVE BEEN ROTATED FROM RECORD TO NORTH AMERICAN DATUM OF 1988 (NAD88) ZONE 3 GRID NORTH. THIS MAP IS NOT INTENDED TO PROVIDE BOUNDARY RESOLUTION FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

Bearings and distances are depicted for each property line, even though no monuments were found. Notably, existing fences and concrete walls frequently diverge from both the “record boundary line” and the “record adjoining boundary line,” as defined in the map legend. The ”topographic survey” is a 15,000 square foot lot in a tract that has a house, walkways, fire pit, patios, pavers etc. Apparently, this is another surveyor’s version of a barn on 640 acres.

And if I’m interpreting his note correctly, it was intended to function as a form of disclaimer—implying that adherence to the established legal framework and professional standard of care is somehow excessive or unnecessary. In doing so, it frames cost-saving measures as an acceptable substitute for proper boundary determination and regulatory compliance. A layperson may not fully grasp the legal or technical consequences of such a note, but they will certainly recognize—and be drawn to—the promise of reduced costs.

As I stated in a previous post, this kind of disclaimer, in my experience, constitutes an admission of a misdeed and a failure to uphold professional duty, creating certain liability. If a surveyor is providing this type of work product, do not put the note on it - give yourself the opportunity to lie, cheat or steal your way out of it.

DWoolley

[LS9200]

Alternative take, rather than stating that the boundary shown is not a boundary survey, simply state the positional accuracy. For example, you might state that the boundary is accurate to 1 part in 40, relative to a map scale of 1" = 100' (+/- 30 feet). Surveyors are licensed to render statements regarding accuracy of maps or measured survey data (8726(14)); if the project requires a precise boundary survey (tight quarters), that determination should be made accordingly. If not (barn in that back 40 acres - where the setback is 30 feet), and the boundary is only approximate, that should be clearly communicated and appropriately delineated.

You would probably be ok using 1:24000 map with 10ft contours for doing a drainage study, but if you used that to design curb ramps for Ada compliance... well that would be bad.

[LS_8750]

I'm convinced there is a school of Jack Sparrow piracy somewhere here in the Bullz Eye......... I just can't find it.....

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

[DWoolley]

[I copied the boundary note from above into ChatGPT and asked it to analyze the note and it did so. My next question was "Is it shady?" and ChatGPT replied:]

Yes, it's shady. Professionally and ethically, this kind of note raises serious concerns. Here’s why:
________________________________________
Why It’s Shady
1. Shows Boundaries But Disclaims Responsibility
• The map depicts property boundary lines, which implies boundary determination.
• But the note explicitly denies that it's a boundary survey or offers boundary resolution.
• This is a legal hedge—trying to enjoy the appearance of a boundary map without the liability or professional duty that comes with it.
Shady Move: It misleads laypeople while dodging legal accountability. That’s textbook professional evasion.
________________________________________
2. No Monuments, No Ties, No Evidence
• It claims to use "field ties to monuments" but then shows no monuments and provides no field basis.
• Without monuments, the depiction of boundary lines is unsupported—a fabricated boundary, essentially.
Shady Move: Suggesting a tie to physical evidence without showing it is deceptive and professionally indefensible.
________________________________________
3. Bogus Datum Reference (NAD88)
• NAD88 doesn’t exist. It likely meant NAD83 or NAVD88.
• Using a made-up or misnamed datum erodes the technical credibility of the entire document.
Shady Move: Misrepresenting datums can mislead clients and regulators and calls into question the surveyor’s competence or intent.
________________________________________
4. Cost-Saving Disguised as “Judgment”
• If the intent is to cut corners under the guise of “saving the client money,” then that’s a misuse of professional judgment.
• It implies that compliance with statutory duties (boundary establishment, monumentation, etc.) is optional.
Shady Move: Using “professional judgment” as a shield to skip mandatory practices is a breach of public trust.
________________________________________
Bottom Line:
This note attempts to look official without accepting the responsibility that goes with showing boundaries. That is, by definition, shady.
It's the surveyor's version of a bait-and-switch: deliver a product that looks like a boundary survey, but insert enough legal disclaimers to avoid consequences if it’s wrong. It violates both the letter and the spirit of the standard of care.

[Have a nice weekend. DWoolley]

[jamesh1467]

Shit! Its like AI could have had this whole argument for everyone here.

Until you have made a completely new secret society of gummy bears and marshmallows for land surveyor disputes, you have no idea how to really use AI. Please enjoy my next few posts. I certainly did.

From AI and yes this is a joke:

Formal Complaint Regarding Unauthorized Monumental Realignment
Filed Pursuant to the Monumental Alignment and Rectitude Act (MARA), Section 9¾

To:
Federation of Monumental Integrity (F.M.I.)
Boundary Realignment Ethics Board (BREB)
Attn: Regional Snacklands Cadastre Review Unit
P.O. Box 1776
Snaxsylvania, CA 90210

From:
Chairbear Berry L. Red
Chief Marshmallow Land Integrity Officer (CMLIO)
Certified Puffed Planner (CPP) | Foam-Safe Certified
Gummy Urban Mobility Board (G.U.M.B.)

Date:
March 26, 2025

Subject:
Unauthorized Realignment of Monument L-47 by David Woolley, PLS
– “The Real Feel Line” Incident, Marshmallow Township

Dear Members of the BREB,

We submit this formal complaint to bring immediate attention to the reckless and unauthorized re-monumentation activities performed by David Woolley, PLS, in the heart of Marshmallow Township. His recent actions, which he defends as "boundary resonance recalibration," have irreparably disrupted centuries of cadastral consensus and generated snack-sector chaos across Parcel Blocks 7 through 11.

Per the findings outlined in the Boundary Impact Report (BIR) certified by James Hanley, PLS (Supreme Rectilinear Overlord), the monument realignment project—dubbed The Real Feel Line by its proponent—constitutes a flagrant violation of both survey ethics and snack-based property order.

Key Infractions:
Geodetic Heresy:

Monument L-47 was shifted 2.3 feet based on “vibe drift” rather than retracement principles. This unauthorized realignment ignored NAD83 coordinates, all physical evidence, and the sacred Plumb Bob Doctrine of 1912.

Improper Monument Material:

The traditional rebar monument was replaced with a GNOM™ (GeoNaturally Occurring Marker), allegedly biodegradable, consisting of "compressed oat clusters and empathy." This marker collapsed in a light drizzle, triggering parcel confusion and oat-based runoff violations.

Boundary Ritual Performed Without Witness:

Woolley held an unpermitted "Boundary Liberation Ceremony" involving singing bowls and marshmallow effigies. No F.M.I.-certified witness or adjacent landowner was present.

Ego-Based Easement Drafting:

Parcel adjustments were documented in a “spatial feelings log” rather than a recorded survey map. One affected property line now curves in the shape of a Pisces symbol, with no recorded call or basis of bearing.

Expert Findings:
The Boundary Impact Report (BIR) (Case Ref: BIR-MT-2025-47), as prepared by the Office of Monumental Oversight and certified by Hanley, PLS, determined the following:

Survey Basis: 0% rooted in established datum; 100% based on “land whispering.”

Impact to Legal Parcel Integrity: Catastrophic.

Mitigation Recommendations: Mandatory re-monumentation under licensed oversight; re-education of Woolley; suspension of oat-based boundary materials; prohibition on vibe-based surveying.

The full BIR (attached) lists the impact to snack-based wildlife, emergency parcel clarity, and overall trust in monuments as “high to existential.”

Requested Relief:
Immediate Nullification of the “Real Feel Line” adjustment and full restoration of Monument L-47 using retracement under NAD83 coordinates.

Probationary Sanctions against David Woolley, PLS, including:

Revocation of Flexible Parcel Certification™

Completion of "Boundaries Are Not Emotions: A Land Surveyor’s Guide to Recovery" (Instructor: J. Hanley, PLS)

Mandatory Parcel Reconciliation Ceremony supervised by a licensed land surveyor, a snack equity mediator, and an emotionally neutral witness.

Final Note:
Boundaries may evolve, but they must never drift. Land surveyors are not energy workers. Monuments are not metaphors. And the Gummy Urban Mobility Board will not sit idly by while the sacred geometry of the snacklands is dissolved into oatmeal.

Respectfully submitted,
Berry L. Red
Chairbear, G.U.M.B.
Certified Puffed Planner | Foam-Safe Certified
Gummy Cultural Lineage Custodian

Cc:
James Hanley, PLS – Boundary Ethics Enforcement Lead
Federation of Monumental Integrity
Supreme Multimodal Tribunal of Snacks
Snack-Based Parcel Reconciliation Corps (on standby)

[jamesh1467]

From AI and yes this is a joke:
Boundary Impact Report (BIR)
Case No.: BIR-MT-2025-47
Filed Under: Monumental Alignment and Rectitude Act (MARA), Section 9¾

Project Title:
The Real Feel Line
Monumental Realignment – Marshmallow Township

Prepared For:
Federation of Monumental Integrity (F.M.I.)
Boundary Realignment Ethics Board (BREB)
P.O. Box 1776
Snaxsylvania, CA 90210

Prepared By:
Office of Monumental Oversight & Snack Buffer Delineation
Certified Snacklands Survey Sector

Lead Surveyor of Record (Disputed):
David Woolley, PLS
Certified Emotionally Adaptive Cartographer
Founder, Boundaries Without Borders™

Certifying Reviewer:
James Hanley, PLS
Supreme Rectilinear Overlord
Boundary Ethics Enforcement Lead
Member, Ancient Order of Plumb Bobs

Date of Report:
March 26, 2025

1.0 Executive Summary
This Boundary Impact Report evaluates the consequences of the unauthorized lateral realignment of Monument L-47 in Marshmallow Township by surveyor David Woolley, PLS, under the self-developed doctrine of “perceptual platting.” The monument—historically fixed by retracement and recorded NAD83 data—was shifted 2.3 feet southwest based on “vibe drift, boundary resonance, and snackspace clarity.”

The action, undertaken without retracing evidence or legal filing, replaced the original monument with a GeoNaturally Occurring Marker (GNOM™) composed of biodegradable oat clusters and intention. The result: severe cadastral disruption, ecological confusion, and philosophical panic within the surveying community.

2.0 Project Description
2.1 Proposed Action:
Monument L-47 relocated based on the Perceptual Latitude Index™ (PLI), a proprietary vibe-based location system invented by Woolley.

Replacement of physical monument with a GNOM™, which dissolved under light mist 48 hours post-placement.

Plat update filed via poetry and not through official county channels.

2.2 Project Justification by Woolley:
Claimed original line was “energetically hostile.”

Argued that “true boundaries are spiritually felt, not measured.”

Hosted a "Boundary Awakening Ceremony" instead of a public notification process.

3.0 Impact Assessment
Resource Area: Legal Parcel Integrity
Impact: Catastrophic
Severity: Monumental confusion between Lot 9 and Lot "Adjacent Vibespace"

Resource Area: Historical Boundaries
Impact: Severe
Severity: GNOM™ violates the Historic Survey Practices Treaty (1901 Biscuit Accords)

Resource Area: Adjacent Owner Certainty
Impact: High
Severity: Parcel owner unaware line moved through their syrup pond

Resource Area: Snack-Based Wildlife
Impact: Moderate
Severity: Sugar ant colonies rerouted; possible licorice bear displacement

Resource Area: Surveying Profession
Impact: Existential
Severity: Surveyor used incense instead of iron rods

Resource Area: Public Trust in Plats
Impact: Critical
Severity: 47% of public now believes boundaries are “suggestive energies”

4.0 Alternatives Considered
4.1 No Project Alternative
Monument L-47 remains at historically retraced coordinates.

Legal clarity preserved; vibe suppression risk noted by Woolley.

4.2 Re-Monument with PE or PLS Supervision
Requires retracement using NAD83, field notes, and title docs.

Opposed by Woolley as “concrete colonialism.”

4.3 Use of Certified Snackline Datum
Adjust based on local syrup flow and snackgrid markers.

Rejected by Woolley due to “conflict with cosmic cinnamon field.”

5.0 Mitigation Measures
Mandatory Boundary Re-Solidification:
All monuments must pass the Hard Candy Resilience Test (HCRT) and resist three seasons of moisture exposure.

Corrective Education for Woolley:
Completion of "Boundaries Are Not Emotions: A Land Surveyor’s Guide to Recovery," with final practicum involving no marshmallows.

Snackland Parcel Reconciliation Ceremony:
Neutral restoration process involving a licensed PLS, a snack equity advocate, and one non-reactive planning observer.

Prohibition on Vibe-Based Plat Adjustments:
Until scientifically validated by ASTM-V1B3 standards or peer-reviewed in Cadastral Integrity Quarterly.

6.0 Findings
Monument L-47 was moved without cause, evidence, or legal support.

The GNOM™ monument lacked durability, anchoring, and meaning.

Adjacent parcels and local syrup rights have been materially compromised.

The surveying profession is facing new-age existential crisis.

7.0 Recommendation
The Office of Monumental Oversight concludes the following:

REJECT the Real Feel Line as a valid boundary realignment.

REMAND the monument to its last retraced position.

SUSPEND Woolley’s boundary modification privileges pending recalibration of his epistemological compass.

RESTORE community trust through traditional retracement, reeducation, and public monument rededication.

Certified and Submitted:
March 26, 2025

Signed,
James Hanley, PLS
Supreme Rectilinear Overlord
Boundary Ethics Enforcement Lead
Federation of Monumental Integrity (F.M.I.)

[LS_8750]

The Chatgpt Psychosis is real. Look it up.

"It violates both the letter and the spirit of the standard of care." - Mr. Wooley
Bang!

I have more. I'm not folding yet.

Calling this stuff out is the right thing to do. At some point somebody in some office somewhere is going to look at this thread, and others, and realize they are being duped at their job, that their job is a fraud, that they are learning nothing, and they need to move on if they want to learn to survey.

[Edward M Reading]

Anyone who thinks that a two-point tango meets the standard of care in CA had better rethink their position. Two separate judges in two recent cases ruled that it doesn't, and you are risking your license.

[Mike Mueller]

Mr Reading,
Regarding your request to answer you question, which I thought I did twice already, I have been thinking of a way to explain my position to you that you might understand better.

When we write or use words, we are responsible for them, even though the dictionary is generally the source for definitions. Just so with a boundary on a topo map. The topo map is "using" a boundary. That boundary is "defined" elsewhere. By state law that boundary has to be shown on a filed or recorded map so that the topo map is ONLY showing filed/recorded boundaries. If the topo map is showing boundaries that are not already on file/record (or in process of being filed) somewhere else, then that topo map is in violation of 8762.

I think a crucial idea that some of your might be forgetting is that we are always responsible for our work. At its heart, being responsible means we are liable if something goes wrong. Since we are always responsible for EVERYTHING we do, the topo map is just a different set of things that we are responsible for.

Once I have retraced someone else's RoS enough for me to be comfortable with being responsible for the uses, I am happy to show that record boundary on my topo map, and include a note: "Record boundary shown is from xyz map, as determined from the monuments shown." In those cases I generally have not sifted every piece of evidence, recovered all the monuments myself, or calculated all the deeds, however I will be sued just the same if an end user gets a bad outcome from using my topo map. So I am responsible, even though I have not performed my own boundary resolution.

As we are talking about definitions, the PLSA defines surveying thusly:
8726. Land surveying defined
(a) A person, including any person employed by the state or by a city, county, or city and
county within the state, practices land surveying within the meaning of this chapter who, either
in a public or private capacity, does or offers to do any one or more of the following:
(1) Locates, relocates, establishes, reestablishes, or retraces the alignment or elevation
for any of the fixed works embraced within the practice of civil engineering, as described in
Section 6731.
(2) Determines the configuration or contour of the earth’s surface, or the position of
fixed objects above, on, or below the surface of the earth by applying the principles of
mathematics or photogrammetry.
(3) Locates, relocates, establishes, reestablishes, or retraces any property line or
boundary of any parcel of land, right-of-way, easement, or alignment of those lines or
boundaries.


So I ask you again. Please define "boundary establishment" as you understand it, and for extra points how it is different from "boundary REestablishment". I have answered your single repeated question in three separate posts. You have yet to answer a single one of mine except with a snarky comment about a question with a question.

Anyone who thinks that a two-point tango meets the standard of care in CA had better rethink their position. Two separate judges in two recent cases ruled that it doesn't, and you are risking your license.

Considering what you assert here, I was wondering if you would post a couple examples of your topographic maps? I am especially interested in seeing how you reference the deed's bearings and distances on your topo maps, as well as your boundary establishment notes about how the deeded distances and bearings are different than your measured.

I find its easier to put all those things on the Record of Survey, and then reference that RoS on my topo, but I am always curious to see new ways of doing things.

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

[DWoolley]

Alternative take, rather than stating that the boundary shown is not a boundary survey, simply state the positional accuracy. For example, you might state that the boundary is accurate to 1 part in 40, relative to a map scale of 1" = 100' (+/- 30 feet). Surveyors are licensed to render statements regarding accuracy of maps or measured survey data (8726(14)); if the project requires a precise boundary survey (tight quarters), that determination should be made accordingly. If not (barn in that back 40 acres - where the setback is 30 feet), and the boundary is only approximate, that should be clearly communicated and appropriately delineated.

You would probably be ok using 1:24000 map with 10ft contours for doing a drainage study, but if you used that to design curb ramps for Ada compliance... well that would be bad.

If a land surveyor obtains boundary data from a third-party GIS source, am I correct in assuming the surveyor cannot independently verify the accuracy? At best, they can only restate the positional accuracy claimed by the originating source, without independent validation. Would a land surveyor recertify another persons work? That does not fit the "direct supervision model" and more importantly, the accepting another surveyors/GIS person's work transfers the liability.

Here’s a reality check: how many land surveyors confidently claim their RTK/RTN systems deliver ±0.03 feet horizontal accuracy—without any qualifiers? This type of overconfidence is exactly where surveyors tend to run into trouble with RTK/RTN technology.

Manufacturers often advertise specifications such as 1 cm + 1 PPM horizontally and 2 cm + 2 PPM vertically. What’s routinely overlooked, however, is that these figures reflect performance under optimal conditions— with only 67% reliability. That critical caveat is usually buried in the fine print or hidden deep in technical appendices.

Lately, I find myself stuck in a Baader-Meinhof loop with the California Public Resources Code—everywhere I look, I see violations or fundamental misunderstandings of survey obligations. It’s especially troubling as we approach the implementation of a new datum. After more than 30 years of the CPRC, it's clear that too many practitioners still do not fully understand the foundational principles of the work.

Now consider this: when a surveyor performs a “two-monument tango,” how is the boundary accuracy determined? On what basis can confidence in an accuracy be established without monuments, adjacent deeds, etc?

DWoolley

[LS_8750]

FYI.
Posted on a separate thread is a paper on the design professional's stamping and signing of work product as it relates to standard of care.
The paper applies to professional land surveyors as well.
It is worth a look.

[LS9200]

Alternative take, rather than stating that the boundary shown is not a boundary survey, simply state the positional accuracy. For example, you might state that the boundary is accurate to 1 part in 40, relative to a map scale of 1" = 100' (+/- 30 feet). Surveyors are licensed to render statements regarding accuracy of maps or measured survey data (8726(14)); if the project requires a precise boundary survey (tight quarters), that determination should be made accordingly. If not (barn in that back 40 acres - where the setback is 30 feet), and the boundary is only approximate, that should be clearly communicated and appropriately delineated.

You would probably be ok using 1:24000 map with 10ft contours for doing a drainage study, but if you used that to design curb ramps for Ada compliance... well that would be bad.

If a land surveyor obtains boundary data from a third-party GIS source, am I correct in assuming the surveyor cannot independently verify the accuracy? At best, they can only restate the positional accuracy claimed by the originating source, without independent validation. Would a land surveyor recertify another persons work? That does not fit the "direct supervision model" and more importantly, the accepting another surveyors/GIS person's work transfers the liability.

DWoolley

I don't recall mentioning GIS as the source for this, plenty of maps, right of way plans, and monuments have established coordinates on them or can be established from ancillary information. If you can't quantify the accuracy then it is a situation where more thorough survey would be required. There are plenty of situations where you can establish an expected accuracy from the previous work, not all situations. Again let the professional make the judgement. Also, Every time you do anything you accept responsibility and liability, use your judgment and make a professional call.