Tolerance Note on RS

[PLS7393]

So a County Surveyor is now asking for a tolerance note (x.xx') +/- on a record of survey.
There are too many variables to be able to make such a statement, and the last time I read the PLS Act, a record of survey is my opinion.
Isn't a tolerance note by the CS telling me how to resolve my boundary, which they are not suppose to be doing?
If justifiable, why doesn't the PLS Act have a standard statement/disclaimer required that the survey is +/- 0.10'?
The old days there was an equation for accuracy relative to the length of a traverse, and no note was needed?

Has any other CS, or surveyor, seen this type of note previously added to a filed record of survey, or corner record in CA?

[LS7773]

Keith

I would refer the CS to Section 8764 - which refers to the technical requirements for a filing of a RS. I believe that PRC 8876 would require additional information if tolerances were claimed.

[Edward M Reading]

Tell them no, it is outside of their mandate to ask for anything not covered in 8766. Refer them to the CS Statement on the RS.

"This map has been examined in accordance with Section 8766 of the Professional Land Surveyors’ Act..."

[DWoolley]

Business and Professions Code 8766:

"(1) Its accuracy of mathematical data and substantial compliance with the information required by Section 8764."

Note the word "and". What does this subsection mean?

DWoolley

[LS7773]

Dave

I would state that section refers to what the CS is responsible for. I have reviewed several RS and I can only think of 2 maps that give a tolerance for positions and those are the ones that are using SPC and stating an accuracy. I believe that what you cited refers to how accurate the boundary closes (closure calculations) - just my opinion.

[DWoolley]

Dave

I would state that section refers to what the CS is responsible for. I have reviewed several RS and I can only think of 2 maps that give a tolerance for positions and those are the ones that are using SPC and stating an accuracy. I believe that what you cited refers to how accurate the boundary closes (closure calculations) - just my opinion.

Therein lies the rub. The section offers no reference to State Plane Coordinates, closure ratios, SPC tolerances, or any objective standard—only “its accuracy of mathematical data.”

And, as is my practice (with a nod to C.S. Lewis), language this undefined does not invite arbitrary interpretation—it invites my (and yours) precise interpretation. Under text this elastic, a County Surveyor can simply invoke Humpty Dumpty in full: “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less. The question is… which is to be master—that’s all.” The statute leaves them free to be exactly that master.

Sagan said "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” Any takers on the contrary? For the record, I do not have a dog in this fight. I think the CS can ask for the information, but the requirement for ink on the mylar leaves room for further discussion.

Neither more nor less,

DWoolley

[Jim Frame]

"Its accuracy of mathematical data"

§8766 says "mathematical data," not "measurement data." My interpretation is that this refers to closures.

I would decline the CS request for a tolerance note. If he/she objects I would invite him/her to provide draft language for a CS note on the map per §8768. One of my neighboring counties asks for as-staked positions of set monuments on Records of Survey. I decline that request, too.

My general rationale for spurning such non-statutory CS requests is simple: if you don't believe I set the monuments in accordance with the standard of care, what makes you believe anything else shown on the map?

[PLS7393]

I totally agree with what everyone is saying, and he says if I don't put a tolerance statement on the map, he will add a CS Note.
He thinks he can put notes on a RS or CR, because the PLS Act says he can, and he does.

[DWoolley]

B&P 8766, subdivision (1):
“Its accuracy of mathematical data and substantial compliance with the information required by Section 8764.”

This statutory language is a good example of how words can remain fixed while the underlying professional practice evolves enough that the original meaning begins to blur.

Early in my career, the measurement process was disciplined and structured. We occupied every boundary point—no sideshots on corners. We recorded measurements, not coordinates. Traverses were run counterclockwise to maintain interior angles. Distances were doubled in both directions. Angles were turned and recorded from a vernier—1, 2, and 4—written directly into a field book. When the field work for the project was complete, we balanced angles, computed coordinates on an HP-41, and adjusted latitudes and departures as needed. The purpose was not merely internal consistency. The purpose was to mathematically demonstrate the absence of blunders and to prove the geometry.

Within that environment, “accuracy of mathematical data” meant something specific: closure, balance, and measurable rigor.

Then the practice changed. Closed traverses gave way to network adjustments. Under these systems, traditional closure was not only less relevant—it could not be calculated. Error propagation and network accuracy became the standards. At the same time, shortcuts appeared with the rise of “coordinate collectors,” and the profession began shifting away from boundary analysis toward raw measurement.

In the early 1990s, the older generation warned that the profession was drifting toward “button pushing.” They were correct. Over time, many surveyors abandoned the art and science of boundary determination—the weighing of evidence, the use of precedent, the reconciliation of deeds, and the disciplined process of filing proper maps. That work was demanding: it required training, judgment, and engagement with the County Surveyor’s office.

This retreat collided with the reality that California land law, like most land law, is ancient, stable, and fundamentally unchanging. Boundaries are established through evidence and legal principles, not convenience. Yet a new breed of practitioner began to “establish” boundaries by taking a record CAD drawing and simply rotating or scaling it to fit two monuments. That method was never acceptable, is not acceptable, and will never be acceptable under any recognized boundary doctrine. But it was fast, required no real analysis, and allowed many to bypass the core intellectual responsibilities of the profession.

In some jurisdictions, County Surveyors simply gave up under the volume of poor work. In others, they responded with bare-minimum standards—find more than two monuments, describe what you found, show improvements—and even those modest expectations were met with resistance. Rather than rise to the obligation, a subset of practitioners pushed back, choosing grifting over surveying: substituting coordinate manipulation for evidence, avoiding map filing, and operating outside the long-standing framework of law and precedent.

Soapy Smith himself would blush, and the Bensonites would think the terrain looked strangely familiar, unaware that history was retracing their old fraudulent methodology - literally, walking in their footsteps. One can only imagine Benson’s reaction to regulation and enforcement; the historical record suggests he would have fought it as fiercely as ever, a Dorian Gray figure stepping into the future without aging a single tactic—more familiar to modern readers than they might care to admit. Benson would be proud to see his legacy adapt to modern technology, the Benson bullseye alive and well in practice today, upheld by many who do not even realize whose footsteps they are walking in.

ALTA/NSPS recognized the broader transition in the 1998–99 revisions by adopting minimum accuracy standards and requiring accuracy statements. That adjustment reflected the practical reality of the tools being used.

Which brings us back to the statute. What does “its accuracy of mathematical data and substantial compliance with Section 8764” require today?

Many practitioners do not understand the coordinates they rely on. They use them, record them, and move on—but the underlying measurements, the embedded errors, and the adjustments that give those coordinates meaning are often unknown. They cannot describe their adjustments because they do not perform adjustments. CAD files routinely show multiple coordinate values for the same monument, typically labeled “CHK,” revealing the absence of coherent method.

For more than twenty years, I have placed explicit accuracy statements on every Record of Survey to reflect both method and limitation. On the rare occasions where RTN was used only to validate a long line exceeding 1320 feet, I noted it clearly. It does not align with the stated network accuracy, and should not be assumed to.

At a moment when mathematical transparency is more important than ever, the profession has moved further from the fundamentals that once defined it. When I ask a seminar audience what a surveyor is, the dominant response remains: “an expert in measurement.” Yet that description no longer reflects broad practice.

So I return to the statutory language with genuine reflection:

In a profession increasingly shaped by RTN workflows, detached coordinates, eroding boundary literacy, and a shrinking commitment to evidence and precedent, how should we now understand the legislature’s expectation of “accuracy of mathematical data”? What does that phrase mean in modern land surveying?

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass

DWoolley

[jamesh1467]

In my opinion, regardless of what statute says or how its interpreted, this is an incorrect interpretation of the spirit of the PLS act to mandate the surveyor themselves to give that information to the public on the map itself. The general public is almost guaranteed to misinterpret a statement like that. If required, there should be a liability-limiting statement for the common surveyor in state statute, outlining the tolerances we expect under state law, as suggested. You can't force all surveyors to determine the location of calculated points on a map within a tolerance without established guidelines to follow, so everyone knows the tolerance standards. Officially adopt in statute or standards of practice a 95% confidence rule from ALTAs or something. Then surveyors could do the 95% math with their field work to meet that standard and have guidelines to limit their exposure if it becomes a problem.

In my opinion, its better and more likely to be accepted that we start to state the equipment used so that the next surveyor can make their own judgements about what they want to use for their tolerances, based on the technology they are using. Same as we do with old maps now. The only difference is now its not clear what equipment a surveyor is using for the next surveyor to make a judgment call on those tolerances. IE Was this a shit map that was done with RTK in a downtown area? You don't know from looking at what gets filed. That's where I think the real discussion should revolve—adding a statute that requires stating the methods and procedures used in fieldwork and the calculations that produced the maps.

Tolerances between measured points are already kind of a problem because of sig figs we use on the maps. Or if you show lines and boundary math between monuments you found on your ROS. Its a measured line, not a calculated line. You did measure it, and that measurement has tolerances. Then it gets grey for me about whether there should be tolerances shown for the true location of those points relative to each other based on your measurements. If you found two monuments and drew a line between them, you are assuming that the fieldwork itself provides some positional accuracy between those points, and you have then gone on to state that accuracy with your ROS by showing the boundary math on that line with a certain level of sig figs. You said the location of those monuments is xxx angle and xx.00 distance apart. So for most maps, we do actually state we have a positional tolerance already between monuments on the boundary line of 0.01' already. You are stating that those monuments are those distances away from each other within the sig figs you are showing on your map unless you add a tolerance statement about the relative tolerances of your field work to disclaim it. It is kind of a valid discussion by the CS. But its also super nitpicky and again an equipment and methods statement solves this by allowing the professional at the other end of the map to determine their expectation of tolerances based on what their own measurements came up with.

I may or may not know this because I sometimes miss my monument shots by a few hundredths sometimes to make my closure calcs work.....its not exactly an invalid discussion because the CS does not get that info about where I am missing my monuments. If someone came into CAD, they would see it; they would see the hundredth or two in error (sometimes up to 0.10') in how monuments were hit with the true closure calcs. If you can make your closure calcs work every time without being a couple of seconds off in the angle or a couple of hundredths off in the distances, be my guest.

ALTAs cover this problem within their standards because when you sign up for an ALTA, you sign up for a 95% confidence level in your contract. Even when nothing like that is shown on the ALTA, that's in the ALTA contract, so there are standards and methods to determine if a surveyor did their job. Other maps in CA....there is no framework for this. So when you make a claim with Sig figs on a map between monuments, that's your claim unless you can claim that there's "standards of practice" that require 0.1' or a 95% confidence level, etc. But its not like the CS knows what they're reviewing for positional accuracy if you don't tell them. They don't see the CAD with my closure calcs lined up to my monument shots.

But what was asked for is not valid in my opinion under the CS's rights under the state statute. I think most surveyors would and have agreed in this chain. Jim Frame's path forward is the best here practically. The rest is academic. The CS's only options are to delay until his review time expires or to add a CS note. He has no leverage to make you do anything beyond stretching the review out as long as possible before you have to start getting others involved due to the review time and adding the CS note.

[Jim Frame]

In my opinion, its better and more likely to be accepted that we start to state the equipment used

Not endorsing the above concept, but I note for trivia purposes that for some years Sacramento County asked that surveyors indicate on their Records of Survey whether distances were measured with a tape (T) or an EDM (E). It was kind of a worthless notation, because during the time it mattered -- the early days of EDMs, when plenty of mistakes in usage were made -- most maps indicated that both methods were used, but with no way to tell which lines were measured with which.

t.jpg

[DWoolley]

In practice, this distinction is not academic. In litigation, it is outcome-determinative. I have seen many practitioners collapse under deposition because they cannot articulate the difference between an observation and a coordinate, explain why multiple coordinate hits differ, or reconcile the map with the raw data. When counsel recognizes that the practitioner does not understand his own methodology—or cannot defend the positions shown on the survey—the credibility evaporates, the defense position disintegrates, and the checkbook comes out. The only scenario more damaging is when a monument exists in the field and the surveyor failed to find it. At that moment, methodology, mapping, and legal defense all fail in unison.

The deeper risk here is not interpretive ambiguity. It is professional obsolescence. Accuracy—tight or loose—is now demanded by every downstream user: GIS, utility mapping, asset-inventory systems, UAS workflows, LiDAR, and photogrammetry. These fields publish accuracy because their governing standards require it (ASPRS accuracy standards, FGDC metadata requirements, and the ALTA/NSPS 95-percent confidence rule). Statutorily, land surveyors and professional engineers are the ones entrusted with accuracy representation, but the engineering side consistently meets its technical burdens in stress, materials, structural performance, and quantifiable tolerances. A measurable portion of the surveying profession, however, is not producing data or workflows capable of supporting a defensible accuracy statement.

When licensed surveyors do not or cannot provide accuracy information, the obligation does not disappear—it simply migrates. GIS analysts, photogrammetrists, utility mappers, and drone professionals will continue to publish accuracy because their frameworks compel it and their clients expect it. Whether the licensed surveying community chooses to participate or abstain, accuracy reporting will occur. The only question is whether licensed surveyors will remain relevant to that conversation or whether the marketplace—and the technical standards—will move on without them.

At its core, B&P §8766(1) speaks to mathematical transparency. The statute expects that the map reflects the measurements, that the measurements withstand scrutiny, and that the surveyor can explain the positions shown. When those fundamentals are met, accuracy statements function as a shield, not a threat. When those fundamentals are abandoned—when coordinates replace measurements and the raw data cannot confirm the map—the accuracy requirement does not vanish. It simply becomes a task performed by someone else.

DWoolley

[PLS7393]

In my opinion, regardless of what statute says or how its interpreted, this is an incorrect interpretation of the spirit of the PLS act to mandate the surveyor themselves to give that information to the public on the map itself. The general public is almost guaranteed to misinterpret a statement like that. If required, there should be a liability-limiting statement for the common surveyor in state statute, outlining the tolerances we expect under state law, as suggested. You can't force all surveyors to determine the location of calculated points on a map within a tolerance without established guidelines to follow, so everyone knows the tolerance standards. Officially adopt in statute or standards of practice a 95% confidence rule from ALTAs or something. Then surveyors could do the 95% math with their field work to meet that standard and have guidelines to limit their exposure if it becomes a problem.

Now we may be onto something? If one can't satisfy the 95% confidence level, don't we now have some kind of definition of "Material Discrepancy", which has always been, as Dave says "Humpty Dumpty".

Tolerances between measured points are already kind of a problem because of sig figs we use on the maps. Or if you show lines and boundary math between monuments you found on your ROS. Its a measured line, not a calculated line. You did measure it, and that measurement has tolerances. Then it gets grey for me about whether there should be tolerances shown for the true location of those points relative to each other based on your measurements. If you found two monuments and drew a line between them, you are assuming that the fieldwork itself provides some positional accuracy between those points, and you have then gone on to state that accuracy with your ROS by showing the boundary math on that line with a certain level of sig figs. You said the location of those monuments is xxx angle and xx.00 distance apart. So for most maps, we do actually state we have a positional tolerance already between monuments on the boundary line of 0.01' already. You are stating that those monuments are those distances away from each other within the sig figs you are showing on your map unless you add a tolerance statement about the relative tolerances of your field work to disclaim it. It is kind of a valid discussion by the CS. But its also super nitpicky and again an equipment and methods statement solves this by allowing the professional at the other end of the map to determine their expectation of tolerances based on what their own measurements came up with.

This info is also shown on most RS by means of Measured & (Record) data.
Something no one has brought up in my opinion is how we are confident on the monuments we find, locate, and shoot, to establish the boundaries we show on a RS, being "Our Professional Opinion". We are not just expert measurement makers (as some say & think), but I learned a lot from other's, as we "Follow the Footsteps of the Original Surveyor" (or suppose to). These concepts are documented in Brown's Boundary Control and Legal Principles, and should hold up for a solid outline on what is more valid, than others, supporting my resolution without a (+ or -) statement. In my opinion to hold improvements over found original monuments shown on a map, is simply wrong, but I see it on numerous maps. OR a CS asks for "How do fences fit" (are they shown on the subdivision - NOT). Sure I have shown fences, if and only if, it makes sense to, or the client requests it because that is the cause for them to hire me with a neighbor dispute. Now we may be discussing "Tolerances", but don't forget to outline how (and who) built/re-built the fence?

[DWoolley]

When Accuracy Collapses: A Real Deposition, a Failed Boundary, and a License Surrendered

I think this post might benefit from a real-world, multimillion-dollar lawsuit as an example that illustrates exactly how accuracy and CAD-constructed boundaries collapse under scrutiny when the underlying measurements cannot be quantified or when the practitioner lacks familiarity with the standards governing the profession. The excerpt attached here represents only a handful of pages of the legal bloodletting. The case involved determining a boundary relative to the location of a slope failure that destroyed a home built on terraced pads. The accuracy of the boundary was central to the matter, and the deposition that followed remains one of the clearest demonstrations of what happens when a surveyor attempts to defend work that the data cannot support.

He Showed Up With His Boots On

The surveyor arrived with complete confidence—legs crossed deliberately to show off his cowboy boots, a thick corded sweater, and the demeanor of someone who believed forty years in the profession and enough technical jargon would overwhelm any line of questioning. He attempted the familiar misdirection at the outset, insisting no monuments were set, offering a “record boundary” instead of a Record of Survey, and assuming the attorney could be steered off the statutory requirements. It was a standard maneuver, and it failed immediately.

Read the Questions and Answers - He Spun Out

The questioning moved to accuracy. This land surveyor, like many, had no idea about the accuracies of the equipment and no understanding of topographic standards. There were many subsequent questions later in the deposition that I have not included, each exposing the same lack of comprehension. Had he been trained in accuracy—and had he stated the accuracies of the work—he would have sailed through that portion of the deposition. Instead, the judge, who was present due to the highly contentious nature of the litigation, saw immediately that he was an incompetent operator who had no business in that setting. We never saw him again. A few years later, he surrendered his license and moved out of the state after purloining from the public for nearly thirty years.

Surveyor Word Games Didn't Work

He then tried to retreat into semantics, attempting again to redirect the discussion to the boundary itself rather than the accuracy of the measurements underlying it. But the questions were specific, numerical, and tied directly to the evidence. By page 96, lines 14–15, he delivered the fatal statement: “There’s all kinds of boundary surveys.” The room went silent and everyone looked at each other—literally, not figuratively. That single sentence exposed that he could neither define nor defend the standard of care or the legal requirements governing his actions.

What followed made the problem undeniable. He asserted that he completed 700 to 800 surveys a year yet filed only 20 to 30 Records of Survey annually—numbers contradicted by the public record, which showed no filings in the previous five to ten years and very few across three decades of licensure. The pattern was unmistakable: high-volume production of two-monument tangos with little evidentiary output, no monuments set, no mathematical transparency, and no understanding of the statutory obligations of a professional land surveyor.

When the attorney pressed him to reconcile the map with the evidence and measurements, there was nothing to reconcile. The “boundary” did not support his testimony or the opinions he had stated before the deposition. The testimony could not support the competencies associated with licensure. His once-confident posture deteriorated—shoulders rounded, voice diminished, gaze fixed on the table as though hoping to disappear into it. The technical jargon that had once served as camouflage now only highlighted the absence of defensible measurements, boundary establishment, or compliance with the law. He was caught lying in front of the judge. Why would he claim to file 20 or 30 Records of Survey per year when it was easily verified that he had not filed one in many years and had filed far fewer than that in his entire career? A true Bensonite, holed up in Southern California and running a three-card-monte operation under the guise of land surveying.

Lost His License and It Was a Family Tradition

By the end of the matter, the consequences were unavoidable. He surrendered his license and left the state shortly afterward, having failed for more than thirty years to meet the most basic evidentiary obligations owed to the public. His son avoided the same fate, but not without disciplinary citations of his own—like father, like son.

These are not dramatic anecdotes. They are the natural outcomes when measurement fundamentals are abandoned, when coordinate collection replaces observation, and when accuracy cannot be explained or defended and CAD files are rotated to monument locations for a "record boundary". In that environment, accuracy statements do not create liability; they reveal whether liability already exists. And this is not a one-off failure. It happens with disturbing regularity—over the seventeen years since that case, and in more than fifty depositions that have followed in my line of work.

DWoolley

[PLS7393]

When Accuracy Collapses: A Real Deposition, a Failed Boundary, and a License Surrendered

DWoolley

Some fun reading there, but your example pertains to a "Boundary Survey", NOT a "Record of Survey" that is being filed.

I didn't know the County Surveyor gets to challenge a surveyor's map, when there is sufficient monumentation, mapping, and documents to support a boundary resolution being shown on a RS.

[Jim Frame]

I didn't know the County Surveyor gets to challenge a surveyor's map

A County Surveyor can challenge anything he/she wants, but the fact remains that he/she holds the very same license that you and I do, and does not have the authority to force another licensee to change a a ROS except as provided in §8768. If the CS believes that the submitting surveyor is guilty of negligent or incompetent practice, he/she can a complaint with BPELSG. And vice versa.

[DWoolley]

I didn't know the County Surveyor gets to challenge a surveyor's map

A County Surveyor can challenge anything he/she wants, but the fact remains that he/she holds the very same license that you and I do, and does not have the authority to force another licensee to change a a ROS except as provided in §8768. If the CS believes that the submitting surveyor is guilty of negligent or incompetent practice, he/she can a complaint with BPELSG. And vice versa.

Truth.

A tenured County Surveyor typically reviews more records of survey in a single year than most private practitioners will file in an entire career. Provided they remain diligent and engaged, that volume of exposure makes them — by any objective measure — far more qualified to evaluate boundary evidence, conflicting calls, and compliance with statutory requirements than the majority of surveyors in private practice.

Their role has never been limited to checking margins, north arrows, or certificate wording. When performed correctly, the County Surveyor acts as the final gatekeeper of the public record. Experience has repeatedly shown what happens when that independent oversight is weakened or removed (poke around and review some filed maps in the Bullseye): inconsistent interpretations, absence of encroachments noted, unaddressed senior-rights conflicts, and a gradual erosion of record reliability. It has been my experience, there are few things considered out of bounds, pun intended, for some land surveyors.

A licensed surveyor’s professional opinion is precisely that — a reasoned, defensible conclusion supported by evidence and precedent. It is not, and has never been, a license for “anything goes" i.e. RTN two moments and rotating a CAD figure. Allowing it to be treated as such undermines the integrity of the entire cadastral framework all land surveyors are obligated to protect.

Frankly, getting a map through a competent county surveyor's office should not be a problem for a season professional. Incompetence or negligence on either side of the counter changes the math.

DWoolley

[jamesh1467]

In my opinion, its better and more likely to be accepted that we start to state the equipment used

Not endorsing the above concept, but I note for trivia purposes that for some years Sacramento County asked that surveyors indicate on their Records of Survey whether distances were measured with a tape (T) or an EDM (E). It was kind of a worthless notation, because during the time it mattered -- the early days of EDMs, when plenty of mistakes in usage were made -- most maps indicated that both methods were used, but with no way to tell which lines were measured with which.

t.jpg

The Land Court in Massachusetts has the same thing. Literally almost the exact same except the (E) is (EDM). I didnt come up with the original idea.

But I was thinking more about a general note on the cover rather than something on the measurement. This is an example of what I would consider the "higher end".

THE SURVEY CONTROL NETWORK WAS PERFORMED AS A SECOND ORDER HORIZONTAL GPS SURVEY AND A VERTICAL GPS SURVEY USING STATIC GNSS EQUIPMENT AND METHODS TRIMBLE: R10 RECEIVERS AND FIXED HEIGHT TRIPODS). TIES TO CORS/ CGPS STATIONS WERE DERIVED FROM GPS DATA DOWNLOADED FROM SOPAC AND UNAVCO. GNSS OBSERVATION DATA WAS PROCESSED USING TRIMBLE BUSINESS CENTER V5. 1 SOFTWARE AND ADJUSTED BY THE LEAST SQUARES METHOD USING STAR* NET V8. 2 SOFTWARE. THE POSITIONS AND ORTHO HEIGHTS HELD FIXED IN THE FINAL CONSTRAINED ADJUSTMENT ARE AS LISTED IN THE SURVEYOR' S NOTES. THE RESULTANT CCS83 ZONE 3 COORDINATES ACHIEVE A 1CM NETWORK ACCURACY AT THE 95% CONFIDENCE LEVEL. THE RESULTANT NAVD88 ELEVATIONS ACHIEVE A 2 CM LOCAL ACCURACY AT THE 95% CONFIDENCE LEVEL.

THE FOUND MONUMENT SURVEY WAS PERFORMED AS A THIRD ORDER RTK SURVEY USING RTK GNSS ( SEE SURVEYOR' S NOTE 6). DOUBLE OCCUPATION ( SEPARATED BY A MINIMUM OF TWO HOURS) OF APPROXIMATELY 33% OF FOUND MONUMENTS SHOWED POSITION VARIATIONS OF 2 CM OR LESS

SURVEYOR NOTE 6:
FOUND MONUMENTS 201 THROUGH 211 AND THE RAILROAD TRACKS WERE SURVEYED USING RTK GNSS EQUIPMENT AND METHODS ( BASE, ROVER, RADIO). THE RTK SURVEY WAS BASED ON A SITE CALIBRATION THAT HELD THE POST-ADJUSTMENT POSITIONS OF SURVEY CONTROL STATIONS 101, 102, 103, 104, 113, AND 117 FIXED

I WOULD NOT EXPECT THIS LEVEL FOR A PRIVATE SURVEY. But you definitely are covered with statements like this. This was a Static GNSS Control Survey that covered ROW determination as well. There was likely a lot of money paid for that survey, and it was for a large public works project that has the money to be fully over the top and compliant with every interpretation of the law. Not an everyday boundary survey for a parcel done on a low budget, that we still need to support the profession. But an easy offshoot from that concept, that is a pretty low level of effort, without really committing to anything about quality, is something like:

All Monuments were surveyed using RTK GNSS equipment and methods (base, rover, radio). The GNSS RTK receiver used to survey the monuments had a stated accuracy of xx + xppm. The RTK survey was based on a site calibration that held monument XX and XX.

You plop in your receiver accuracy once. Then you just fill in the calibration on every map.

Definitely had problems with the calibration not being stated before. Or the field crews not using the right one, or one field crew using a different calibration one day than another one the next day. Then it just plops in my lap in the office to figure out why the monuments aren't hitting record when they are pretty recently set and should hit pretty close to record. Its because my calibration was off the whole time. The same issue can come up when trying to retrace and not using the same calibration as the original ROS. I've had it happen. Ideally, at least its the BOB, but you will find that's not always true.

I could come up with a couple of ideas for EDM, but I'm sure there could be multiple opinions out there. The point is to keep it short and sweet. But I would expect at least something about the traverse closure used. How many boundaries are done without close traverses? Is there any requirement that forces a surveyor to try to close your traverse here in California?



Anyways. I think the 95% should be baked into our laws and I like the ALTA Standard here if you really asked me. Then there is just no question about it. I just know surveyors in California and think its quite the lift to get it done, and the equipment one seems more likely to be able to be made happen. Maybe relax the 0.07 or something, but I have no idea how a profession that prides itself on accuracy has no laws or serious professional standards defining the accuracy we are supposed to achieve to be proud of how accurate we all are. This is the relevant section from ALTA standards, although you need some of the other parts of section 3 to make it enforceable:

The maximum allowable Relative Positional Precision for an ALTA/NSPS Land Title Survey is 2 cm (0.07 feet) plus 50 parts per million (based on the direct distance between the two corners being tested). It is recognized that in certain circumstances, the size or configuration of the surveyed property, or the relief, vegetation, or improvements on the surveyed property, will result in survey measurements for which the maximum allowable Relative Positional Precision may be exceeded in which case the reason shall be noted pursuant to Section 6.B.x. below.

Even in that you have an out too. You can exceed it and still be in compliance with your contract for an ALTA if you note it in section 6.

x. A note on the face of the plat or map explaining the site conditions that resulted in a Relative Positional Precision that exceeds the maximum allowed pursuant to Section 3.E.v.

I was taught that ALTAs should scare people, and we should be upcharging for an ALTA because of the increased risk associated with it. I know a lot of that is just because people who pay for ALTAs have money to pay for them. But never understood or bought into that logic because ALTA has some of the best-defined contract language out there. I get the issues and the extra risk with disclosing encroachments, but from the actual survey perspective, ALTA contracts are pretty ironclad, which gives me a lot of security in what my job is and how my contract is going to be interpreted. Its the state laws and all this expert witness stuff that is bonkers to me. I don't know how you all practice in California without a relatively straightforward, well-defined standard of care. Businesses and industry thrive under legal certainty. Legal certainty brings efficiency, and efficiency brings prosperity.

That's where this whole discussion stems from. There's no legal certainty in the accuracy of a filed Record of Survey. A county surveyor is off on his own, trying to fix that issue in his own way without the legal authority to do so. He shouldn't be doing that, but at least he's trying to fix it. I bet he gets that note on a lot of maps and fixes this problem for a lot of the maps that get filed in his county.

Personally, this one seems like something that should be fixed for both government and private surveyors alike. I have lost most of my hope that that kind of thing will happen. But I just wanted to say it:

We should have positional and accuracy standards for all boundary surveys in state law.

And most other states do have something. Its not open-ended to one small ambiguous statement in section 8766.

[steffan]

Maybe pertinent to this conversation, surveys fully based on true astronomical north will have a significant anticipated mathematical mis-closure due to the convergence of the meridians (east-west lines are curved except at the equator), as is common for BLM surveys. I experienced a county surveyor who tried to reject a survey being filed by a USFS surveyor who followed BLM procedures because of this. He felt that all surveys should close flat even though true north- south lines are not parallel to each other (again, except at the equator).
And I recall a municipality in one of our wine producing regions which mandated that surveys had to close within a set tolerance value, which was not practical for certain sizes of surveys other some theoretical norm.
Then there are those mountainous surveys in heavy timber and steep slopes versus those in flat, open, unobstructed valley regions, whose terrain poses challenges in meeting similar levels of precision and accuracy.
Surveys in the north coast redwood region can be difficult in meeting network accuracy standards as evidenced in my experiences assisting Caltrans with some of that District’s project control. I witnessed that some “geodetic” control in this region are, as a matter of practicality, a bit more “local” in nature rather than being based on a particular epoch or geoid reference
I’m not opposed to mandating precision standards, I just don’t believe there is a simple, one-size-fits-all solution.

[DWoolley]

I’m not opposed to mandating precision standards, I just don’t believe there is a simple, one-size-fits-all solution.

The proposal submitted to CLSA did not require any defined accuracy standards. The intent was simply to report the results of the survey and, in general terms, identify the equipment or method used—whether a conventional 5″ total station, static GPS, RTK, RTN, or comparable technology. Nothing more, nothing less.

As noted earlier, the world has already moved on—or is rapidly moving on—from the land surveying community. Modern technology enables others to “survey,” while much of the profession remains focused on protecting a shrinking microcosm of turf. I attended a meeting last Wednesday where the participants were developing a curriculum that any reader of this forum would immediately recognize as land surveying. Yet the group repeatedly emphasized, “We cannot call it surveying, because we do not want to deal with those people.” And by “those people,” I did not have to ask. It has been explained to me on several occasions that land surveyors are not interested in constructive participation, technical assistance, or leadership—they simply want to be derisive. Interestingly, they regard the land surveying community as “intellectual gurus” with a living-under-a-bridge, troll-like mentality - which they cannot understand. How they arrived at that conclusion is unclear, but it is the perception they openly express. They are not debating how to collaborate with land surveyors; they are actively designing workflows to go around them. And to be clear, they know I am a California professional land surveyor. Yet because of my regular involvement in their regulatory work, they discuss these issues candidly in my presence. I have written detailed papers on measurement principles, accuracy, and best practices to assist them in developing standards and regulatory frameworks—and they are genuinely interested in that material, in stark contrast to the indifference shown by much of the land surveying community.

One manufacturer was cautioned by its own peer group not to label its latest model “survey grade” solely because the term contained the word survey. They avoided the issue by shortening it to Model [XXXX] “SG.” Their competitor sidestepped the same concern by branding its model as “GNSS,” which in that industry is widely understood to mean “sub-centimeter.” I have explained the equipment is not sub-centimeter - land surveyors trying their best have a hard time getting to this level - and their equipment can easily be "off" several meters [or feet, they lean metric].

DWoolley

[PLS7393]

Some real good stuff here, with lots of variables documented. All the more reasons a "Tolerance Note" is simply out of the CS control, unless The Board revises the PLS Act.

[Timothy J. Reilly]

I would support legislation requiring some statement on records of survey identifying how the survey was conducted and what level of precision a retracing surveyor should expect from the mathematical data shown on the record of survey. I don’t feel it necessary to come up with different specifications for “urban” or “rural” surveys as I’ve heard advocated in the past. Those two ideas may have been comingled in the past if I recall correctly.

I think what has been overlooked from the original post is that Section 8764 tells the surveyor preparing the record of survey what needs to be shown on the map. Also, only the applicable provisions of Section 8764 that are consistent with the purpose of the survey need to be shown. Currently, there is no requirement that a record of survey include a statement of accuracy or precision. [I think the term tolerance may not be the best word here. It most widely applies to adherence to set specifications, such as machining.]

Section 8766 tells the county surveyor how to conduct the examination, what to look for. The county surveyor examines only the mathematical data shown on the record of survey and its substantial conformance with Section 8764. If Section 8764 doesn’t require a statement of accuracy, there is no basis for a county surveyor to request or demand one.

What opinion would a county surveyor express regarding a record of survey, or the methods or procedures utilized in the performance of the survey, just because the surveyor preparing the record of survey is not willing to include a note regarding tolerances/accuracies/precision? “This record of survey does not state the accuracy of the measurements shown hereon and there is no requirement that it does”??

On the other side of the coin, calling attention to a comment above by Mr. Woolley, county surveyors are the last opportunity to protect the public. Has the county surveyor received information that raises concern about the reliability of the mathematical data shown on the record of survey? Using GPS via CRTN connections in an area known by the county surveyor to have extreme relief and a dense canopy of trees might be one example of genuine concern. If there is targeted concern specific to one record of survey, you may want to give the county surveyors request some credibility…for the protection of the public. However, if the county surveyor is introducing a new “requirement” for all records of survey, I don’t see that they have any justification, no matter how well intended.

[CBarrett]

I totally agree with what everyone is saying, and he says if I don't put a tolerance statement on the map, he will add a CS Note.
He thinks he can put notes on a RS or CR, because the PLS Act says he can, and he does.

So let him put a CS note on it, it's not the end of the world, and we can laugh about it forever.
CS note doesn't mean there is a deficiency on your survey.

[PLS7393]

So let him put a CS note on it, it's not the end of the world, and we can laugh about it forever.
CS note doesn't mean there is a deficiency on your survey.

Surveyors understand the logic on notes, and repeated notes by a CS only builds their legacy for future surveyors to laugh at (as you say). Unfortunately your client who pays several thousand dollars for a survey see all notes as something negative. You the surveyor have to spend the time explaining what it really means, and the value of the note. If the survey is needed for legal action (boundary dispute) then how will a judge credit (value your survey) when it truly is a valid survey? Thus no notes are best when they truly are one surveyor's opinion, not the CS.