Searched for not found

[dmi]

There is no substitute for a proper survey. I will be including FWNR on my future maps. Found Waldo no reference....

[E_Page]

Whether there is a "SNF" (or SFN) or not on the map at a location where there is a past record of a monument having some potential bearing on my survey has nothing to do with whether I look for that monument. I do that regardless because I might find something missed by that surveyor.

What it does do is tell me that the surveyor at least thought to look for it. Some surveyors, I can make a reasonable judgment upon seeing th ename whether or not they made diligent searches for pertinent monuments. But there are many more surveyors that I don't know what their work ethic is, or if they did the fieldwork themselves or sent a field crew. If they sent a crew, I have even less idea whether that crew was sufficiently experienced or if they had a good work ethic.

If my retracement finds that lines and points are in locations other than where that surveyor identified them, is it because we measured differently, simply weighed evidence differently, or because one of us wasn't working with all of the pertinent evidence. If I found something at a location that is not indicated by the previous surveyor with a found mon or a "SNF", I'm left with the presumption that he didn't even look for it.

If I'm hired as an expert to review the work of a surveyor and there is a pertinent monument not located by that surveyor but subsequently found by another surveyor, I have to answer the question of whether the failure to locate the monument is indicative of possible negligence, or indicative of incompetence.

If the surveyor looked for it but failed to find it, it may be indicative of negligence, depending upon the amount of and the focus of effort employed by ech of the surveyors in looking for it. If the surveyor didn't even know to look for it because he didn't recognize that it was pertinent, that's indicative of incompetence.

Negligence in such a case means that the surveyor has the knowledge to recognize the significance of the monument, but cut corners in his efforts in that instance. A hopefully correctable work habit through a citation and fine (if subject of Board enforcement matter), or an award of damages (if in a civil suit).

Incompetence means that the surveyor doesn't know what he's doing and should not be licensed. Correctable only through revocation with reinstatement only after additional training and additional experience under a knowledgable licensee.

The presence of "SNF" (or Searched For Waldo, No Find Waldo), tells me as the reviewing surveyor that the surveyor at least knew to look for it, and so no indication of incompetence. The lack of any such indicator means that there is no indication that the surveyor even knew to look for it, and so is an indication of incompetence.

There are approximately 4000 licensed surveyors and several thousand pre-82 RCEs. I can't say that I know the knowledge and work habits of more than a couple dozen well enough to discern further whether they would have searched for that mon, knew they should have but for some reason didn't, or had no idea why they should be concerned with whether there was a monument there or not.

Our maps aren't prepared just for our survey buddies - those who know our work well enough to accurately guess at what work we did but didn't show. Our maps are (primarily) for any surveyor who may later try to follow our work, for our clients who will rely on the info shown to make improvements, and any others who may have just reason to rely on the info shown.

They may also end up being for some person or entity who is placed in the position of reviewing and assessing our work for practice or liability matters. It is advisable that we prepare our maps for this (hopefully) unlikely event, and also so that other surveyors later following our work don;t need to either be intimately familiar with our work habits or be faced with guessing whether or not we performed work to some pertinent matter not reflected on the map. If it's pertinent info, show it. If it makes your map appeared cluttered, add a sheet. If you went to the effort to look for a mon that you don't find but don't indiocate that effort on your final report - your map, that lack of reporting potentially degrades your effort by decreasing the credibility of the work. I don't know why someone would want to do that.

[Jim Frame]

If it makes your map appeared cluttered, add a sheet.

In Yolo County, that's a $500 decision. Worth it? Maybe, maybe not...

[E_Page]

Would you spend an extra $500 of time to search for an important monument if necessary? What about $500 of time for 2 monuments, or 3, or 5?

Quite honestly though, I can't imagine a couple, or even a few "SNF" notations making the difference between adding a sheet or not. Would 5 SNFs make that difference on any map you can recall preparing? If you found a monument there, would the notaion indicating what you found take less space than "SNF"? Only if it's a standard monument covered with a symbol explained in your legend.

The cost of County review should be a direct reimbursible, so it shouldn't be a question of eating the cost. Responsible use of the client's funds is a legitimate concern, but I would consider proper and full documentation of the survey to be a responsible use of those funds.

[btaylor]

Counties should not be allowed to charge $500 simply because "you added another sheet" to a survey unless it acts as a "second half" to a large survey.

[land butcher]

Govt does pretty much what it wants, mostly due to public apathy

[TIB]

None of the mons would have any effect on boundary if found. They were not significant. Most were junior points between well established corners. The procedure used to determine boundary is clear. Adding the SFNF x's would not make it more clear or more correct. But putting them on map is EZ, and as Peter said " no reason to fight CS over minor details" With all the X's, the line now looks more like a fence than a boundary

[btaylor]

If you did not search, then I would probably say "DNS" - did not search, which I have put on maps before believe it or not.