California Surveyors Forums

If you use an untagged pipe to control or arrive to a boundary solution, it should be tagged in order to eliminate, or rather minimize the ambiguity in subsequent retracements.
This gives said monument more controlling strength in evidential hierarchy, since it has a stronger pedigree than a 'no ref's pipe, merely because it lacks a tag. This protects your clients boundary.
Positional coincidence, as in: Found mag nail fits record per... accepted as intersection of... is of slightly lower evidentiary rank.

We do licensure to elevate levels of responsibility in our ranks, for public protection. Public, in this case being the client, their adjoiners or anyone else's property that may be affected by the boundary solution.

Positional accuracy is great, however, land owners are still allowed to survey their own land... and we dont always break out the equipement when planning a survey. If I see a grouping of no reference monuments, I am likely to extend my field survey to at least TRY to find more credible evidence, if it exists, which may then validate the position of an untagged monument.

With a group of tagged monuments and credible monument pedigree, I may not need to do this.

I rarely tag a monument that I didn't set. I think I've done it a couple of times on a whim, but certainly not as a general practice.

Most of the time I won't know if I'm going to hold a monument until I've had a chance to analyze my findings in the office, and I figure I can better protect my clients' interest by sparing them the cost of me returning to the site to put a tag on a monument I decided to hold. (Sometimes that return visit would be incidental to other work, and sometimes it'd be a single-purpose all-day thing.) Between the deliverable map and the photographs I normally provide, I can let the client decide if he wants to install some protection or memorial at the monument.

My opinion. Don’t disturb what you find. But there are exceptions to this principle.

Case 1. Section surveying in San Luis Obispo County. Original surveys 1855 to 1885. Evidence varies from strong to weak. Scars on trees can be natural or man made. On bonafide bearing trees (oaks typically) I have seen clear scribing once out of over a thousand trees or more. Recognizing scars from GLO surveys vs natural ones is difficult. Usually needs other evidence to support (other trees or evidence that fit, measurements to known positions, etc). But when I go out to measure a section corner I want to see that undisturbed evidence so I can make my own evaluation. Also it helps me determine what a real set of evidence looks like. Rocks and rock mounds are equally difficult. Each GLO surveyor had their own level of interest in how to build the mound or measure a rock. Please leave that rock mound alone so I can have a look at original evidence as it was found. One guy pre 82 engineer who filed less than a dozen maps gets a major section job next to mine. Either him or me was terrible at measuring because he called many of my monuments off by 50 or more feet. I call him about a particular rock mound that he found but to me did not fit other monuments or topo calls. He told me how he found what he “thought” was the original stone that had “slid” down the hill and then he “rebuilt” a new rock mound at the location. It was like 3 feet tall. I was not happy with him and asked him that in the future to leave the rock mound as it is. It’s ok to set a pipe next to it though.

Case 2. Surveying in Silicon Valley. I have a general theory of relativity. Measurements in the flat areas are usually tight. As soon as you get into the hills things get progressively worse (not always of course). We find and measure many old pipes no record. Stems from the surveyors who did not file maps. I want to see the pipe’s condition, amount of rust, etc. Does it have threads on it? Is it galvanized. Projects up 18”? Also we typically find and measure first, evaluate and then decide what to accept/reject. It becomes difficult to return to the pipe just to replace it or pour concrete down its gullet and place a tag. But again there may be situations where setting our tag is warranted.

Case 3. Surveying in Cambria a town just south of Hearst Castle. 1930 survey done amazingly well. Thousands upon thousands of redwood 2x2’s set at every lot corner. Lots are typically 25x70. Monuments have deteriorated in varying degrees. Sometimes you found the top intact but the rest of the stake has rotted. Other times you find the top rotted but by digging very carefully you find the bottom of the 2x2. The standard was to replace these monuments since they were in poor condition. We would leave our found stake in the dirt adjacent to our tagged steel monument.

CBarrett wrote: Sat Dec 31, 2022 11:39 am
Positional coincidence, as in: Found mag nail fits record per... accepted as intersection of... is of slightly lower evidentiary rank.

This is where I think there might be a definition discussion that would prove useful.

To me it is not a coincidence when I am retracing another surveyors recorded map and I find that after measuring 4+ monuments and we agree with each others measurements within a couple hundredths. Due to the ability to check that found monument in several directions I can be quite certain that I have recovered either the original monument, or something that happens to match its character and position sufficient to fool a surveyor. I generally believe that if I can't tell the difference between the pipe I am looking for and what I find, then its the pipe, regardless of what actually happened in the unwatched years between when it was set and when I find it.

Positional Coincidence is when I find a monument that has no previous documentation occupying a position that I have determined to be important. IE finding a pipe that appears nowhere in any recorded map, or deed that happens to be close to my solution. Depending on the area, I will either hold it and adjust my resolution to incorporate it, or call it out. Regardless I would not set my tag, because now there is a precise/modern survey that will be recorded which will allow future surveyors to recover the same monument and know its correct based on my measurement precision.

This difference is I think crucial to the points that are being made on this thread, since most of the "pro retagging folks" are basing their points on increasing certainty.

Follow up thought question:
A modern precise survey "ABC" shows a series of found monuments along one of its boundaries which are from an adjacent subdivision (XZY). These monuments are not important to survey ABC, but are controlling for that adjacent subdivision. You are hired to survey a lot in that adjacent subdivision and the monuments are missing when you visit the site, but you recover 8 monuments from modern survey ABC that are within your tolerances. Should you hold the record positions of the missing monuments or prorate/hold record etc to create new positions based on the existing monuments that you find?

When (if ever) do we accept that measurement should be weighted higher in our priority of calls because it is becoming more precise AND accurate than other pieces of evidence?

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

Mike Mueller wrote: Tue Jan 03, 2023 11:00 am This is where I think there might be a definition discussion that would prove useful.

To me it is not a coincidence when I am retracing another surveyors recorded map and I find that after measuring 4+ monuments and we agree with each others measurements within a couple hundredths. Due to the ability to check that found monument in several directions I can be quite certain that I have recovered either the original monument, or something that happens to match its character and position sufficient to fool a surveyor. I generally believe that if I can't tell the difference between the pipe I am looking for and what I find, then its the pipe, regardless of what actually happened in the unwatched years between when it was set and when I find it.

Positional Coincidence is when I find a monument that has no previous documentation occupying a position that I have determined to be important. IE finding a pipe that appears nowhere in any recorded map, or deed that happens to be close to my solution. Depending on the area, I will either hold it and adjust my resolution to incorporate it, or call it out. Regardless I would not set my tag, because now there is a precise/modern survey that will be recorded which will allow future surveyors to recover the same monument and know its correct based on my measurement precision.

Coincidental is not identical to accidental.
This is the basis for accepting the monument which is found in an expected condition and of a reasonably similar character. Let's say I find a 1" IP. open, no tag, .25' away from a record position in a suburban area, and a tract map from 1981 is calling for a 1-3/4" I.P. with a plastic plastic plug.

Here is what I do, I examine how this particular pipe and possible others from the same (assume a small residential tract) fir within one another, and see if how the other monuments have weathered. Is this consistent, how floaty is that tract within itself? what are ad joiner surveyors tolerances. This is all the additional evidence that needs to be considered and collected to accept a monument with no pedigree due to a missing tag. All this additional evidence - since we are supposed to evaluate the full body of evidence as a whole, tells me that If I accept this untagged monument to be controlling of the tract, the likelihood of that comment being the original pipe is very high. This is where the professional opinion comes into play, you can recognize your ducks and tell them apart from other flocks with high level of certainty.

Different scenario - You find a "1" I.P. with a nail and tag LS 9999" and the map calls "1" I.P. with a nail and tag LS 9999" it is 0.4' out of place in a somewhat rural area, where you know average surveys can be up to a foot off. Do you go looking for a lot of additional evidence to validate this monument? Unless you have a reason to believe that the original monument violated prior senior rights, you accept without additional fuss. We have legal precedents enabling you to do this.

Untagged monument the same area, 0.4' off - You do have some legal standing to call it off, and place the actual lot corner in it's record position, and use the monument as an accessory to the corner. Also a prudent surveyor is not likely to do that without collecting additional evidence to prove or disprove this hypothesis.

Mike Mueller wrote: Tue Jan 03, 2023 11:00 am This difference is I think crucial to the points that are being made on this thread, since most of the "pro retagging folks" are basing their points on increasing certainty.

Certainty which is based on the hierarchy of evidence, which was arrived through legislation and case law, call it legal certainty - I can't think of a better name for it at the moment. Not mathematical certainty of measurements.

Mike Mueller wrote: Tue Jan 03, 2023 11:00 am Follow up thought question:
A modern precise survey "ABC" shows a series of found monuments along one of its boundaries which are from an adjacent subdivision (XZY). These monuments are not important to survey ABC, but are controlling for that adjacent subdivision. You are hired to survey a lot in that adjacent subdivision and the monuments are missing when you visit the site, but you recover 8 monuments from modern survey ABC that are within your tolerances. Should you hold the record positions of the missing monuments or prorate/hold record etc to create new positions based on the existing monuments that you find?

I am not completely sure if I followed your example well enough, but I think I actually had a survey which resembled this example.
I had a tract map which was abutting a rancho line, deed description called for a closing corner of a fractional public land lot (on a township line) closing onto the rancho line. (this was toughly Pomona area, built out mostly long time ago, without giving up to much identifying information about the project). No original corners to be found of the section or the rancho, original work has been done 1890's to 1920's. I was looking for an LS number 900 something. Most of the tract subdivisions happened in 1970's and 1980's, then additional drainage areas repaired so most of the original Tract monuments of my abutter were knocked out when a new gutter and some slope drainage was repaired in the 90's. Interestingly, one of the original rancho corners falls on Cal Poly Pomona campus (SFN). This as a large project with a big budget, I spent three field days going up and down the 8000 foot long rancho line trying to find some evidence. Turned up nothing. Did that because I was already aware of record discrepancies possibly several feet in magnitude (4' +/- IIRC).

After this effort turned up nothing, and tract corners and all the back lot corner monumentation of my abutter was not found, I expanded the survey to start including abutting tract street centerlines, as 'best possible evidence' to recover original rancho line position. So in effect, I used a newer adjoining tracts and several RS's to arrive at the most plausible position of that rancho line.

On my boundary sheets and included boundary establishment narrative I made sure to document the full process, what evidence was found, what evidence was not found and what method was used for final decision.

Would I have used the next door tracts and recovered the boundary this way without exhausting a possibility of finding higher level evidence? Absolutely not.

This was a planned 250 lot subdivision, and a 4' discrepancy would have easily knocked out a row of about 15-20 lots, making it not feasible for development, and we were abutting a row of another 30-50 large homes valued at between 1 and 2 million dollars each. How much liability do I want to take on by rushing to a decision or shortcutting evidence?

I even insisted that our crews bring back pictures of having dug 4 and 5 feet down to bedrock in locations where we expected to find rancho corners (or closing corners on the rancho line).

As far as finding abutting tract information to establish the line, tracts to the north and south of us had different solution to that rancho line, and like I said, along it's 8000' in length, tract lined up along it disagree up to 4' about where the line sits. I decided to honor my westerly abutter (as opposed to the northerly one). My westerly abutter actually surveyed through some of the original monuments in his survey some 50 or 60 years ago. My northerly abutter did something different (I forgot what) and came up with a different solution. We actually found a no reference spike (no washer) in the northerly tract which agreed with my westerly line solution, but not with that tract. The rest of that tract was monumenting the street CL's with spikes, but all the others were tagged. No telling where that spike came from, other than guessing and speculating about scenarios. Did not tag that spike, left it as found, documented it's position.

Incidentally with this same boundary, trying to re-establish another problem area, we found a series of 6 spikes with untagged shiners, and couple of sheared off rebars on potential quarter-tangents... but all a little bit off, random distances under a foot. All monuments with no tags. It was tempting to accept them for street alignment and not go locating cross streets. After locating cross streets and some serious digging through city records, turned out that these were used as construction control points for storm drain construction which is almost paralleling the street centerline, but not quite exactly, because there has been some storm drain transitioning and street realignment. Those survived because they were set in a shopping center parking lot, near to quarter tangents. The actual street monuments were knocked out during the last paving job (no well mons or similar underneath). This boundary was grueling enough that it was very tempting to accept this nice row of no reference "monuments".

Mike Mueller wrote: Tue Jan 03, 2023 11:00 am When (if ever) do we accept that measurement should be weighted higher in our priority of calls because it is becoming more precise AND accurate than other pieces of evidence?

When the laws change, and they say that we can hold measurements over the monument pedigree.
This is not likely to happen soon, because we still rely on many old monuments, where their calculated record position can be feet, or even tens of feet from where they are found (retracing in rural areas.)

Mike Mueller wrote: Should you hold the record positions of the missing monuments or prorate/hold record etc to create new positions based on the existing monuments that you find?

Don’t we decide what evidence to use and how? If I feel that the best evidence for the location of a missing monument comes from a previous surveyor’s measurements I will absolutely use that. But there are many factors. How long ago were those measurements made? What is the reputation of the surveyor who did the work? How far away are the re-established positions from the found monuments that we calc’d them from? What is the strength of our geometry? Were the missing monuments original or were they from a retracement survey. And checking dimensions to other monuments in the area is important as well.

CBarrett wrote: Tue Jan 03, 2023 5:57 pm

Mike Mueller wrote: Tue Jan 03, 2023 11:00 am When (if ever) do we accept that measurement should be weighted higher in our priority of calls because it is becoming more precise AND accurate than other pieces of evidence?

When the laws change, and they say that we can hold measurements over the monument pedigree.
This is not likely to happen soon, because we still rely on many old monuments, where their calculated record position can be feet, or even tens of feet from where they are found (retracing in rural areas.)

This is where I think a smaller slice of the hair is needed to explain my question. I am not talking about changing the priority of calls for older work like what you reference there. I am saying that in 40 years, people should be holding my measurements being made today and giving them a higher weight in their analysis because my measurements are much better then when the existing priority of calls was established though courts and sometimes laws. That same process will be used to slowly increase the weight given to measurements.

To me this is similar to how I have changed my starnet adjustments. I have almost zero distance error, very low but higher angular error, and almost all error is placed in centering. I have tried running the adjustments all sorts of ways and using the resultant control files back in the field and the best results are always found using the weights I explained. This is interesting in that it is flipping the traditional view that angle is more accurate than distance that I believe (opps I mean, tested and concluded :) ) is true for older work.

Please don't think that I am confusing precision with accuracy, however I do believe that precision allows for much better analysis to determine accuracy. IE if we all magically knew that all measurements were always done perfectly, we could safely say no monument ever needs a tag. The measurement itself is the pedigree. Much of our professional judgement comes in because we know that measurement is not perfect and it is our task to figure out what is the "best" way to still walk in the footsteps of of predecessors.

But as measurement gets increasingly better, we will be able to use it more and more to "prove" things, IE lessening the need to add my tag to a found un-tagged pipe. I personally think that my measurements are sufficiently identifying for the future surveyor to be certain they found the same pipe. Its clear that not all folks have passed that tipping point, but within 10-15 years I would bet that 95% of practicing surveyors will be past that tipping point in their measurement precision/accuracy. Not to say they will be measuring the right evidence :)

Consider the time spent creating a section corner in the 1800's ( at least in theory) IE trenchs, broken glass, bearing trees, mounds of stone, notched rocks, etc. Likely the work of several guys for a decent amount of time. All done because everyone knew the measurement was not accurate. As our measurement gets better, the need to construct such elaborate monuments gets less. Putting a pipe in the ground takes minutes, for 1 or 2 people now. How long before we follow NGS and stop using passive marks in the ground to establish lines?

Those future laws and court precedents are based on what we do as professionals do now. Its why things like this forum, and the CLSA Magazine and our yearly convention are important parts of our evolving zeitgeist.

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

PS Due to the risk of GPS and all that being one of the first causulties in any significant global conflict, I am personally a fan of setting chunks of metal into the ground at key points.

Aaah, ok, I see where you are going with this. Yes, I would be a fan of giving higher precision and more reliable measurements little more weight. I can't really elaborate on this much more, because I have not spent a lot of time contemplating where and when this would be feasible, and when it may cause problems.

A lot of times when I am explaining public lands and monument holds over everything else, I end up adding an explanation about measurement precision in those days and how if a decision was made that monuments don't hold and measurement does, every single parcel of land would have a pincushion or be in litigation.

Of course now that I mentioned pincusions, the very next thought that followed was, without a tagging requirement (as an accountability measure), I wonder if we would see a proliferation of pincushions.

I do have these internal debates with myself, regarding monumentation. Especially in modern suburban subdivisions. Everything in a subdivision is built per original plans, usually long before any monumentation is set, then we rush and set the monuments after construction is over. It is not that uncommon that a monument ends up in an occasional wrong spot, because someone failed to update the cad drawing... or dropped a point on an easement endpoint two feet away instead of the PL endpoint. So in that case, what is the better evidence of the intent, the wall that the contractor built in the right location, or the monument that oopsed in the wrong location and no-one noticed.

Hold the monument doctrine is founded on the fact that people took possession of the land based on the survey monument location (in case of open land without natural landmarks). In a modern subdivision, the home buyer understood that his back yard of his 7500 SF lot 'goes to that wall' that the original builder made. What survey Monument? I thought that was a piece of gum with a pebble stuck on the curb. What centerline monument, it doesn't show under the final pavement lift. So how do you in clear conscience hold a blundered monument?

I have rejected blundered subdivision corners before - at the great discomfort of the plan checker who suggested that we blame the grading and say the monument slid (exactly a foot) downhill. The monument was set at an exact 2x2 offset to the record corner, at the center of a dirt swale along the top of slope designed to prevent nuisance water from eroding top of slope. Neither design nor original possession, nor the square footage which may have played the part in lot cost held the monument. No-one lays out suburban subdivisions in the field any more, they are planned in the office, and monuments are an after thought.

Over the years I have been told most states require a surveyed boundary to be monumented. I randomly researched Oregon, Colorado, New Mexico as to monumentation statutes and found each state requires boundaries to be monumented.

How did California get to the point the surveyors do not monument their boundaries? I suspect it is tied to the canard "I did not file a record of survey because I did not set monuments" - of course, this was never a true statement. Records of survey are required in many instances in which monuments are not set. I further suspect not setting monuments allowed the surveyors to grift boundaries without future detection, feet don't fail me now! The same mindset invented "record boundaries".

The monumentation of boundaries by law levels the playing field, protects the public and makes the conversation of the tagging untagged monuments somewhat immaterial. A monumented boundary, like the record of survey, will reduce the cost of future surveys and protects the boundary lines. The monumentation requirement will help eliminate the unlawful site plans by unlicensed folks. It is not uncommon to find durable monuments that are 30-60 years old. Thank goodness those surveyors were not sheepish about setting monuments.

If we choose not to set monuments, why do we chose to preserve monuments under 8771? Wouldn't measurement be sufficient? If we believe measurement, not the public's individual boundary lines, is sufficient, technically we only need one RTN point to reestablish boundaries surveyed. Only one obstacle, we have 170 years of California case law that relies on monuments set in the ground.

DWoolley

DWoolley wrote: Mon Jan 16, 2023 8:57 am The monumentation of boundaries by law levels the playing field, protects the public and makes the conversation of the tagging untagged monuments somewhat immaterial. A monumented boundary, like the record of survey, will reduce the cost of future surveys and protects the boundary lines. The monumentation requirement will help eliminate the unlawful site plans by unlicensed folks. It is not uncommon to find durable monuments that are 30-60 years old. Thank goodness those surveyors were not sheepish about setting monuments.

If we choose not to set monuments, why do we chose to preserve monuments under 8771? Wouldn't measurement be sufficient? If we believe measurement, not the public's individual boundary lines, is sufficient, technically we only need one RTN point to reestablish boundaries surveyed. Only one obstacle, we have 170 years of California case law that relies on monuments set in the ground.

I agree with this statement. When I see a boundary survey with no monuments for the landowners to rely on I feel like the surveyor is wasting everyone's time.

It is our duty to leave clear footsteps. If a layman cannot clearly ascertain the boundary I am establishing by standing on the ground and looking at it then I am derelict in this duty.

It is our duty to leave clear footsteps. If a layman cannot clearly ascertain the boundary I am establishing by standing on the ground and looking at it then I am derelict in this duty.

I wouldn't object to a state law requiring that every boundary survey be monumented -- more work for me! However, absent such a law, I can think of several legitimate business cases for not monumenting a survey that doesn't involve any of the §8762 ROS triggers:

1. A commercial ALTA survey. ("Commercial"" is very nearly a redundant modifier of "ALTA survey," but technically a residential ALTA is possible, though I've never seen one.) These are required by title companies when an ALTA policy is ordered by the buyer/lender, but the title company will never "stand on the ground and look" at the boundary -- they only need a map enabling them to assess title risk. Burdening the survey with the additional cost of installing and documenting monuments that no party to the transaction actually wants is wasteful.

2. A survey in anticipation of a LLA. Why monument parcel boundaries that are about to be altered? (P.S. the law requiring monumentation of LLA lines is another one that doesn't exist.)

3. A planning topo. The project may never come to fruition, so I can't see any reason to jack up the cost by installing monuments at this phase.

In all of the above scenarios, if the owner/buyer/whoever-is-paying wants to see monuments, then by all means set and document them. But until that state law requiring monuments gets enacted, not every boundary survey needs new monuments.

In 1891 the California Legislature recognized the land surveyors were riding dirty and creating future legal issues in the land tenure system. The cleaning solution was to license land surveyors and mandate that all surveys conducted are filed as a record of survey. There were no exceptions to the mandatory filing requirement for the next forty-five years. The 1936 “land surveyors’ act”, from memory, created the triggers for filing that allowed for the exceptions to filing a record of survey. It took 45 years to sufficiently cleanse the land surveyors’ age of grifting boundaries. The legislative cleansings were 1891, 1936, 1972, 1982-84, we are due again.

Historically, the land surveying community is quick to say unlicensed folks cannot “survey”, pointing to 8726, and yet, the same folks have no issues willfully grifting to get out of legal land surveying under 8762 and 8771. What other licensed professionals rationalize unlawful practices under the guise of “saving a stranger money”? One way to save a client money is by competently practicing and not violating the laws in place to protect them from you. Why not incentivize legal land surveying by legislatively clarifying the duties of the land surveyor to include monumentation (like other states)? This would also reward the honest practitioners that have been training their staff and are familiar with filing maps. I spoke with Gary Kent many years ago and he indicated California is an outlier by not requiring monuments to be set.

Understanding that 44% of licensed land surveyors are 61 or older, arguably having little skin in the future of the profession, the under 40 crowd should support every boundary having monuments set and a record filed, living the life of a professional. As with the 1891 record of survey law, the swindlers and scofflaws were sure to have cried foul. I wouldn’t let that deter anyone that prefers to continue to survey for another thirty years. The alternative is changing my oil or greeting me at the local Walmart after I have retired. Actually jobs I wouldn’t mind doing, it’s the sleeping outside or living with my kids that is personally unappealing.

The public would benefit greatly by; minimizing the litigation related to unclear boundary lines, cutting the cost for future surveys related to improvements, eliminating unlicensed folks from offering services i.e. site plans as agencies recognized the legal requirements for monuments.

Anyone else see it differently?

Dwoolley

Jim Frame and David Kendall, I appreciate the input to the conversation.

Full disclosure, I have been diligent in filing records of survey but, in hindsight, I should have set more monuments.

As a matter of practice, we do set stamped washers and 2 1/2" aluminum discs set in concrete or pipe for control - as opposed to concrete nails or tacked hubs - on boundaries and design topographic surveys. I have an affinity to setting durable control monuments. Setting monuments to mark property corners and/or centerlines came into my consciousness when former Deputy County Surveyor, Craig Wehrman, simply asked why I do not set more monuments after completing a survey. I did not have an answer that made any sense. I will be forever grateful he asked me that question. As fate would have it, I set 8-10 monuments on the centerline of that particular survey only to have the county pave over them without tying them out.

Today I do not always set every property corner, but would welcome the law requiring it.

DWoolley

DWoolley wrote: Mon Jan 16, 2023 8:57 am If we choose not to set monuments, why do we chose to preserve monuments under 8771? Wouldn't measurement be sufficient? If we believe measurement, not the public's individual boundary lines, is sufficient, technically we only need one RTN point to reestablish boundaries surveyed. Only one obstacle, we have 170 years of California case law that relies on monuments set in the ground.

DWoolley

A little reductio ad absurdum there :) But as long as we can insure China doesn't nuke our GPS satellites and that there are sufficient CORS stations that always have funding and are placed around faults etc sufficiently, I am fine with that solution. That would likely take more money than just using chunks of metal(aka status quo), but it seems like a more elegant and long term solution. Just look at what NGS is doing.

In all of these discussions, I see two aspects that always compete.

1. a "real world" view, where the ends sort of justify the means for laws we have.

2. an "ideal world" (aka utopia ) where all laws are both correct and right.

Example seatbelts. I think they are wonderful and useful and will always wear mine.
In option 1 (the real world) there should be a seatbelt law to scare/force the idiots who wouldn't wear a seatbelt into wearing one. This saves society money in healthcare and helps children not be orphans. In option 2 (ideal world) There is no seatbelt law because the state has no right to tell me what to do with my body, and its just a sad cost of my freedom that the idiots die because they won't wear one.

I bring up this example to frame my response to your other question

DWoolley wrote: Tue Jan 17, 2023 12:59 pm Why not incentivize legal land surveying by legislatively clarifying the duties of the land surveyor to include monumentation (like other states)? This would also reward the honest practitioners that have been training their staff and are familiar with filing maps.

Real world view= No, as it is just raising the already high cost of surveying correctly, and not stopping Phil's "Known Bad Practitioners" (KBP). Depending on the location/terrain I have surveys where setting monuments at the "corners" would be 2-3 times the cost of the base RoS. They are in rough terrain that it can take half a day to hike to a corner, so visiting it again is very expensive. These are admittedly outliers but are by no means infrequent. Forcing me to do work that is not wanted by a client, which would be ignored by a KBP anyway, is not helping the situation. It reminds me of the gun law debates, IE why make more laws to try and control a situation where almost all the bad outcomes are driven by forces that do not respond to such laws.

Ideal World view= Yes. Setting monuments would help the future. It would be like making all the new developers install curb/gutter/sidewalk. It benefits existing society by charging an entrance fee to all those who are trying to join that group/area/political entity.

For what its worth, I am not advocating status quo as a knee jerk reaction. I think laws should have room written into them for judgement and consideration of different situations. It is the entire premise of our license that we should be using our unique knowledge to arrive at the "correct" outcome in complicated situations. A solution that I think would be awesome is to have 8771 of the PLS Act changed to allow for a County to set their own monumentation rules. Thus the rural areas can maintain their lower costs, while empowering the urban areas to pass more laws to regulate their citizens. One option would be to make it an explicit power of the County Surveyor to determine each county's definition of what is "sufficient" and "facile" and clearly state that 8771(a) is part of the requirements that need to be complied with per 8766(a)(2) I


Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

Mikey, I agree with you that laws need to evolve to include more finesse. It unfortunately makes the laws more and more complex.
Important thing to understand when making laws are all of their consequences, not just one of the desired effects. Many laws end up with a number of complicating unintended consequences. They require much more in depth consideration beyond just the confirmative bias.

CBarrett wrote: Wed Jan 18, 2023 9:33 am ...that laws need to evolve to include more finesse. It unfortunately makes the laws more and more complex.

Not necessarily. The law could be, "Whatever Mikey wants shall be done". Very simple law. Hard to predict and structure a business around though, so it is complex to obey and follow.

Vesting authority in bureaucrats is always dicey, however I think it is very important to not throw the baby out with the bathwater. I think any "raising of the bar" of minimum standards needs to have judgement woven into it. If we do not craft laws that carve out room for "common sense" we will create a situation that devolves into a flowchart simple enough for new hire bureaucrats to implement.

I do agree with Dave that we need to evolve and adapt. Our state will pass more laws and most of those laws will benefit densely populated urban areas. Democracy is about what most people want and most people are in dense cities along the coast. My hope/effort is to try and get those laws written to accomedate some judgement and flexibility.

It is why placing that authority in the hands of a CS makes sense to me. They have a license, they are generally near the top of a org chart, and I have been amazed at the dedication and care the CSs I have met/worked with exhibit. Is it ideal, nope. But it would be better then letting the pendulum swing too far towards setting a monument and tag with a CR/RoS for every fence stake or building state I set and on all corners every resolved.

Tagging a ginny and filing a CR set for fence construction may seem far fetched, but our current laws allows for that interpretation already.

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

Exactly! I think we are on the same page here, only you explained it much better.

What if the law required you to monument the end points of one (1) line of the subject property surveyed? That would allow for the needed discretion of the professional to place the monuments on either a line that wouldn't be disturbed or that is easy to perform the work on but also serve to allow me to retrace your survey without having to go 1 mile each way to a Section corner. You could monument the line that a fence will be constructed or along a line where you know where they will not be immediately disturbed up to you as the licensee.

I kicked around the idea of monumenting your basis of bearings but then I was thinking that if your BOB is based off of ties to CSRN Stations or CORS Stations then it wouldn't really work too well, it also wouldn't work too well if it is not adjacent to the subject property.

Food for thought.

I have always believed that a basis of bearings had to be a monumented line of record.

Dave Lindell wrote: Wed Jan 18, 2023 1:32 pm I have always believed that a basis of bearings had to be a monumented line of record.

That is what the County Engineers Association Guide asserts, and I think it is also a good default, but I will sometimes make my BoB whatever is most elegant rather than what is most likely to be retraced or happens to match R&M best.

The BoB is an arbitrary line that only has a significant effect on future retracement if your retraced by a two point tango. Otherwise it would/should be interior angles from nearest found monuments, or bearing bearing intersects, or whatever, but holding a BoB and laying out record to call out all other found monuments is a hallmark of incompetent surveying. Found (controlling) monuments effectively reset the BoB to the line between the found nearest monuments for work dependent/related to that line.

Its like Wattles talking about how each new line called for in a survey resets the "local BoB" to that line for departures from that line. IE hold interior angles from each document, not the written bearing.

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

Without two monuments on the ground, relating a basis of bearing to field conditions is like... not having a backsight.

As for surveys, I can see a number of cases where mandatory monumentation would be beneficial (single residential lots in older areas), but on the other hand I see almost as many where the timing or conditions are not right for monumentation shortly after the survey (Ie. Land Development, litigation, caltrans right of way projects).

Ahhhhh . . . but we have the sun, stars, Polaris and now - GPS

If everyone employed a solar, (or geodetic), basis of bearings . . . retracement could be had if only one passive-point remained!

Yeah . . . I'm old and crazy, huh?

Mike Mueller wrote: Tue Jan 17, 2023 5:39 pm ...
A solution that I think would be awesome is to have 8771 of the PLS Act changed to allow for a County to set their own monumentation rules. Thus the rural areas can maintain their lower costs, while empowering the urban areas to pass more laws to regulate their citizens. One option would be to make it an explicit power of the County Surveyor to determine each county's definition of what is "sufficient" and "facile" and clearly state that 8771(a) is part of the requirements that need to be complied with per 8766(a)(2) I

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

I could see the benefit of the guidance by the County Surveyor. There are a few issues that need to be worked out:

1. Business and Professions Code 8766 (CS review parameters) does not allow the County Surveyor to review 8771 (the monumentation section).

2. Suppose the County Surveyor was written into the monumentation determination, how do you handle the monumentation if the surveyor does agree not with the County Surveyor? A note is not appropriate in this instance.

Although I appreciate your analogies i.e. seatbelts, they ring hollow in the instant example. The land surveyors, again, when viewed as a whole, have proven themselves to be in a moral hazard. Look no further than the fact there are approximately 4,200 licensed surveyors and 50,000 professional engineers and yet, land surveyors account for 50% of the complaints - that statistic screams extrajudicial proclivities when they are left to their own devices. I suspect it was that way in 1891 and the evidence of complaints indicates land surveyors are in a collective renaissance.

Let this sink in, engineers outnumber land surveyors by 12:1, of the 4.200 surveyors 1,000 are out of state and 300-500 (?) are retired, making the number possibly 17:1, how can there be more complaints against land surveyors? Ridin' dirty, same as '91. I agree it is unfortunate we need to pass laws to protect the public from our community. We must stop the grift.

My ask is for suggestions as to how we can legislatively integrate the County Surveyor's discretion into the equation. It is a good idea from my perspective.

DWoolley

Can we amend Section 8766(a)(2) to include Section 8771(a) in regard to compliance for a Record of Survey like we already have for Sections 8762.5, 8763, 8764.5, 8771.5 and 8772?

That might be the easiest solution.

DWoolley wrote: Wed Jan 18, 2023 3:37 pm Let this sink in, engineers outnumber land surveyors by 12:1, of the 4.200 surveyors 1,000 are out of state and 300-500 (?) are retired, making the number possibly 17:1, how can there be more complaints against land surveyors? Ridin' dirty, same as '91. I agree it is unfortunate we need to pass laws to protect the public from our community. We must stop the grift.

I am only aware of the BPELSG reports about complaints IE (https://www.bpelsg.ca.gov/pubs/bulletin.latest.pdf) Any chance you have more granular data on that topic? IE what percent are staking vs boundary vs topo vs subdivision vs legal description vs whatever?

The Violated Code Section doesn't really tell the whole story, IE 12 of the 20 cited people in period Jan-March 2022 had LS code sections (8700's) vs only 8 surveyors and 3 able to survey.

Ran their names and got the follow license count:
Mech Eng =1
Electircal Eng. = 1
Civil = 7 ( might be 1 less, as there was a Struct E with same name)
Pre 82 Civil = 3
LS = 8 (might be 1 less, as the infraction was for 6749 engineers and contracts)

8 outa 20, pretty close to half. 2-3 of those LS folks have pretty low numbers. If there was an easy way to check the LS# of cited folks I would be interested to see if there was a trend or pattern, IE is it changing rules that catch old dogs?

I can think of several reasons for that disparity that do not depend on the (lack of) morals of Land Surveyors. If the surveyors are the bad actors, laws would need to be structured differently than if surveyors are just in a position that gets picked on more. I want to make sure we are not concluding that Quarterbacks are better at avoiding tackles because wide receivers(running backs? I don't know football) get tackled more.

Several influences on that data to consider:

1. Biggest reason is when you are designing something you are not constrained by the evidence or its lack. When engineers are designing proposed work they do not have to design a retaining wall with only the wood found on that site with a few old rusted bolts that don't match. (Forgive the rickety analogy, but you get the idea). If there are not enough bolts/straps etc to meet the calculated load, add more straps. Its hard/impossible to just "add more found monuments" as a LS. The ambiguity inherent in a lot of boundary work I think contributes to those complaint outcomes. Do we have a way to measure that?

2. The civil engineers I work with can give you a pretty firm price for 80-90 percent of the work they do because it is all a design flow chart that is based on known unknowns, and the same basic desired outcome. Almost all of their work is constrained by the building codes or local standards, not their licensing rules. I know there are some engineers who peruse this board, I would ask them to weigh in. Surveyors doing boundary are often dealing with known unknowns as well as unknown unknowns, and its the unknown unknowns that cause havoc to budgets and pricing. If a crucial mon is missing costs go up, but finding a bunch of unrecorded tagged pipes close to the corners costs go up more. When costs exceed estimates, clients are unhappy. Unhappy clients leads to complaints. (discussion about managing expectations etc is another topic) Easiest comparison is remodel vs new construction, which is notorious for unexpected costs? According to MD friends, patient complaints are driven by bedside manner, not quality of service. Perhaps we just have gruff exteriors?

3. I think is important to consider we generally are paid by 1 person, to do work that effects many people. How many of those complaints are from neighbors who are unhappy with the outcome? Most engineering work is on one site and doesn't have an effect on the neighbor. Or even your own clients who don't like where the boundary is since the location of the boundary is outside our control, whereas the work done by an engineer is almost completely in their control, just costs go up as you get away from the easy path. Engineers can say, "sure lets build that road there, it just needs 40' retaining walls". I can't move a line just because my client wants to throw money at it (outside of a LLA :) )

4. We are obliged to file a RoS even when a client asks us not to. If an engineer specs a wall out and the client doesn't like it, the civil is not obligated to still build the wall over the objections of their client.

Is it fair to say we should compare areas where the outcomes are controlled by the surveyor and there are known unknowns like in subdivisions or construction staking? I would be very interested in that comparison. If it is still disparate, I would think that is pretty good proof of KBPs in our ranks that warrant action. (Known Bad Practitioners)

On the other hand, if you consider that tightening laws would lead to more infractions, can we read the disparity as our existing laws working?

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

PS Dave, thank you for providing data btw, reading your posts always requires thinking and generates thoughts I haven't thought before :)