California Surveyors Forums

Anybody care to post a copy of an ROS that they are proud of? I would like to see some examples, especially any that disclose material discrepancies or other complications.

Thanks

Here is one that I am pretty proud of.

There were many neat issues that a surveyor rarely gets a chance to deal with all in one tiny project. Everything from a material discrepancy, to a national border, to a homestead entry survey, to dependent and independent resurveys along a range line.

Please let me know what you think.

Thanks,

John

Thanks, John. I think the world would be a better place if everybody was proud of their work.

I'll take a look at it when I get a chance. I want to use these examples so that I can improve my understanding of what constitutes a professional product.

Here's a few that I am fond of...

A Homestead Survey, huh? Doesn't Evan specialize in those?

Nice work gentlemen. Thanks for sharing.

Here is a bear of one I just did. The bear was hiding in the project I thought was a slam dunk with surveys and maps all around it. Then once onsite the bear raised its ugly head and tried to smote me. I'd like to think I got the best of it though in the end, other than the monetary compensation.

Scott,

I really like the look of your map. I didn't get into the nitty gritty of the data and stuff, but I really like the way you depicted the ocupation lines and the use of your details. There's a lot of stuff going on in that corner of Stanislaus County.

Wow! Some real works of art presented here. These maps just might prove that land surveying truly is more of an art than a science.

It's also been rumored that the more professional the map looks, the less likely it is that anyone will question the contents. :)

Thanks, I've been thinking of using a "Survey Report" sheet or note similar to some of the other maps posted here. I haven't yet, because it is kind of like using line or curve tables, which I loathe to do. They are necessary at times and I do use them, but a curve/line table makes it very hard to follow around the property. Sometimes, though, it is hard to communicate my reasoning with a small found monument note for each one.
I take a lot of pride in visual aspect of my maps, though not at the expense of the integrity of the survey.
As far as the checker questioning the contents, they will always have to put at least one red mark on the map they are checking. So, you put at least one throw-down mistake that is very obvious (like a wrong street name) and then everyone is happy (ha ha, just kidding).

Remember that different jurisdictions have different requirements, so it is always best to get some examples from the jurisdiction you are working in.

That's good advice, Keith.

I'm mostly interested in just how much effort other land surveyors are putting into their finished products. Sort of like a "standard of practice" inquiry.

I'm very impressed with the quality of the samples submitted.

Here is one I was involved in a dozen years ago or more.

It is interesting because it involves an extension of the Public Lands system over a Rancho " reputed to have been made by O. N. Sanford in May of 1884."

Also it involves something we discussed in the LS review tract at the conference, the application of federal rules of apportionment on a Rancho

I like the Surveyors note to tell the story, as you can tell.

Oops. The forum will not load a tif file. Let me figure out how to convert this over. So far only sheet 1 made the conversion

Here is an interesting one I was involved with a dozen or more years ago.

It involves an "extension of the Untied States Government system of Surveys over said Rancho Santa Maria, reputed to have been made by O.N. Sanford, C.E. in May 1884"

Mike P. - A good example of using Federal rules of apportionment for "East 10 acres"

Steve,

I bet you would be really handy up at Yosemite! :)

Thanks Mark,

Alas, I am chained to my desk and don't get out too often. Yosemite would be beautiful this time of year though.

Here are a couple that you might find of interest.

ROS 14733 involved work along the International Border. Turns out 2 maps, nearly identical to each other were filed over the same land. Who got there first and who owned what? What was sold and what was legally described. What a mess!

ROS 13429 involves an engineer accepting a found monument without checking into its history as it was "non-record" - what a misnomer. In any event, the monument was at a ten-foot offset and not at the actual corner. Others followed.

The others examples are very interesting and informative. My compliments to those who responded. These are splendid examples of stellar land surveying work. My hat is off to you all.

Well done Mr. Pallamary!

The use of notes or narratives is pretty rare on RSs at this end of the state. It's something that I would like to see done more often.

Well, Evan, here's one from "this end of the State" that uses a narrative.

It's not a particularly "stellar" ROS, but it is the one that ran through San Mateo County. Take particular note of the date in the Recorder's Certificate.

This map was first submitted to San Mateo County on the 11th of April, 2009 (yes, 2009!).

Cheers, Mike!

We'll have to chat about "Ownership to CL" next time we get together. I've got a new twist to the puzzle I's like to share with you.

.

I like the note about rim cuts. Rim cuts are a great way to perpetuate a centerline intersection that falls on a manhole lid. Great, that is, until the first time the street gets rebuilt, at which time the rim -- complete with cuts -- gets removed and later replaced. It might end up on the same manhole, and it might not. Even if it does, and the rim location ends up within a few tenths of where it was before, its orientation is effectively random. In this best-case scenario, unless the original intersection was dead center of the lid when the cuts were made, the position of the point referenced by the cuts might be as much as a foot from the intersection point.

In other words, rim cuts aren't worth much when it comes to retracement surveys.

.

This is one of the best threads in a long time. Mike, I'll need a week to read the 8 sheet novel of an RS you made there. Can I say wow? I just recently saw an RS in LA County that was two sheets - one full sheet was text similar to one of those sheets and the other was the map and I was amazed at that, until now.

Thanks for the comments. As a matter of policy, when I am involved in a controversial survey, I make it a practice to discuss my decisions in detail. There are several reasons for this. First and foremost, I do not like getting a phone call inquiring about a complex survey years later. If the explanation is sufficient, the procedure should be easy to follow.
Second, a considerable portion of my practice is litigation based. In complex matters like these, I run the narration by the title company and attorneys so that they can weigh in if they see fit.
Third, if I have to criticize the survey of another, which I abhor, I want the other surveyor to know exactly what I am thinking and doing. I therefore will send them a copy of my surveyor's note for their review, records and comment. By explaining things very methodically, I can memorialize my thoughts. As a standard practice in performing a complex survey, I maintain a running synopsis of decisions and evidence considerations. If I put the survey down for a few days or weeks, when I pick it up again, I know wheat I did and the decisions I made.

Also, in instances where I have to reject a monument, I want to make it abundantly clear why I did that. I think it is negligent for a surveyor to haphazardly reject a monument without discussion.

Again I want to thank Mark for initiating this thread. It was a great idea. It might make an interesting program for the preparers to walk people through the survey.

Most of my ideas are real stinkers.

But posting this thread was the easy part. Without the overwhelming participation of so many true professionals, this thread would have been a stinker, too!

Thanks to all for sharing.

Here is one from Sonoma County.

I think the Surveyor had too much time on his hands, but this takes hand drafting to a whole new level.

The Line for the basis of bearings is morse code of some sort.

Obviously, there was a message being sent with this one.

Wonder if that is suppsoed to be a likeness of Phil in the upper left hand corner?

Very interesting.

This one was done in meters and based on the info shown for the north arrow (solar tie) appears to be on a CCS grid basis of bearing. You gotta like all those millimeter pipe sizes.

I realize these filed maps are public record, but I do feel a little uncomfortable with posting other's work without their permission. What do you think?