Mapping Standards on Final Maps

[subman]

Just curious if other Counties throughout the State allow the following to be shown on a field surveyed Tract Map or Parcel Map:

1. Within Not A Part Areas within the block - ghosted text of adjacent record Tract No/MB -Pg references.

2. Dimensions between found monuments - Field survey measured distance and one or more record distances in ( ) for the same line.


If you do or don't, what are your reasons. Interested in hearing perspectives of the private surveyors in addition to the County Surveyors.

In my jurisdiction, we will ask the ghost text to be removed and require that applicable lines and/or corners shown for establishment be labeled to identify the relationship of the distinctive border to adjacent surveys. Trying to avoid redundant information on the map.

On the second item, we ask for the record distances in ( ) to be removed.

[Ric7308]

Does your county require those record dimensions in ( ) for Record of Survey maps and Corner Records?

Do you have an example that would illustrate what your county would like to see that you can upload?

Thanks

[bruce hall]

and Parcel Maps that are in the incorporated and unincorporated areas here in the OC without record ( ) dimensions shown. I don't like it and I think that is stupid not to show it. What was it before? and what is is now, regarding the bearings and distances. Is this a big secret or something. I have seen the same things (or lack of) on many Final Maps in LA County.

As to showing, or not showing, the ghosted characters that indicate adjoiners or another map within the area of the survey, I have the same opinion. Is this a big secret or something?

Having these ghosted letterings and record dimensions might help me figure out what happened, if anything, and what effect, if anything, that this Final Map has on the lands adjacent to it.

If the final map doesn't show what lands are adjacent to this survey that I am retracing by inspecting the final map, then I gotta start figuring out which ones they are. It will only take me longer to figure out what maps I should have in the file, but maybe that's why I get paid the big bucks.

As to being redundant, so what? I don't know where that comes from. But, then again, I work out of this little cubby hole that I type this opinion in.

And just to make this point a little more redundant I still think that it is stupid not to show this stuff on a Final Map. Is it a big secret or something?

[subman]

Ric,

On RS and CR documents, ( ) record dimensions along with measured distances are allowed, but does not appear to be a requirement. A random sampling shows the majority of measured distances only and a moderate amount with the additional ( ) record distance.

One could seem to make a fair argument in either direction depending on what the local practice and standards are. The following SMA and PLS regulations appear to be pertinent to the discussion depending on which state law you want to use as the basis of your position.

66434. Form and Contents

66434.2. Additional Information shall be Filed or Recorded Simultaneously with a Final or Parcel Map if Required by Local Ordinance

8764. Record of Survey Technical Requirements

8762. Record of Surveys; Particulars to Be Shown

[Peter Ehlert]

Dennis:
I don't think I understand your question... isn't that information required by state law as a minimum standard, and would be beyond the local agency purview?
Are you talking about drafting style or actual content?
But without seeing your particular case I am just guessing.

Can you show us an example of something that you feel should be deleted from a map?

Thanks, peter

BTW: I would require all abbreviations to be shown in the legend... at least require full monument descriptions (that stuff is in your domain)

[Ian Wilson]

Dennis:

From the day we start boundary surveying, we are taught that we must follow in the footsteps of those who have gone before us. The unwritten corollary to that precept is that we should leave footsteps for those who follow behind us.

Why would any jurisdiction statutorily reduce the ability of any surveyor to leave those footprints?

In my experience, many times, the parenthetical data and the "ghosted" adjoiner information leads to significant revelations regarding the boundary. Sometimes, those little nuggets are the only clue left for us to properly understand the conditions at a point in time long-since gone.

[subman]

Unfortunately I don't have an example of what we ask to be removed from the map at the moment. I would have to find and scan a first map check print where we asked for the information to be removed next week. Don't have access to that at home.

Peter, I am interested in the state law sections you are referring to as "minimum standards".

Let me ask the question another way. The SMA requires a Final Map to have particular form and content and certain additional information may be included on a separate sheet if allowed by local ordinance The PLS Act has certain technical requirements and content required to be shown on a Record of Survey. Does the final map requirements apply to the record of survey and visa versa or are they mutually exclusive of one another.

In other words, if during a field survey for a final map, the surveyor comes across certain field conditions that trigger a Record of Survey under PLS 8762b; does the law require that the final map is the mechanism to comply with the PLS Act. Or in addition to the final map, does the law require the surveyor to also file a record of survey to comply with 8762b.

Please don't take my questions as being argumentative. I am very interested in others opinions and perspectives and am asking to stimulate discussion. Thanks.

[subman]

Ian, in lieu of the ghosted adjoiner information floating within the Not A Part Area, we ask that the lines be labeled with the adjoiner reference. I believe that serves the same purpose as the ghosted adjoiner information. On that basis, IMO, I think showing both is redundant.

[Ian Wilson]

Dennis:

I’m not entirely following you as far as labeling the lines with adjoiner info. I couldn’t figure out what that meant, even when I looked at the example you posted.

Of course, in a way, that’s my point. I am a visual learner. I don’t do so well with fragmented information. Show me a picture of what it looks like and I’ll never forget it. So, for me, having the ghosted references helps me to visualize the spatial relationships of the adjoiner pieces better.

As far as the statutes, I look to 66434(c) to support me in placing information on the map that I deem necessary to help others locate monuments and “…retrace any and all…boundary lines appearing on the map…”

That last little tag means that I need to show ALL the information I used to determine where the boundary lies. My measured distances and bearings between found survey monuments set by others is only a part of my boundary determination. Showing record distances and bearings leaves information for others proving my prorationing.

I’d also echo Mike Foreman’s comment regarding “stand alone” maps. I was taught that my descriptions and maps should stand by themselves. I know it’s not necessary and I often find myself standing on the site, in the wind, with a handful of maps trying to fit them together. In my opinion, part of my job is to map my work so well that the next poor sod only needs to stand there with my map in hand to have all the information necessary.

Let me turn this around, Dennis. Clearly, there is a policy in place that you are following regarding these items. What local ordinance or reasoning do you give to surveyors in support of removing the information?

BTW – I have run into this a number of times. In my opinion, by taking the time to post this question here, you are working very hard to elevate our profession and raise the standard. I don’t think you’re being argumentative. I hadn’t intended to be, either. I wholeheartedly support your effort with this thread!


.

[subman]

I appreciate everyone's comments. As Deputy County Surveyor over subdivisions, I have inherited a map check process that has been in place for decades (unincorporated County area and 44 cities).

Our procedure manual is at least 25 years old. I am in the process of drafting a new one and I am trying to reconcile why things were done a certain way with what the law requires. I see the value of the record information. Many times during my final review I am looking at all other maps in a block (scattered all over the floor) to compare what their block dimensions were. Like you said Ian, to better understand the underlying basis of proration.

As part of the vetting process when the draft manual is ready to circulate to the local surveying organizations for comments, I would like to try and flush out things that have been a source of frustration in the past and if appropriate make changes. This forum is a fantastic place to get that type of feedback while I am in the rough draft stages.

[Ric7308]

8765(c) provides for a situation where a subdivision map would serve in lieu of a Record of Survey for the boundary, where a Record of Survey would be required.

In that case, then I would believe that 8764(d) and (g) would come into play.

Still looking through SMA and other resources...

[E_Page]

Why would you require them to remove pertinent and useful boundary information?

That makes no sense to me.

[dmi]

A friend of mine came up with this and I believe it address most mapping issue

clear.
consistent.
complete.

I see that you are talking about standards. So in that case a conceptual framework is important. I know that many treat the mapping of a subdivision boundary the same as they would a record of survey. For a record of survey, the preparer is given permission to place anything they believe will help in the intelligent reading of the map. I had always assumed that the same applied to boundary mapping for subdivision maps.

thanks for posting, we all are benefitting from the discussion.

[Peter Ehlert]

Dennis:
actually I did not say "minimum standards".
I said "... information required by state law as a minimum standard" and intend that to be understood as the entire body of State Statute as well as the actual standard of practice in the survey community (California).

We are all spinning in the wind guessing what you are getting at, please provide an example. Thanks

[subman]

If one of the surveyors that does subdivision maps in Orange County can post a recorded tract or parcel map I would appreciate it. As I understand, ghosted adjoiner references and record dimensions in ( ) are standard mapping practices. That might help show a contrast to the Los Angeles County map I posted above.

[Ian Wilson]

Here's one from El Dorado County that just recorded.

[bruce hall]

sent there is more than three hundredths out there. Between point 3 and 4 there is 0.20'. Between 5 and the angle point in Parcel 1 there is two inches.

The north line of Parcel 7, 32 PM 127 is two inches long and there is about a minute in the angle which is about a tenth or so.

I like seeing the three hundredths or the two hundredths, in fact I like seeing the distances that are perfect with regard to the record along the north west line of the PM.

And it just might be that Ian measured some of those lines 0.02 hundredths longer than it really is, just because the equipment only measures "so close". So maybe the value is really 0.05' shorter than record on the lines that he misses the record by 0.03'.

As far as the bearing on the lines go, do I really think he is looking at the backsight with his crosshairs? He probably thinks he is, and he is probably really, really close, but it ain't perfect. Light bends in the atmosphere and sometimes I think that I am looking at the backsight/forsight, but not really. So there is probably something out there regarding the bearings also, but probably not by a lot. But I know what angles he measured that day, and that is what I want to know. Just tell me what you measured,Ian, (which you did) and I'll take it from there.

Granted, The underlying Parcel Map should have been ghosted in. I think it is a lovely map and I could probably find the missing "ghost" by virtue of what else is written on the map.

[bruce hall]

work. In theory there is an attachment. there is a first time for everything. at least that is what I have been told.

[Lee Hixson]

There are explicit, specific requirements in the laws that we work under, then there are the implicit values and goals behind them. As you look toward improving your map checking guidelines, I strongly encourage you to focus on the later, more than you do on the former.

You know, over the years, I've heard many surveyors poke fun at assessor's maps and all they lack in comparison to the products we produce. But there have been many times that (sometimes with a magnifying glass) I've spotted a deed reference, a distance, a bearing, an owner's name, even an easement reference, that some dedicated staff drafter felt might be important, and thus worth including on an AP map, and that little research gem opened up a solution to a resolution problem.

I'll bet you that every single county in this state, you can easily imagine someone in management, who likes a "clean" map, issuing new guidelines for staff that would disallow such minutiae, such "irrelevant data" that only "clutters up" a map that was "intended" only for "just" those items on someone's checklist.

For recorded maps, magnify the value inherent in my point above, by 10 or 20 times.

The more relevant data the better! Period! To go in any other direction is to go against the spirit of generations of surveying excellence. And it is the surveyor preparing the map that should be in charge of defining "relevant." Every little note that checker A deems irrelevant, could be the gem in some future surveyor's dedicated effort to contribute a professional product that will serve the public better...not just now, but forever.

[bruce hall]

too.

I would say that the CENTERLINE of a 3/4" pipe is infinitely small.

Normally on a 2 inch iron pipe with a nail and tag in it, I measure to the top of the nail that is through the center of the tag. Sometimes the the nail and tag is not in the centerline of the 2 inch pipe, but that is what I measure to. If this is not correct then I have been doing this wrong forever and I will change my ways if this is incorrect. I think that the center of the nail in this pipe is infinitely small as well.

If there is no tag in the centerline of the 2 inch pipe, then I say that the centerline of the 2 inch pipe is infinitely small.

As to me measuring the arc length of 37.35' verses 37.37' I don't think that I am that good to wrap my tape along an perfect arc with a radius of 20 feet and get a reliable distance. I haven't figured out how to do that yet. But I am almost positive that someone on this board can show me how to "measure" this arc length without doing any calculations or other measurements.

As far as the map checker wanting to have you show the bearing of the 0.09' to the nearest second verses the nearest degree. He is chasing a hundredth, when he should be chasing more worthwhile items. As long as I don't chase the hundredths, I won't be wasting my time.

As to the error ellipse and degree of precision that you refer to, well this is how I look at it. If the true position of the CORNER is somewhere inside that 3/4 inch iron pipe that I set, or found, in the ground, then I did pretty good. (Maybe it would be easier if I set 4 inch diameter pipes instead of the 2 inch or 3/4 inch.) In fact, depending on the distances between the monuments, this distance from the corner to the centerline of the pipe probably will be even more.

That's plus or minus 0.04' from one side of the pipe to the other. I am kidding myself if I think that I can get any closer,(any distance I measure is plus or minus 0.015' on any given day) although I really try to set the pipe and measure the values of the found pipes as best I can.

Anyway, good luck on chasing your hundreths. I know where they're at- Just like it shows on the map (plus or minus 2 or 3 if I am lucky). Hopefully I was able to attach a link to the OC website and you can download/view as many final maps as you want.

Try this www.ocgeomatics.com and see what happens. I couldn' link it.

[Jim Frame]

"And I agree that there is a theoretically infinitely small center of that nail. All I'm trying to say is that, as far as I'm aware, the technology doesn't exist to measure its position."

Just to be argumentative: the technology does exist -- laser trackers can measure with mind-boggling accuracy. I'm not aware of any surveyors that use them on boundary surveys, though.

For the record (so to speak), I usually report my measurements, even when they're close to record. Once in a great while I'll fudge one to coincide with record if the error ellipse puts it on the monument, but it must have something to do with the phase of the moon, because I don't make it a regular practice.

The good news about this argument is that it's similar in practical effect to the one about angels dancing on the heads of pins. (Not to be confused with angles and pinheads.)

.

[bruce hall]

the two pipe being different by 0.02' in the field verses what my map says, I don't really care about the two hundreths. I locate one pipe a hundreth northwest and the other a hundredth southeast, and lo and behold I got 0.02'. I really don't feel like revising my calcs on this return for a quarter of an inch. If someone else wants to spend some time trying to figure out what to do with this quarter of an inch, be my guest, cause I have other things to do.

There are times when 0.02' makes a difference. Like when there is a building on a zero offset to PL. I would be doing some heavy duty measuring(glass on tribrachs, low rods, measuring to different prisms) in that scenario, but the "hold" on this zero offset stuff is that there should be a monument set in the ground so that the land owners can go out and touch this thing, put a string on it, and build something, cause the pl is rite "here".

And if it is supposed to be 150.00 feet back to the intersection and it happens to be 150.02, tough!!!!, we are using this monument that we "ALL" can TOUCH, SMELL AND FEEL.

I use a Geodimeter 650. It has robotic capabilities, a one second gun. I get good results with this puppy. I try to shoot to a low glass(HS = 1.5' or 0.46')on boundary work. Sometimes I can't and then I have to use a 5 ft or 6 foot rod but then, I can always take several measurements to the high rod and rotate the bubble one eighty, or shoot it from two different points. And when I go back to set finals and make a check to monuments, every thing checks. Not perfect, but within a couple of hundreths, maybe three at the outside. I also depends on how far away the check in exists also.

The specs on the shooter is 0.015' plus ? parts per million on any shot I take. I am not real sure of the method that they use to spec this shooter out, but I think that the results are better than what they publish just because of the results that I get in the "field". I probably have more sighting error due to the light bending in the atmosphere that what I get from the shooter.

If you are concerned about going back out to the site and repeating measurements with a stated precision as shown on the final map- hundredths for the distances and one arc second for bearings-GOOD LUCK. I have a tough time measureing an angle between two lines within 3 or 4 arc seconds(which is more than one arc second) on my own work, much less somebody elses. It also depends on how far the back site is also.

For the sake of your argument as to the technology, maybe we surveyors should only publish the measurements to 15 arc seconds and the nearest tenth of a foot. Cause if the technology doesn't exist, how can we be expected to put a better "least count" on this data? I know when I was a kid I saw arc seconds and hundreths on final maps and everything was record and measured. I wonder how those guys did it?????

No measurement is perfect. At least that is what I have been told. But I can get pretty close to the true value, BWTFDIK. And besides, you should be able to go out and touch the pipe.

And now I guess we should get back to what should be shown on a Final Map and quit chasing these 3 hundredths. You might find them, but I am not gonna look anymore.

[bruce hall]

that I publish what I measure is that I don't have to think. I can state under oath that I measured a certain distance on a line, turned an angle measured another distance blah, blah, check in and had a misclosure of 0.04' and 0.05'. I adjusted the traverse out and placed these adjusted values on the map. Right or wrong, this is what I measured and the values fit, in the field, pretty good from monument to monument i.e. a hundredth by a hundredth.

I don't have to answer the question "Why didn't you place your measured distance on the map instead of the one that Gardner had on his?" or the question "Why did you place the measured value that Gardner had on the line per his map, instead of the distance that you measured?"

I am not saying that all of the recorded distances and bearings should be on a line. The first reported distance probably should be(the original underlying map) and at least the one immediately preceeding me(either the map across the street or the map adjacent to me).

[bruce hall]

I still think that the underlying and adjoining maps should be shown in ghosted font on Final Maps along with the present measured dimensions and the previously recorded data.