California Surveyors Forums

Hello All,

I've been preparing ALTA surveys for little while now and I just received a request to certify Item 15 of Table A. Generally, if we have an aerial survey for the site, we have a note that explains how the data was collected photogrammetricly (?) by our aerial firm and date of the photography. Item 15 wants all of that plus a note addressing the precision of the aerial. I asked my photogrammist if he has ever provided a note like that. He responded no and sent me the accuracy standards for photogrammetric mapping.

I'm sure you can guess my question: What are others doing for a precision note for Item 15 on their ALTA surveys?

Thanks in advance.

You could use the NSSDA Standards. Pick 20 points that you have located to a higher precision than the aerial (conventional total station, e.g.) then input the values into their spreadsheet. Here's a link:

http://www.fgdc.gov/standards/projects/ ... s/accuracy

.. we did an ALTA that all we did was run lines/clearances 5 feet from PL...

Then in 1973, somone, probably an attorney, got the survey expanded. If there was a building on site that was less than 5 years old, we spotted it...generally.

Then Gary Kent got wined and dined by attorneys/title companys and now look at the mess the ALTA is in.

FYI guys...the ONLY one that adheres to these standards are surveyors...PERIOD!

I did a bunch of ALTA's for a company and we did a aerial of each site then ran the PLs locating everything within 5ft and the building corners. Parking spaces etc were counted from the aerial.

Yea, we should all "personally" pass our feelings on to Gary.

I should have looked him up when I was back there last year. Nothing like the personal touch.

I would like to see the comments, too.

As a Corresponding Member of the Committee, I take great pride in what we have been able to acomplish with the Standards.

Oh, the comment about "...ONLY one that adheres to these standards are surveyors..." is spot on! Absolutely correct. Who do you think the Standards are written for? Realtors?

I use the 2011 standards nearly every day and think they are a big improvement over previous versions. I think the committee did a fine job.

Maybe he thinks that a 5' strip surveyed around the edges of the subject parcel is all we need to show the title interests.

Ian Wilson wrote:..., I take great pride in what we have been able to acomplish with the Standards.?

What has been accomplished is that more and more liability is being dumped on the surveyors.

Ian Wilson wrote:Oh, the comment about "...ONLY one that adheres to these standards are surveyors..." is spot on! Absolutely correct. Who do you think the Standards are written for? Realtors?

The title company's could care less about surveyors. As long as the deal closes and some surveyor is on the hook, that's all they care about. The attorneys don't give a damn either.

Let's discuss the alta cert.

A few versions ago, that was the only cert, but now there is the optional cert that a lender or some attorney wants in where a surveyor will sign his left leg away if that what is wanted. So much for the standard alta cert..

You tell me what benefit to surveyors is contained in the standards..

Paul Goebel wrote:I use the 2011 standards nearly every day and think they are a big improvement over previous versions..

There was a time when there werent any standards. We never had a problem then.

Paul Goebel wrote:Maybe he thinks that a 5' strip surveyed around the edges of the subject parcel is all we need to show the title interests.

That worked for many many years, and let's face it, the only part that really matters is what is around the perimeter of the surveyed parcel.

That's my opinion....like it or hate it..makes no difference to me.

DWoolley wrote: Could you please elaborate on your statement in a previous post "Then Gary Kent got wined and dined by attorneys/title companys and now look at the mess the ALTA is in."?

I think the standards has done more harm to surveyors than good by adding liability with each new version. How about you pointing out a few benefits that the standards have for surveyors.

Also, as to the 2011 standards, I am interested in your suggestions on which sections need replacement or repeal and the reasoning as to why.

To do that I would have to read through the 2011 standards, something I do not want to do, neither do I need to do. I have done quite a few of these over the last 40+ years. I know what to look for on a project. I don't need standards to do a correct alta.

Ian Wilson wrote:Oh, the comment about "...ONLY one that adheres to these standards are surveyors..." is spot on! Absolutely correct. Who do you think the Standards are written for? Realtors?

No...sheep

DWoolley wrote:In other words, the bombastic opinions offered about the land title survey standards and Gary Kent, baseless. White noise.

Suspicion confirmed, big hat, no cattle. Thanks for playing.

DWoolley

It's my personal opinion Wooley.. and that goes for any additional responders to this thread and how I view the standards. Kent , and the other LS's involved in the standards went down quite a few notches in my eyes when an optional non alta standard certificate was introduced. I saw this as just bending over and not supporting LS's who
sign the alta's.

With the exception of Mr. Hixson, you all are just griping at one another and missing the point at hand.

I don't care if you like the ALTA standards or not. I don't care if you have a positive opinion of the people who wrote them. I don't care if you want to remove some of the rules or add some rules or change the standards in any way, shape, or form. I am asking a question about how to be in compliance with them as they are currently because all of the complaining won't change them before my ALTA is due next week!

Now, back to the point: Has anyone out there certified to Item 15 of Table A and added the appropriate note addressing the precision of the photogrammetric mapping, if so, would you be willing to send me that note so I can take a look at it and attempt to formulate my own?

(Thank you for your input Mr. Hixson, but I'm looking more for wording than calculating the actual accuracy)

We include a statement citing the National Mapping Accuracy Standards. This is what our photogrametrist provides to us.

This is a fairly easy standard to meet with today's technology and should meet the requirements of item 15.

My apologies for disrupting your post Marty.

LOL!

Thank you all very much! I have an idea of what I'm going to do now.

I hope I wasn't too hard on you with my scolding. :)

I AM GLAD YOU ASKED THE QUESTION AND GLAD YOU REFOCUSED THE DISCUSSION.

Sorry for continuing the thread steal.

It's been awhile since I read the new "suggested rules" but 2 that I remember is;

positional tolerance, IIRC the only way to get that is using a least squares program, why am I forced to use that method of adjusting my results. And if I hit the found mons within reason and use record data why have to state positional tolerance.

"Suggested" requirement to require E&O insurance. Sounds like a bought and paid for insurance company requirement to me.

verify 20 points on a aerial and calc positional tolerance. So when you do the field survey, to prevent a special return trip, you have to locate 20 points and then require the aerial company to supply their coordinates on those points.