California Surveyors Forums

Seems like the "founders" of the LS Act must have had reasons to legislate these provisions.

How many people actually make use of it ? Suppose you and your county LS department both agree on procedure of survey and establishment. The county map check also agrees on adequacy of information illustrating that establishment.

Suppose then there is a request for more drafting, say, extra ties.

For example, you show blocks, the offset lines you have established for those blocks, and you even show the centerlines surrounding those blocks.
All block lines, offset lines, and centerlines are established parallel with each other at the shown proper RW widths and offset distance.

The request is then made to show an extra tie with bearing and distance from each block corner to centerlines.

I have not seen that as a typical survey mapping practice in past years. Is this a typical practice now ? Is this a reasonable request ? Is this redundancy in survey map drafting ?

request ?

If you're showing the ROW offset distance from CL's all the way around, then you do not need direct ties to the block corners. If you are doing an RS you definitely don't need it. The agency has way more say on what goes on a subdivision map though. Definitely overkill in my book.

I would just not do it and say so in a letter accompanying your re-submittal. I think it is good practice to send a letter, or outline of some sort explaining your responses to the map checker and in the long run, reduces the number of reviews done on the map, which is important in the deposit based fee counties.

I hate those maps that don't have ties from the centerline to the sideline at least in two places. I mean, how to I get from the centerline intersection to the block corner? The problem you described is that the Centerline and the sideline(block line) are not tied together on the map, except that they are parallel and 30 feet apart. That ain't enough!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just cause "you"(whoever you is) and the CS says there's enough stuff there, don't mean it is so. I have seen too many recently recorded maps(Tract maps, parcel maps, RS's) that don't get me from the centerline intersection to the sideline intersection, much less anywhere else on the sideline without some calcs.

That's how it used to be done(the ties shown from the cl int to the sideline int..it used to be called the "down and over"), cause the guy in the field had to know how to get from the intersection to the sideline intersection without pulling out the CURTA and the Peters book.

Now maybe in your instance you have some type of hard distance and bearing from the centerline of the street to the lot in question. And maybe that is good enough.

What I have seen, mostly on subdivision maps, is that the subdivision is not tied down to the centerline except that the sideline is parallel and 30 feet from the centerline. That is not enough. That is poor practice.!!!!!!!!!! Now you know where I stand on this.

bruce hall wrote:The problem you described is that the Centerline and the sideline(block line) are not tied together on the map, except that they are parallel and 30 feet apart. That ain't enough!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If he is showing only one side of the block, you would be correct. It wouldn't be enough without some manner of direct tie. But he is showing all sides of the block (centerline and/or sidelines fully dimensioned, I presume). In that case, it is quite sufficient without redundant ties from block corners to centerline intersections. All of the dimensions necessary to define unambiguous positions for points on the centerline relative to points on the sidelines of the streets are given.

Nothing wrong with that practice at all.

harsh, since I am guilty of that practice as well. Although I have seen too many maps that didn't work from the centerline to the sideline. Had a hard time on a couple of them. With this "new" technology it is a lot simplier to get from centerline to sideline. Not really a big deal except in my own mind.

just add the tie and label it "tie line only"? It's really EZ to do. I think it makes a better map if there is enuf space. Since most sidelines can be calc'd w/ simple intersections, it may not be necessary. but it makes it easier for the next guy to calc and/or provides a check. I use a tie calc whenever I see one and am glad it's there.

What if the block corner is a radius and not a angle point?

In most cases this seems like redundant info to me unless you are referencing a block corner monument that you can physically resurvey the block from.

Thank you Mr. E. Page and others for your input.

These ties typically result in a 30.01' or 20.01' distance from centerline intersections to a point at right angles to the block corner. Then the 30.00' or 20.00' distance to the block corner. I tried drafting these dimensions in all around the block. But the result was crowding, even though the ROS map is at a scale that allows all other mapping info to be clear. There is no room for a data table.

The street right of way widths are not graphically wide enough to place these bearings and distances.

Once again, everyone's input was appreciated.

In this case, I'm picturing a rectangle of the block sidelines within a parallel rectangle of the street centerlines.

I'm also imagining that if it's an issue for Tortoise, it may be a map clarity/clutter issue. It may also be an issue of "why the heck are they being so picky on a non-essential and redundant dimension? They have no authority to hold up my map for this and someone needs to educate them on this point because it is not an isolated incident."

Even without CAD, the calculations are easy to do by creating offset points from each street and then calculating line-line intersections. I used to do it all the time as a chief from old maps that often had far less info than most maps do today.

But I can see Bruce's point on maps with odd shaped blocks, the streets curving this way and that, and the math not seeming to work out quite right when you go through several courses of calcs just to get from the CL Int to a RW return of the same intersection, and then check that position by calcing through several courses from the other direction. I hate it when I find that I get a position 2' different, double check by repeating all the calcs and get the same result. Argh! I've been S[past-tense verb being a play on the name of a no longer existing local engineering company that cranked out hundreds of subdivisions from the 50s to the 90s]ed!

In those odd shaped blocks, I fully agree, a direct tie is very useful and good practice.

xoxo