California Surveyors Forums

That's my opinion. Must allow it in UT since they probably require CE. ;)

24x36 - that's huge.

They sure put the payment instructions up front

When I surveyed in Cache County, Utah (1993-2002), County Surveyor reviews were pretty minimal: catching basic ROS recording requirements (BoB, closure, correct T/R/S info, etc.), and so was the fee. The RoS also required a narrative block explaining what the surveyor did and why.

Nevada has NO RoS review by the Counties (only PM or Subdivisions). The County recorder is the only review, and that is for minimal recording information requirements.

Why does a professional need approval to record his/her opinion?

The reason for formal review, in my view, is that a survey filed in the public record acquires an aura of authority in the mind of the layman. To the uninitiated the survey is "official" and is likely to be relied upon, despite the fact that it carries little if any weight in a strict legal sense. Requiring review by a disinterested professional helps to ensure that minimum standards are met.

In my experience, there are more than a few licensees whose work sometimes falls so far below the standard of practice that the mandated review isn't enough to keep substandard work out of the public record. I wouldn't like to see that review eliminated.

.

" I wouldn't like to see that review eliminated."

I agree.

As a Native Son . . . I assumed CA led other states. Not so.

The 24x36 is brilliant! What was the reasoning for such an archaic size of 18x26? Much more room to deliver your opinion on a 24x36! And easier to read without having to go sheet to sheet. A five-sheeter on 18x26 might be a two-sheeter on 24x36! Also it would conform with most architectural drawings, i.e. a 24x36 R/S and would fit perfectly in the architects package.

The negative: Those that prepare the artsy hand-drafted maps would be S.O.L. (Haven't seen those of late.)

In my experience, there are more than a few licensees whose work sometimes falls so far below the standard of practice that the mandated review isn't enough to keep substandard work out of the public record. I wouldn't like to see that review eliminated.

I agree, Jim . . . but little or no comments from County Surveyor seem to prevail. One practioner did not hold the controlling original monument fronting their client's parcel because an adjoining subdivision showed the "calculated" position of the monument off by tenths. County Surveyor did not challenge, nor bring to attention of practioner. Practioner got a visit from BPELS. So may faith in the County Surveyor catching something is out the door.

And for those that perform such work: How would you answer that problem on your PLS examination?! Practice the way you answered the questions on the PLS exam!

I know I'm a lone wolf . . . but Surveyor to Recorder wouldn't be end of the world. And Certificates of Correction or Amended map are always an option.

Don't get me wrong . . . I appreciate the comments by the County Surveyor's Office. If he/she doesn't understand . . . then I haven't the message. An competitor could also chime in with their two cents, liken the Co. Surveyor's Office without the costs. (i.e. trade reviews)

Nevada has NO RoS review by the Counties (only PM or Subdivisions). The County recorder is the only review, and that is for minimal recording information requirements.

Dhanrion, are the Record of Surveys in Nevada substandard?

Phil - Sonoma

I have to agree with Jim that at least some basic level of CS checking is a good thing.

And, speaking of Utah and their minimal review, consider the RofS in Bountiful (just north of SLC) that I ran across back in the 90s. I was surveying a lot in a tract. The whole area was comprised of tract maps. The only modern RofS that I found showed a parcel that was located/surveyed/monumented by virture of a single tie to a remote tract corner over a half mile away--literally, one found monument. A small portion the street fronting the PIQ was shown, BUT, not a single adjoiner was shown, much less brought into the resolution (if you could call it that). It was literally an island unto itself.

That's the risk with minimal checking: you encourage/allow minimal surveying.

Jim, I do agree... however I think your experience is better than in many other jurisdictions.

Phil: My opinions have changed with the years...

I experienced Surveyor to Recorder during my brief time in Arizona. There was a lot of real C R A P filed, some even were not legible enough to read!
But, if there was some cost or review process I think those files would have been mostly empty...

Yes, it is time to take local government out of the loop.

PS: Lee, since the CS has no police power anyway... Something like that should go directly to BPELS

hellsangle wrote:Dhanrion, are the Record of Surveys in Nevada substandard?

Good question! The answer begs more questions: Relative to whom? During which decade(s)? In which Counties?

I have found plenty of RoS in every state I am licensed that could be considered 'substandard' (IMHO). However, on average I would say that far more RoS recorded today are significantly and have been progressively "better" than from years in the past.

But the decision should not be focused on the need for a review, but the extreme spectrum of fees associated with said review.

hellsangle wrote:The 24x36 is brilliant! What was the reasoning for such an archaic size of 18x26? Much more room to deliver your opinion on a 24x36! And easier to read without having to go sheet to sheet. A five-sheeter on 18x26 might be a two-sheeter on 24x36! Also it would conform with most architectural drawings, i.e. a 24x36 R/S and would fit perfectly in the architects package.

Unfortuantely, Idaho still loves their 18x27 RoS footprint. (that '27' is not a typo ... just had to be different I guess)

In today's 'digital' world, many counties now 'print' you a previoulsy scanned copy of the maps. I know of two Nevada counties (Clark and Elko) that scan the original mylars with the Recorder information on a 'sticker" in the Recorder's block, then hand the the mylars back! They call it 'paperless' (or mylarless). I sure hope they have multiple remote back-up redundancy for the 'record' hard drives!

I remember a article where a County Recorder, IIRC in the SE, refused a RS because it did not agree with her GIS.