California Surveyors Forums

Received this "Survey" from a client. Does anyone else agree that this violates the entire PLS Act. Visit their website too.

I would be careful on responses to this one due to potentially libelous comments.

RMLAND wrote:Received this "Survey" from a client. Does anyone else agree that this violates the entire PLS Act. Visit their website too.

do you mean it violates the PLS act because its not recorded or stamped?

I personally see a few things on there i would have done differently if I had my LS, like ties to the found monuments at least and some info on how i decided on line locations among other things....

Is it possible (although probably unlikely) that there isn't a more complete RS being prepared?

No mention of tags set on set points. No basis of bearings. No ties to the found monuments. Portion of lots. No stamp, signature or date. Missing bearing on one of the boundary lines. No RS or CR is filed on the property, but without a date for the map, there is no way to know if 90 days is past.

If that is a final product, then...

I would suggest a call to the company number there and ask to speak to the LS in charge. If they can't produce one, then I would contact the board to ask about their organizational record and possibly consider filing a complaint. I don't know if the board provides that info, so maybe a complaint is warranted here.

a lack of seal and signature. pretty much everything of a "technical nature" must a seal affixed thereto.

until all the info is gathered, appears to be an exhibit for a client, not a RS, could be this is a very professional product. We do not know the intent or what was asked for. Could be other documents have been prepared. Yes it should be signed and stamped, but maybe the names and numbers have been removed to protect the individuals. Need more info to form a judgement.

I just visited this site. (I did not enter the property. It's a private residence.)

The "set survey marker[s]" on Columbia Street are standard size brass discs stamped "SURVEY MARKER"! They have no PLS or RCE number on them.

Seems more and more obvious that things are amiss with this firm. Are they brand new? No one knows who the LS is?

Okay – this is absolutely ridicules and embarrassing for our profession. Who gives anyone the right to put something like this on a public website for everyone to grope at? No one here knows all the facts but you are quick to judge.

If RMLAND had an issues with the surveyor who prepared this map, then maybe they should’ve shown some professional courtesy and contacted them for more information. NOT POST IT ON A FORUM.

There is a process for dealing with situations like this and this isn’t it.

Who are we to pass judgment?

I would light this up in three seconds.

What we don't know:

What is the purpose and intended use of this drawing?

Is there a RS filed or in process for this survey?

Was it intended as the sole depiction of the survey?

Who is in responsible charge?

Depending upon those answers, there is either quite a bit that can be found lacking, or it is only missing a stamp, signature, and date.

I agree with Joe. Not enough known to produce a laundry list of deficiencies.


It's not about "looking the other way" or not being willing to say something about sub-par work. It's about having a sufficient set of facts prior to spouting off about what you think you know. Kind of like that yahoo that posted Dave's TM and attempted to pick it apart under the premise that it was a map for a different purpose. That joker looked pretty foolish once Dave put it in proper context.

I would report this person for just using "SURVEY MARKER" on a brass tag.

And by the way, the tags were set in a hole slightly smaller than the diameter of the tag and had to be forced into the hole so they ended up bent and cupped. They were not easy to clean off and read.

My original post:

I would be careful on responses to this one due to potentially libelous comments.

Mr. Wooley's response:

Mark Moore-in my opinion we should have no fear of defamation when offering true opinions about work product, if the statement is true there can be no defamation. In the instant example, in my opinion the work product, as presented on this thread, is scat and fails on many levels. If this product was issued as shown, it should be reported to the state licensing board for disciplinary action for violating several statutes and the responsible professional should have a better system of controls in place for the distribution of work product. Where is the defamation in that statement?

Mr. Wooley,

With all due respect, my post was just a friendly reminder that we needed to be careful on how we responded to this thread, since the company in question appears to be still in business and was identified in their work product that was attached.

Not unlike yourself, I'm not exactly known for pulling any punches when it comes to my opinions on what constitutes professional conduct, but some discretion is probably warranted when what appears to be a fellow professional's work is posted without their knowledge or permission for our review.

Dave- I'm not saying to look the other way or the surveyor shouldn't be accountable for their work. They should be, but it's not up to us to post their work on line and scrutinize it. This shows a horrible lack of professionalism.

If someone has a issue with another surveyor, show them some respect and contact them. If there is a violation then it is up to the Governing Board to investigate it - not us. We simply file a complaint.

And yes, I do remember your TM being posted on here and I also remember how you felt about it. It was wrong of them and you spend a lot of your time clarifying it. They should have called you.

Evan and Mark - I'm glad you understand.

YOU JUST DON'T DO THIS TO SOMEONE - NOT HERE.

what Evan said

Dave curious to the Sections of law that you feel have been violated.

If you were in San Francisco that map would never ever record, the submitting surveyor would have to remove the ties to buildings, first.

dmi wrote:If you were in San Francisco that map would never ever record, the submitting surveyor would have to remove the ties to buildings, first.

Also cannot show curb splits. Yet they allow weird paragraphs stating something to the tune of "block determined by L cuts, curb splits, and occupation" without actually showing anything. Dane may have a map with him that says this. Very perplexing.

Kudos, Dave. Thanks for taking the time to spell out what was obvious to most of us.

Meanwhile, I'm finding brand new hub and tack set for property corner, in old Palo Alto. A 5 million dollar property no less....

Scalawags!

Nice quote from Sinclair, Dave.

Dave, thank you for the cites. Know I now we are on the same page. I do agree that we should use this forum as an opertunity to educate each other. However I have observed in the past times when not all the facts have been presented and judgements made without the "Big Picture". Therefore I try to keep an open mind to both sides of an agrument, it is not always black & white to me, therefore using this forum as an enforcement tool may not be the best for all parties involved.

Mr Woolley did not post the map for question. He merely expressed his displeasure at the work product. This displeasure was backed-up with proper citations.

I do agree that there is something that can be troubling about the public discussion of work product. I also think it can be extremely valuable as an educational tool.

Perhaps care should be taken not to reveal the map maker's identity. I can forsee a time when the board administrator might block these types of posts and threads.

and Dane, that is my point. So if the orginal post had removed the info that would have ID'd those involved, it triggered a good portion of preceived violations. Had to say without an assumation and we all know about assumation.

Technically there is no surveyor identified on that map. I'm just sayin'.