Topographic Map check anyone ?

[desert turtoise]

A certain city required a site plan from the architect to be supplemented with topographic information for a residential room addition. No grading, no subdivision or parcel map.

I supplied a topo map with contouring for this. I did a considerable amount of boundary surveying although that was not part of the city request. Several original pipes were found. Nothing was set at other missing corners, at least not for this particular scope of work that was signed for.

I was just told by the architect and owner that the city plan check department is asking two questions:

1. Why is there no basis of bearings ?
2. Why do all the lot lines shown on the topo map have bearings that differ
from the record map bearings by several seconds up to 25 seconds ?

I don't know whether to be confused or stunned by the city request and question.

Has anyone had a city or county ask for a Basis of Bearings on a Topo map ?

[land butcher]

LOL - another govt employee trying to justify his job?
I would request to see the last 5 topo maps submitted to the agency and the agency approved min standards for topo maps.
25 sec in 200 ft is 0.024ft. BFD.

[rmaher]

Has anyone had a city or county ask for a Basis of Bearings on a Topo map ?

Yes ... I try to include one on every topographic map to prevent wasted time responding to this type of request months or years after a project is complete. (Even if not a single bearing or coordinate is labeled on the map ... figuring that today everyone is working with the CAD file and extracts coordinates.)

I was just told by the architect and owner that the city plan check department is asking two questions:

2. Why do all the lot lines shown on the topo map have bearings that differ
from the record map bearings by several seconds up to 25 seconds ?

Perhaps you could take an idea from this thread: http://clsaforum.californiasurveyors.or ... php?t=4100

...and ask to speak with the "surveyor" checking your survey work? Or you could explain "because my measurements differ from the record map?

1. Why is there no basis of bearings ?

Since you have bearings, I don't necessarily think it is out of line to ask for a note on the BoB ... but then I also feel you can pick any two monuments you surveyed between and say, "this is my basis of bearings" (i.e. "this whatever bearing between these two monuments" with no reference to a record map). To me the notion that I have to use some bearing on a record map that probably by now has no real relation to true, absolute, due, magnetic, geodetic, etc North makes no sense. Typically my BoB statements read akin to, "The basis of coordinates and bearings derived from the coordinates is the California Coordinate System of 1983, Zone X, Epoch {blah blah}" and sometimes I throw in some local CGPS stations with an inverse between them ... though not very often lately since that is all published info in the datum.

[David Kendall]

In my limited experience I have discovered:

a) in any case, I try not to give any bureaucratic entity any more information to concern themselves with than they absolutely need. The less said the better.

b) inserting a few intentional mistakes is helpful sometimes so that they won't have to look so hard to feel like they have accomplished something.

c) too much information on a topo map may also confuse the design team (architects and engineers) down the road. Distances to the nearest foot should identify the lines and darker lines around the subject tract are usually sufficient.

With that said, in this instance I tend to agree with all of the statements made by rmaher above.

[PLS7393]

We need to pick our battles with cities, but at the same time they are getting power hungry in my opinion.

These employees asking the ridiculous questions are either engineers, or non-licensed individuals.

A past boss identified what is a legitimate question as a map checker when reviewing my comments. The trick here is to ask yourself if the comment was removed, how does that change the boundary resolution? If it does not change the boundary resolution, then it is not a technical issue that should be questioned. This becomes a personal style which should not be an issue from any map checker no matter what the map is.

[land butcher]

We need to pick our battles with cities, but at the same time they are getting power hungry in my opinion.

These employees asking the ridiculous questions are either engineers, or non-licensed individuals.

A past boss identified what is a legitimate question as a map checker when reviewing my comments. The trick here is to ask yourself if the comment was removed, how does that change the boundary resolution? If it does not change the boundary resolution, then it is not a technical issue that should be questioned. This becomes a personal style which should not be an issue from any map checker no matter what the map is.

Agreed. I am seeing where they want all plans/maps to be clones.

Too many non technical red marks.

I had a CE that graduated from a high $$ private college ask why my topo of a dirt alley was shot to tenths and not hundreds of a foot. He had one survey class that lasted one semester.

[subman]

From the Building Code: A survey of the lot may be required by the Building Official to verify compliance of the structure with approved plans.

I would confirm with the agency first on what the content of the "survey" is they are requiring (asking for a sample too). It is possible that they may be comparing your survey to an adjacent site plan survey for a prior permit next door that established PLs based on record. Seeing the common PL having different bearings could have prompted the question. Just my opinion...

[hellsangle]

Lockton was Stanford grad

[pls5528]

If you are going through the exercise of showing the established field boundary relative to your Topo, the BOB (your horizontal base) is just as important as a note referring to the Benchmark (your vertical base). I have always shown this on my field notes, which should also be conveyed on your product (Topo map). Also, if your establishing something different than record, why aren't you filing something? At a minimum, a corner record. Set a couple of new corners relative to the newly established boundary and feel good that you did the right thing. As a surveyor which will fall behind you in a latter survey, we would all appreciate that.

Just my thoughts----

[desert turtoise]

I seem to recall the Borpelsg LS reps at the spring CLSA conference commented ( along with a couple of the seven county surveyors present) that they were concerned with the number of surveys they see that do not set anything.

My comment when I asked for the microphone was; "When you stop telling the private practitioner how to survey, you will find that more surveyors will set monuments."

I got the impression from the audience that the vast majority was in agreement with my comment. I cannot know how people are really thinking simply because they smile and nod their head up and down. At least the two anonymous LS guys sitting on each side of me let it be known they appreciated my remark.

I do appreciate everyone's input.

[D Ryan]

I realize this thread is related to topographic surveys, but David Kendall said something that relates to peer review in general that I feel compelled to comment on:

Quote:
"In my limited experience I have discovered:

b) inserting a few intentional mistakes is helpful sometimes so that they won't have to look so hard to feel like they have accomplished something."

In my 20 years of checking Surveys, subdivisions, and legal descriptions in the role of County Surveyor, I have always viewed my role as one who is in a partnership with another surveyor to ensure professional, useful, and accurate surveying documents are placed in the public record (for perpetuity). Intentionally inserting errors in a document for the reason stated is curious. I get the most satisfaction out of checking a survey or legal description that generates little to no comments. It’s heartening when a fellow professional can document the results of their survey in a coherent, well communicated manner, while also having the technical skills of great drafting technique (contrasting linetypes and fonts, map presentation, etc.) all while having very few typos. There are a few surveyors in my area who astound me with the infrequency of those types of errors on their maps. I think they take great pride in their work being complete and top notch on first draft. They never submit a product that is slapped together, or hasn’t been proofread before being submitted to anyone (even the "reviewer"- I am skeptical of the assertion of such a feeeling of accomplishment only by finding errors). I think it shows respect for the profession (and yourself) to finish your work to the best of your ability before releasing it to anyone.

David, as your limited experience grows, I encourage you to gain influence from mentors who take pride in their work as professionals and don’t suffer such misguided intentions by playing this type of game.

Dave Ryan,
Humboldt County Surveyor

[David Kendall]

Dave Ryan, I had a feeling that I was going to regret making that statement publicly. I also have to acknowledge that I have nothing to gain from entering into a pissing match with you publicly or privately at any point in my life. The fact that nobody else on this forum found my comment humorous speaks loudly enough to me to think that it may have been inappropriate even before your address.

I will however stand by my comment and although I sense that you may have taken it personally, it was not intended as such and was not even specifically related to land surveying mapchecks but to bureaucratic processes in general.
As it relates to land surveying mapchecks, I acknowledge that I am basing my attitude on responses by others and that may be unfair to the system. I appreciate your response. I humbly and respectfully present, as I have said before and that others have stated here, that not all comments are perceived in the tone that they may have been intended and not all comments are initiated by the person who may be in responsible charge of the approval process.

I personally have heard some doozies (bizarre comments relating to style, fonts, north arrows, etc.) in my brief career with submittals and while I again have nothing to gain personally from this nor any other public or private discussion with you on what I personally feel is appropriate (as the agencies hold all of the cards in this game and individual surveyors have very little local power) I submit that stifling of any freedom of expression through over analyzing maps will continue to discourage submittals and increase costs of review in yours or any other county. I personally find this issue to be problematic and acknowledge the balance is difficult to discover.

I apologize for any offense and in the future I will keep my smartass comments to myself and try to be constructive...

[rmaher]

Filling both roles, as a submitter of survey documents and as one who reviews survey documents for local agencies I also keyed in on the comment made regarding intentional mistakes. I appreciate both the response by Dave and the following comment by David.

It did remind me of a section of code:

Title 16, California Code of Regulations
476 Code of Professional Conduct - Professional Land Surveying
(c) Representations:
(11) A licensee shall not misrepresent data and/or its relative significance in any professional land surveying report.

I actually thought the intentional mistake comment was a joke :)

I tell my girlfriend, if you can take what I say in more than one way, make sure it is the one that makes you least angry.

[Ric7308]

I seem to recall the Borpelsg LS reps at the spring CLSA conference commented ( along with a couple of the seven county surveyors present) that they were concerned with the number of surveys they see that do not set anything.

My comment when I asked for the microphone was; "When you stop telling the private practitioner how to survey, you will find that more surveyors will set monuments."

I got the impression from the audience that the vast majority was in agreement with my comment. I cannot know how people are really thinking simply because they smile and nod their head up and down. At least the two anonymous LS guys sitting on each side of me let it be known they appreciated my remark.

I do appreciate everyone's input.

I believe the comments expressed by the BPELSG representatives were relative to "...shall be sufficient in number and durability and efficiently placed...to assure, together with monuments already existing, the perpetuation or facile reestablishment of any point or line of a survey." as stated in PLS Act, 8771(a).

This section is not directly related to preparing a Record of Survey, or more accurately stated, not limited to the Record of Survey process. 8771(a) applies to all surveys related to boundary surveying and is intended to help preserve the boundary evidence for all (land surveyors and the general public) to rely upon.

I somewhat disagree with desert tortoise that if land surveyors were left alone, they would set more monuments. I don't know desert tortoise (or at least I don't know if I know who it is) but people tend to expect others to act that they would. Assuming desert tortoise appropriately acts on his/her responsibilities within the appropriate standard of care, he/she assumes that if he/she would strive to set monuments even when not told to, then certainly everyone else would too.

Like I remind my Board Members when they are reviewing disciplinary actions, you can't assume the subjects of those actions would think like you do. If they did, you probably wouldn't be considering their fate as a licensee.

I believe for the most part that when a licensee at a reviewing agency suggests additional monuments to comply with 8771(a), most are doing this because they believe it is the right thing to do. I do agree that there are some that don't understand better, some that try and force their methods and ideology on others, and some are just trying to be authoritative. But I believe just as much that there are some land surveyors performing the surveys that wouldn't comply any more than they do now and most likely less if 8771(a) didn't exist.

Land surveyors have the responsibility to comply with 8771(a) regardless if anyone else reminds them of that responsibility or not. It is not the County Surveyor or City Surveyor's responsibility to remind the land surveyor of their licensing duties. Simply put there are some areas in this state, that the surveying community, including the reviewing agencies, have failed in this regard. I don't understand when others continue to argue why they should not be following the law that they agreed to upon becoming licensed.

[land butcher]

b) inserting a few intentional mistakes is helpful sometimes so that they won't have to look so hard to feel like they have accomplished something.

I get the most satisfaction out of checking a survey or legal description that generates little to no comments.

I agree with David Kendall.
When I checked maps I felt the the same as Dave Ryan but I have to feel that we are in the minority.

I submitted a one lot into two lots parcel map to a local agency. My map was based upon a parcel map approved ~1year earlier that created the my parcel and 1 or 2 others. Basically a tracing job. I figured I would finally get a map approved in one check. WRONG.

It came back with the following 2 comments. Put arrows for the distances from CL int to the tick marks opposite the BC and EC of the curve at the R/W, and show the previous name of the major street it bordered. I had numerous maps going back over 6 years that did not have the arrowheads or the previous name of the street. Yes, I called the map checker and after being nice and getting BS answers I told him what I thought of his job justification in in 4 letter words.

[rpost]

I file maps in many counties throughout CA. I have found many different styles of map checking throughout. I feel it is best to research recent local maps inorder to best comply with local standards. I have also found that when I submit a good survey, the plan check comments reflect such.

County Surveyors do a fantastic job of finding errors and making my product better. Are they perfect...no. Am I...no. Usually, I write written responses to comments and find that the four letter word part is unnessery. There is no reason to take anything personally.

Everyone involved is trying to make a better product. I always try to include as much information as possible and always try to get mylars first try.

Never intentionally leave anything out and always strive for perfection.

[desert turtoise]

To Ric,

it is fair and decent of you to make reference to “his/herâ€￾ when commenting on posts from those of us who wish to remain anonymous. Society has come a long way. I am reminded of a true story back in the 1950’s when a husband and wife both applied to take the LS exam. The people in charge in that era were perplexed and asked her why she was interested in taking the LS exam. She went on to become LS 2340. Her husband was given the license LS 2341. That apparently did not sit well with him. He then contacted the office that issued the licenses and asked why his wife was given a number one digit before his number. He was told because her application was received and processed before his was. To be best of my knowledge, Dorothy Curran was the first woman to be licensed as a land surveyor in the state of California.

An earlier thread by Semper Fi regarding his firing due to his whistle blowing on a public servant, and other actual repercussions, retaliation etc., that some of us have received from employers, fellow employees and government agencies is the reason why some of us are anonymous. Human nature is what is it sometimes even though most are well intentioned.

Regarding your comment that section 8771(a) applies to all surveys, not just the ROS: “ This section is not directly related to preparing a Record of Survey, or more accurately stated, not limited to the Record of Survey process. 8771(a) applies to all surveys related to boundary surveying and is intended to help preserve the boundary evidence for all (land surveyors and the general public) to rely upon.â€￾

I would like to comment that there is a reason why that section was designed to be placed with the header: Record of Surveys – monumentation. Likely it was well-thought out, had good reasons for being placed there, and has remained for decades.

In the old days when judges had to make sense out of some legal descriptions that were not necessarily ambiguous, looking to interpret , find intent, or extrapolate further meaning was the last thing case they did. First they took the most simple approach; they grabbed the document by it’s four corners and read it. Hence the Doctrine of Four Corners. It allowed them to find the meaning right there on the page.

It could be very difficult to prove that section 8771(a) applies to all surveys. At the risk of dumbing down this conversation, the section says what it means and means what it says. Nothing more, nothing less. If people want to see it changed or modified, fine. That probably would take some doing.

I agree with you that it is an admirable standard of practice to always set monuments on non- ROS surveys. My entry here is already too lengthy, so I won’t list the reasons why a diligent surveyor may survey for study, evaluation or estimating purposes. You have heard much of that from others.

Your comment about map reviewers; “I do agree that there are some that don't understand better, some that try and force their methods and ideology on others, and some are just trying to be authoritativeâ€￾ seems to support in part the earlier post by D Kendall and my comment that more surveyors would set monuments if they were not told how to survey. My comment was directed toward non ROS surveys of course.

Finally at the risk of again being too lengthy here, the CLSA spring convention workshop on the LS Act was valuable to everyone.
For those who missed it, you stated at the outset that the focus of the workshop would be on section 8764(d)(g).

I and others have noticed that too often map reviewers and others are concerned with 8764(a) “All monuments found, set…â€￾ and being concerned with found non-record open pipes that are non-controlling at the expense of paying less attention to (d) â€￾the relationship to adjacent tracts, senior conveyances…â€￾ and (g) “any other data necessary for the intelligent interpretation…â€￾

So the presentation was well done and spot on.

[Ric7308]

I would like to comment that there is a reason why that section was designed to be placed with the header: Record of Surveys – monumentation. Likely it was well-thought out, had good reasons for being placed there, and has remained for decades.

The "header" that you mentioned is not in the actual law. It only appears in certain publications (i.e., CLSA Law publication, etc.). So, while it is understandable that you thought this as many others do, the actual statute is not limited to Record of Surveys.

link: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayexpandedbranch.xhtml

Glad you enjoyed the presentation on 8764. We've probably received more feedback from this presentation then any of the others (with the possible exception of the Chapter Feud one)

[Semper Fi 713]

Thank You (desert tortoise) for this post and all others for comments on this post. This is another good example that justifies my previous post about revising the "2010 BOPELS Guide to Engineering & Land Surveying for City and County Officials" to include Map Checking Standards.

As I stated before:
There's a good write up on how “City and County Engineersâ€￾ should be doing their “PLAN CHECKINGâ€￾ of civil engineering documents prepared by a Professional Engineer (see Page 15 of the Guide, attached), but there is nothing discussing how “City and County Land Surveyorsâ€￾ should be doing their “MAP CHECKINGâ€￾ of land surveying maps and documents that are prepared by a Professional Land Surveyor. I'm referring to the 2014 Professional Land Surveyors’ Act that governs our practice of Land Surveying in California.

8726. Land surveying defined
(n) last paragraph reads:

The review, approval, or examination by a governmental entity of documents prepared or performed pursuant to this section shall be done by, or under the direct supervision of, a person authorized to practice land surveying.

Semper Fi 713
Jack Gechter-PLS

[Gary Schenk]

Yes, I called the map checker and after being nice and getting BS answers I told him what I thought of his job justification in in 4 letter words.

That's great. Defund government, and then get pissed off when they can't hire qualified people.

Everybody wants government services, they just don't want to pay for them.

[LS_8750]

Mr. Gechter & Mr. Turtoise,
Good input.

I will bend to any town, City, County, etc., that actually makes an attempt to understand the surveyors map. I commend them.