California Surveyors Forums

So I received a comment on a new corner record to add "Basis of Bearing" per BR 464 (7)(B).

Can someone smarter than me explain what is the difference between "Bearing or witness monuments" and "basis of bearings" means?

all of those items listed are required to be shown on a CR.

I've attached a Corner Record prepared and filed by a County Surveyor for whom I have the utmost regard as far as professionalism and ability.

This was to perpetuate a monument that was destroyed by construction. Although the one item he did fail to do was to reset the monument after construction, the crew found enough of the reference marks to re-establish the point. It was crucial in determining the location of a boundary for my client.

I have obliterated any of the identifying information, but you can clearly see "...earing or witness monuments, basis of bearings, [and] bearing..." were not presented, nor were they necessary.

My hat's off to the CS who prepared this and their field crew who did the work.

Ian, your example is pertaining to witness monuments, which I understand, but they can not be bearing monuments, because there are no bearings shown, and this is the old CR requirements under BR 464

I have never heard of a "bearing monuments" identified under 464(7)(B)?
Is bearing monuments like the bearing between two know monuments, typically called a basis of bearing?
If so, then why is the "basis of bearing" a new requirement under Sect. 464 (7)(B)?

Per the newly "in effect" Board Rules, a CR done to comply with Section 8771 of the PLS Act would not require that info.

Only a CR done in accordance with Section 8765(d) for a boundary survey would require those items.

Keith,

The same language used in PLS Act 8764 (RS requirements) was used in the new Board Rule on CRs.

Ryan.

Only a CR done in accordance with Section 8765(d) for a boundary survey would require those items.

Ryan, Section 8765(d) does not reference a "basis of bearing"? Isn't "sufficient monumentation" the basis of bearing?

Some would argue that "Bearing or witness monuments" has a meaning specific to the Public Land Survey System, such a bearing trees and witness corners, however I believe that the revised language in 464 (7) B could also refer to the reference points normally shown on a Corner Record.

Keith,

Try adding a statement "No bearings were observed on this survey" to your Corner Record. That gives your basis of bearings - none.

I've had County Surveyors ask that we tie to another monument on the same street, which I declined because while nice to have, that makes a more complicated survey and plat. With the volume of Corner Records that we do, we need to keep them as simple as possible to ensure the pre and post construction monument reference Corner Records are completed in a timely fashion.

A Corner Record done in accordance with Section 8765(d) is usually related to a boundary survey in which an RS was not required. I have never done a boundary survey without some kind of note stating what the basis of bearings is, whether it be tied to CCS83 or a monumented line with a bearing shown on a record map.

A corner record done in accordance with Section 8765(d) requires the the applicable items listed in BR 464 (7), per the Board Rules (not per 8765). If you found one dilapidated corner and rehabilitated it, then a basis of bearings wouldn't be applicable. If you are showing a lot boundary with 4 corners, then your basis of bearing could just be listed as:

Basis of Bearings:
The Northerly line of Lot X, per Tract No. YYYY, as filed in Book Z, page ZZ, records of said County, shown as having a bearing of North 89°50'10" East.

The rest of the bearings would then be the measured bearings of the rest of the lines.

Or you could label one of the lines as (N89°50'10"E R&M) 100.00'. And then point to the line with a note saying, "Basis of Bearings".

Or you could just say Bearings are assumed and then they are all just relative to each other.

I guess I don't see what the confusion is here. If you did a boundary survey, don't you always say what the basis of bearings is?

If you did a boundary survey, don't you always say what the basis of bearings is?

( After 30 years in the profession, I appreciate the assistance how to write a B.O.B., lol.)

If I did a boundary survey, I would prepare a record of survey satisfying Sect 8762 & 8764.

A CR is a retracement of a filed map. with sufficient monumentation. So when I show existing monuments with a bearing per a filed map, my notation of "HELD" per the map, has been requested to change to "B.O.B."

As stated under BR 464 (D): " for intelligent interpretation of the various items and locations of the points, lines, and areas shown, or convenient for the identification of the survey or the surveyor, as may be determined by the licensee preparing the corner record."

If a corner record is so confusing, maybe one should be filing a record of survey?

Sorry, I didn't mean to do that. I just didn't see what the issue was. Seems like it's a question over words used. A letter or note back with an explanation like you have there would make sense to me.

PLS7393 wrote:

If you did a boundary survey, don't you always say what the basis of bearings is?

( After 30 years in the profession, I appreciate the assistance how to write a B.O.B., lol.)

If I did a boundary survey, I would prepare a record of survey satisfying Sect 8762 & 8764.

A CR is a retracement of a filed map. with sufficient monumentation. So when I show existing monuments with a bearing per a filed map, my notation of "HELD" per the map, has been requested to change to "B.O.B."

As stated under BR 464 (D): " for intelligent interpretation of the various items and locations of the points, lines, and areas shown, or convenient for the identification of the survey or the surveyor, as may be determined by the licensee preparing the corner record."

If a corner record is so confusing, maybe one should be filing a record of survey?

A Corner Record filed under 8765(d) is still documenting that you did a boundary survey. You are just not triggering the mandatory requirement to file a Record of Survey. Don't confuse the survey with the documentation.

Basis of Bearings

Will readers agree the concept of a basis of bearings is passe? The noted exceptions being:

1. state plane coordinates - due to epoch dating (PRC requirement), especially for large scale networks. Meaningless to monumented local surveys.

2. Original subdivision of unsurveyed lands - think free standing township circa 1850 - which I do not know exist in California. Again, passe.

Any time there exist found monuments with a bearing stated between any two monuments there is an established basis of bearings. The "basis" does not matter and is of no consequence to the survey. We measure angles or time, not bearings.

The requirements of an outdated Section 8764 (b) notwithstanding, what purpose does the "basis" serve?

DWoolley

DWoolley wrote:Basis of Bearings

The requirements of an outdated Section 8764 (b) notwithstanding, what purpose does the "basis" serve?

DWoolley

It's a traditional moneymaker for 58 county government offices in California if nothing else. Kind of like "Know all men by these presents" in the owners statement of the PM. What the heck does that mean?? Survey tech gets a blank check to charge $100 per hour to the developer or surveyor to review it on the map...

When I see Basis of Bearings I think this is where the survey started out, kind of like the Point of Beginning. Where I learned, the POB was supposed to be the strongest monument in the whole shooting match meaning the most proven corner. I try to do the same with a BOB when I can. I get your point and I agree with you but it's kind of like arguing that you only need two pieces of curve data on each curve. I feel like we do plenty of unnecessary stuff in the name of triple-checking and clarity of intent, I don't expect that to change, it's part of the game

Surveys which use astronomic observations certainly require a basis of bearing.
For instance a single astronomic observation taken on the east boundary of a 1 square mile section will provide different results than if the astronomic observation were taken on the west boundary of the section. And neither would provide the same result as a survey based on astronomic observations which take into account the rhumb line characteristic of east-west lines and convergence of meridians (i.e. a section with anticipated misclosure due to convergence of the meridians).

I've always felt that the basis of bearing statement was an invaluable tool in understanding the relationships between various surveys. I would consider it an often necessary part of the analysis of retracing previous surveys.

William Magee wrote:Surveys which use astronomic observations certainly require a basis of bearing.

Again, meaningless if any monuments exist.

DWoolley

DWoolley wrote:Basis of Bearings

Will readers agree the concept of a basis of bearings is passe? The noted exceptions being:

Any time there exist found monuments with a bearing stated between any two monuments there is an established basis of bearings. The "basis" does not matter and is of no consequence to the survey. We measure angles or time, not bearings.

DWoolley

I think you see my point and original purpose of this post. Just like a legal description, the first call is the basis of bearings (but we do not state the basis of bearings). Just like two found monuments "HELD". From there you can turn and measure your angles and distances.

Now back to our regular scheduled programming.

I agree Dave, but until the law is changed...