California Surveyors Forums

Posted: **Fri Jan 28, 2022 12:04 pm**

I've been privy to some heated discussions over time on usage of the term ""in lieu" s it related to found monuments.

One school of thought says that it is only to be used when it is a monument of a different nature, but tagged by the same surveyor. For example, a 1" IP tagged "LS XXYZ" in lieu of a 2" IP tagged "LS XXYZ".

The other school of thought says that it is to be used for a monument found in an acceptable location, but of a different nature and different LS number. For Example "Found an lead, tack and tag "LS XXYZ" in lieu of a S&W "LS ABCC".

Is there a well defined precedent or does it boil down to regional preferences?

I don't really have a strong preference about this, I can see both points of view, but I am curious about, I guess the history and a broader perspective on the matter. I have a sneaky suspicion that a discussion about it may be opening a can of worms...

Posted: **Fri Jan 28, 2022 12:49 pm**

I would think that would be your call. If you find something and accept it as something and place a note on the map stating so, then...Done.

For example: Found 1" IP tagged LS ABCD in lieu of 2" IP tagged RCE 9876. Accepted as southerly corner Lot X of PM 1234.

I'd be tickled to see that note.

Posted: **Fri Jan 28, 2022 1:30 pm**

Found 1" IP tagged LS ABCD in lieu of 2" IP tagged RCE 9876. Accepted as southerly corner Lot X of PM 1234.

I wouldn't bother with the "in lieu of" verbiage. "Found 1" IP tagged LS ABCD, accepted as southerly corner Lot X of PM 1234" would work for me.

Posted: **Fri Jan 28, 2022 1:52 pm**

I agree with Jim.
Use plain English and skip the "someone else said" verbage unless it's a key point in your analysis.

Posted: **Fri Jan 28, 2022 2:42 pm**

When I use in Lieu, it is usually in its narrowest sense, same surveyor, different monument type.

Usually my notes will say "FOUND S&W "LS ABCC", PER R.S.B. XX/YY-ZZ", 0.8' DN (if that map has set the monument), or I will say "FOUND S&W "LS ABCC", NO REFERENCE, ACCEPTED AS CL. INT. OF MAIN ST. AND PARK DR. AS SHOWN ON R.S.B. XX/YY-ZZZ, 0.3' DOWN. Or similar, depending on the situation.

Posted: **Fri Jan 28, 2022 3:46 pm**

I use it only for same surveyor # of record, but different monument type than shown on said record.

Posted: **Fri Jan 28, 2022 3:59 pm**

CBarrett wrote: Fri Jan 28, 2022 2:42 pm When I use in Lieu, it is usually in its narrowest sense, same surveyor, different monument type.

Usually my notes will say "FOUND S&W "LS ABCC", PER R.S.B. XX/YY-ZZ", 0.8' DN (if that map has set the monument), or I will say "FOUND S&W "LS ABCC", NO REFERENCE, ACCEPTED AS CL. INT. OF MAIN ST. AND PARK DR. AS SHOWN ON R.S.B. XX/YY-ZZZ, 0.3' DOWN. Or similar, depending on the situation.

Exactly correct in my experience.

Most land surveying topics I can navigate with an indifference. The "in lieu of" is the exception to my indifference. Frankly, the misuse of "in lieu of", for reasons I cannot completely understand, makes my head explode. Liken it to "nip it in the butt" or "for all intensive purposes" or "irregardless", ugh, my aching head.

Short version, same tag called for on the reference with a different character of monument is "in lieu of". Example, map states "set 2" iron pipe tagged LS 1234..." and the surveyor finds a "...spike and washer stamped LS 1234" the term "in lieu of" is appropriate. The monument holds the same weight as monument referenced on the map that set it.

Monuments are "accepted" for location. It is inappropriate to accept a 1986 Buick LaSabre (mag nail) as a 1965 Cadillac Deville (brass cap in a well). Rather, searched for the Deville, found the LaSabre, end of story. I completely agree with Jim Frame's post above.

Tony Cuomo did a good job explaining it in the attached letter.

DWoolley

Posted: **Fri Jan 28, 2022 4:04 pm**

Jim Frame wrote: Fri Jan 28, 2022 1:30 pm I wouldn't bother with the "in lieu of" verbiage. "Found 1" IP tagged LS ABCD, accepted as southerly corner Lot X of PM 1234" would work for me.

I agree. The response was in reply to using the phrase "In lieu of..." I'd prefer your phrasing, but cetrtainly wouldn't object to the "in lieu of" phrasing.

Posted: **Fri Jan 28, 2022 10:05 pm**

I have never used the phrase "in lieu of." Find out who set the monument - make a call and send an email to verify what it was intended to represent. Do your homework. if I find a monument wherein the disc is missing, I use the phrase "Accepted as remains of monuments per map xxxx" if that is my belief. Or, I will state "See map xxxxxx." Ask the surveyor if he/she will be filing a Certificate of Correction.

Posted: **Sat Jan 29, 2022 12:06 pm**

Ah, that's the detail I was missing, in Lieu monument would hold the same weight as the documented original, because the majority of evidence points to it being set during the original survey.

A monument found in it's place, by a different surveyor and of different nature and, of correct location can be accepted as representative of original location, but not necessarily set during the original survey.

Thank you.

Posted: **Sat Jan 29, 2022 1:02 pm**

It comes down to professional judgement. As a standard practice, whenever I find a monument that does not show up in the filed and recorded maps/surveys, I ALWAYS CONTACT THE LICENSED INDIVIDUAL WHO'S NUMBER IS ON THE MONUMENT. If they do not have anything or refuse to respond, I make sure I have a solid record of my efforts. That way, if a dispute arises, they and their client my be estopped from arguing otherwise. If we are truly professionals, we need to communicate with other surveyors.

Posted: **Sat Jan 29, 2022 2:03 pm**

I'm with Frame on this on . . .

Found 2" iron pipe, blah blah blah, accepted as blah blah blah. Hub searched for not found.

Crazy Phil

Posted: **Sat Jan 29, 2022 7:11 pm**

mpallamary wrote: Sat Jan 29, 2022 1:02 pm It comes down to professional judgement. As a standard practice, whenever I find a monument that does not show up in the filed and recorded maps/surveys, I ALWAYS CONTACT THE LICENSED INDIVIDUAL WHO'S NUMBER IS ON THE MONUMENT. If they do not have anything or refuse to respond, I make sure I have a solid record of my efforts. That way, if a dispute arises, they and their client my be estopped from arguing otherwise. If we are truly professionals, we need to communicate with other surveyors.

If I am checking the map, I have no way to compell the surveyor of record to dig deeper regarding monument pedigree.

Posted: **Sun Jan 30, 2022 10:04 pm**

You can reach out to the surveyor and tell him/her you are researching an unrecorded survey monument.

Posted: **Mon Jan 31, 2022 7:38 am**

CBarrett wrote: Sat Jan 29, 2022 7:11 pm If I am checking the map, I have no way to compell the surveyor of record to dig deeper regarding monument pedigree.

What do you mean by "checking the map"? For you own purposes or for a public agency? What type of map i.e. subdivision?

DWoolley

Posted: **Mon Jan 31, 2022 9:17 am**

DWoolley wrote: Mon Jan 31, 2022 7:38 am
CBarrett wrote: Sat Jan 29, 2022 7:11 pm If I am checking the map, I have no way to compel the surveyor of record to dig deeper regarding monument pedigree.
What do you mean by "checking the map"? For you own purposes or for a public agency? What type of map i.e. subdivision?

DWoolley

Record of survey, for a public agency. It is also being discussed with the respective county surveyor office.
I was just double checking my own understanding of things, where certain 'schools of thought' originated, precedents, and curious about possible regional differences etc.

Posted: **Mon Jan 31, 2022 9:47 am**

It would be helpful if we had some statewide standards for doing things.

Posted: **Mon Jan 31, 2022 12:37 pm**

CBarrett wrote: Mon Jan 31, 2022 9:17 am Record of survey, for a public agency. It is also being discussed with the respective county surveyor office.
I was just double checking my own understanding of things, where certain 'schools of thought' originated, precedents, and curious about possible regional differences etc.

Good land surveying has a basis for everything of substance. The question is whether a person knows the basis or there is no basis ex. all lots must close by less than 0.017'. I would start with the Guide to Records of Surveys and Corner Records published by CEAC.

Rhetorical question, if you are working for an agency, what happens when you question their procedure/process? Is it a professional review process or yellow highlighter/red pen commodity measured by time not quality?

I expect the map checker of my work product to know as much or more about boundary and mapping than I do, how is that not reasonable? I was far more gracious when the review of records of survey was free in Orange County.

DWoolley

Posted: **Mon Jan 31, 2022 2:11 pm**

DWoolley wrote: Mon Jan 31, 2022 12:37 pm Rhetorical question, if you are working for an agency, what happens when you question their procedure/process? Is it a professional review process or yellow highlighter/red pen commodity measured by time not quality?

You tell me - how does PLS act define a scope of Record of survey checking?
And how is professional review defined? Actually, I think you probably meant peer review? Where does it start and stop?

Posted: **Mon Jan 31, 2022 2:47 pm**

CBarrett wrote: Mon Jan 31, 2022 2:11 pm You tell me - how does PLS act define a scope of Record of survey checking?...

It's very clearly stated in 8766. No more, no less.

Posted: **Mon Jan 31, 2022 5:00 pm**

CBarrett wrote: Mon Jan 31, 2022 2:11 pm You tell me - how does PLS act define a scope of Record of survey checking?
And how is professional review defined? Actually, I think you probably meant peer review? Where does it start and stop?

How does the PLS act define the scope of record of survey checking?

The Professional Land Surveyors’ Act, California Code of Regulations (Board Rules), the former Board of Registration Policy Resolutions (rescinded, but used by CEAC in writing the guide), the "Guide to the Preparation of Records of Survey and Corner Records" published by CEAC after consensus, other BPELSG opinions and industry standards of care under the authority granted by 8764 (d) and (g) and 8766 (b) and (c).

A professional review defined:

A competent professional is performing an objective review of the work product. I suppose it could be a peer review (providing it is actually a peer i.e. a peer is having the same level of competency, not by virtue of being licensed). Not all licensees are peers to other licensees, it is task specific.

Where does it start and stop?

It starts when the map is submitted and stops when the map has filed.

Solid boundary surveying and mapping recognizes no jurisdiction and is only complicated by incompetency on either side of the counter. I know several folks that can put together a complete map with very few issues in the review process in any jurisdiction. Think not, we are kin to Robert Oppenheimer piecing together the Manhattan Project in '45 Los Alamos - no, we draw lines and circles on paper, we seldom create, we copy/transcribe the work of others and yet, a lot of us are really bad at it. Fortunately, mapping isn't our only avenue.

DWoolley

Posted: **Mon Jan 31, 2022 7:14 pm**

DWoolley wrote: Mon Jan 31, 2022 5:00 pm
CBarrett wrote: Mon Jan 31, 2022 2:11 pm You tell me - how does PLS act define a scope of Record of survey checking?
And how is professional review defined? Actually, I think you probably meant peer review? Where does it start and stop?
How does the PLS act define the scope of record of survey checking?

The Professional Land Surveyors’ Act, California Code of Regulations (Board Rules), the former Board of Registration Policy Resolutions (rescinded, but used by CEAC in writing the guide), the "Guide to the Preparation of Records of Survey and Corner Records" published by CEAC after consensus, other BPELSG opinions and industry standards of care under the authority granted by 8764 (d) and (g) and 8766 (b) and (c).

A professional review defined:

A competent professional is performing an objective review of the work product. I suppose it could be a peer review (providing it is actually a peer i.e. a peer is having the same level of competency, not by virtue of being licensed). Not all licensees are peers to other licensees, it is task specific.

Where does it start and stop?

It starts when the map is submitted and stops when the map has filed.

Solid boundary surveying and mapping recognizes no jurisdiction and is only complicated by incompetency on either side of the counter. I know several folks that can put together a complete map with very few issues in the review process in any jurisdiction. Think not, we are kin to Robert Oppenheimer piecing together the Manhattan Project in '45 Los Alamos - no, we draw lines and circles on paper, we seldom create, we copy/transcribe the work of others and yet, a lot of us are really bad at it. Fortunately, mapping isn't our only avenue.

DWoolley

I meant within the scope of this thread, not in general. I didn't just crawl out from under the rock to not know the basics.

Since you are talking about incompetence and bad surveying and questioning county surveyors on their decisions, I am asking you tell me where this is defined within the scope of what I asked about in this thread - history and pedigree of the term In Lieu, as it relates to describing monumentation. Every guideline and piece of writing that I have seen since I started making maps - and if you remember, one of the first maps I prepared is one of the first maps you checked, doesn't go to that much detail. Yet, you are interjecting ideas of, like I said, incompetence etc.
Yes, I know, you see bad surveyors everywhere, and you are on a mission to stamp it out. That doesn't mean that every discussion you participate in needs to focus on the lowest level. We are not discussing the bottom of the barrell here. We don't have to slide down the slippery slope to the bottom every time. There is life elsewhere too.

Posted: **Mon Jan 31, 2022 8:34 pm**

CBarrett wrote: Mon Jan 31, 2022 7:14 pm
DWoolley wrote: Mon Jan 31, 2022 5:00 pm
CBarrett wrote: Mon Jan 31, 2022 2:11 pm You tell me - how does PLS act define a scope of Record of survey checking?
And how is professional review defined? Actually, I think you probably meant peer review? Where does it start and stop?
How does the PLS act define the scope of record of survey checking?

The Professional Land Surveyors’ Act, California Code of Regulations (Board Rules), the former Board of Registration Policy Resolutions (rescinded, but used by CEAC in writing the guide), the "Guide to the Preparation of Records of Survey and Corner Records" published by CEAC after consensus, other BPELSG opinions and industry standards of care under the authority granted by 8764 (d) and (g) and 8766 (b) and (c).

A professional review defined:

A competent professional is performing an objective review of the work product. I suppose it could be a peer review (providing it is actually a peer i.e. a peer is having the same level of competency, not by virtue of being licensed). Not all licensees are peers to other licensees, it is task specific.

Where does it start and stop?

It starts when the map is submitted and stops when the map has filed.

Solid boundary surveying and mapping recognizes no jurisdiction and is only complicated by incompetency on either side of the counter. I know several folks that can put together a complete map with very few issues in the review process in any jurisdiction. Think not, we are kin to Robert Oppenheimer piecing together the Manhattan Project in '45 Los Alamos - no, we draw lines and circles on paper, we seldom create, we copy/transcribe the work of others and yet, a lot of us are really bad at it. Fortunately, mapping isn't our only avenue.

DWoolley
I meant within the scope of this thread, not in general. I didn't just crawl out from under the rock to not know the basics.

Since you are talking about incompetence and bad surveying and questioning county surveyors on their decisions, I am asking you tell me where this is defined within the scope of what I asked about in this thread - history and pedigree of the term In Lieu, as it relates to describing monumentation. Every guideline and piece of writing that I have seen since I started making maps - and if you remember, one of the first maps I prepared is one of the first maps you checked, doesn't go to that much detail. Yet, you are interjecting ideas of, like I said, incompetence etc.
Yes, I know, you see bad surveyors everywhere, and you are on a mission to stamp it out. That doesn't mean that every discussion you participate in needs to focus on the lowest level. We are not discussing the bottom of the barrell here. We don't have to slide down the slippery slope to the bottom every time. There is life elsewhere too.

This is not complicated. Read the CS statement, if you are looking outside of 8766, you are outside of your purview in the review process.

Posted: **Mon Jan 31, 2022 11:24 pm**

all lots must close by less than 0.017'

...with allowance for rounding.

I recently filed a ROS that used a couple of CORS for a bearing base, with a short tie (1600') from one of them to my boundary. The CS asked for a closure for the triangle, the long side of which was about 70,000 feet. I usually balk at what I consider to be silly requests, but in this case I complied. I hadn't computed the tie from my boundary to the distant CORS, so I just forced the closure in CAD. (I even labeled the closure sheet "Forced Closure.") With bearings rounded to the nearest second, that skinny little triangle closed by just under 0.2'.

Posted: **Tue Feb 01, 2022 8:34 am**

Edward M Reading wrote: Mon Jan 31, 2022 8:34 pm
This is not complicated. Read the CS statement, if you are looking outside of 8766, you are outside of your purview in the review process.

That's more or less the point I was trying to make to Dave, when he starts talking about pushback at the agencies and other surveyors regarding surveying with substance and red pen commodity. There is a limit to what a county surveyor and their staff can do.
Not just budgetary but legal too.

California Surveyors Forums

IN LIEU (re. monumentation)

IN LIEU (re. monumentation)

Re: IN LIEU (re. monumentation)

Re: IN LIEU (re. monumentation)

Re: IN LIEU (re. monumentation)

Re: IN LIEU (re. monumentation)

Re: IN LIEU (re. monumentation)

Re: IN LIEU (re. monumentation)

Re: IN LIEU (re. monumentation)

Re: IN LIEU (re. monumentation)

Re: IN LIEU (re. monumentation)

Re: IN LIEU (re. monumentation)

Re: IN LIEU (re. monumentation)

Re: IN LIEU (re. monumentation)

Re: IN LIEU (re. monumentation)

Re: IN LIEU (re. monumentation)

Re: IN LIEU (re. monumentation)

Re: IN LIEU (re. monumentation)

Re: IN LIEU (re. monumentation)

Re: IN LIEU (re. monumentation)

Re: IN LIEU (re. monumentation)

Re: IN LIEU (re. monumentation)

Re: IN LIEU (re. monumentation)

Re: IN LIEU (re. monumentation)

Re: IN LIEU (re. monumentation)

Re: IN LIEU (re. monumentation)