California Surveyors Forums

What is the community's stance on the setting of wood ("temporary") line stakes between found monuments along a line shown on a map of record ?

For instance, you find the monuments marking either end of a lot line in a subdivision and they fit great. You proceed to stake to the line between the found monuments, setting wood ginneys or hubs at intervisible points next to a lath on which you have written "property line" / "boundary line". Do the ginneys/hubs need to be tagged with the responsible PLS# ? Does a map or exhibit need to be prepared, or only as a service if the client wants one ?

This seems like one of the fundamental services that a land surveyor provides, and yet the PLS Act is silent on the topic of "temporary" monuments. A strict reading would lead one to believe that any monument a surveyor sets needs to be permanent, durable, and put into the public record.

I would be curious to know if the board has issued any opinions on this subject.

Thank you for any input.

There really isn't such a thing as a "Temporary Monument". It's a monument or it isn't.

If you're setting hubs along a line to show the owner where the line is and there are document monuments at both end so f the line, additional documentation does not serve anyone, unless the line is so long that intermediate points become worthwhile. Setting tags on those points doesn't serve anyone either.

The only comment I have heard on this subject came indirectly from the board reprimanding an associate and the associate telling me about it:

Essentially they said that if you are going to mark a line with temporary markers as you describe then you'd better have durable tagged or record monuments on both endpoints

Could they be construction points . . . offset 0.1' to the boundary . . . ?

Temporary monuments - no such thing if done by a PLS.
If you tell a client the cost range is is $zzz to $yyy they only hear $zzz
If you tell a client this is the approximate corner/line they hear this is the corner/line.
young bucks (pls 9k+) your license is worth millions over the course of your career,

wingding wrote: Thu Apr 14, 2022 5:45 pm ...
young bucks (pls 9k+) your license is worth millions over the course of your career,

Also, new licensees are held to the same standards - expected to possess the same knowledge and offer the same work product - as tenured licensees.

A 9500 license is the same as a 4300 license in the eyes of the law. An upside to losing a 9500 license series is the surveyor is more likely to have time to begin a new career.

Also, those flim flam "temporary" or "approximate" monuments had better be set on a line that has been shown on a subdivision map, record of survey or official map [as defined in the Gov't Code]. I recently spied some stakes on a lot line - on the next block over - for a property line that has not been mapped - fish in a barrel after I stop by the house this weekend [it's a community service, right?].

DWoolley

The situation described is, to my mind, simple construction staking, no offset necessary. Whether it be for the construction of a fence, a flag line, a blaze line, or something else, it's just marking a previously established line, and no tag or regulatory filing is needed.

wingding wrote: Thu Apr 14, 2022 5:45 pm If you tell a client this is the approximate corner/line...

...you shouldn't be a surveyor. (fixed it for you)

I'll weigh in on this one. Some of the responses you received are consistent with what we've said from the Board...if suitable monuments (pursuant to 8771(a) and 8772) exist at both ends of the line being marked which are consistent with recorded/filed maps and there is no mandatory trigger for filing under 8765(d) or 8762(b), feel free to set whatever you want on that line, regardless for why the line is being marked. However, it never hurts to simply memorialize these line points on a simple Corner Record if for nothing else to provide notice to subsequent surveyors so they can recover this evidence when retracing the line(s). An example being what if one or more of the monuments at the end of the line is later disturbed. Surveyors should never be shy about documenting what they did.

FYI, we sometimes hear people (read this as both licensed and unlicensed) say they were just doing "construction staking" and not a property line survey as an argument...you're marking the location of the property line regardless of how you want to categorize it and regardless of whether it is on an offset or not.

Edit: meant to say, others responding are correct, "temporary" points don't exist. If you really think about it, everything every surveyor has ever done since the beginning of "surveying time" is temporary if enough time passes.

Derek_9672 wrote: Thu Apr 14, 2022 2:57 pm What is the community's stance on the setting of wood ("temporary") line stakes between found monuments along a line shown on a map of record ?

For instance, you find the monuments marking either end of a lot line in a subdivision and they fit great. You proceed to stake to the line between the found monuments, setting wood ginneys or hubs at intervisible points next to a lath on which you have written "property line" / "boundary line". Do the ginneys/hubs need to be tagged with the responsible PLS# ? Does a map or exhibit need to be prepared, or only as a service if the client wants one ?

This seems like one of the fundamental services that a land surveyor provides, and yet the PLS Act is silent on the topic of "temporary" monuments. A strict reading would lead one to believe that any monument a surveyor sets needs to be permanent, durable, and put into the public record.

I would be curious to know if the board has issued any opinions on this subject.

Thank you for any input.

You are either documenting a property line (in which case they need to be permanent monuments acceptable to the board.

Or, you are staking out a few points on a line after you are sure that the boundary is coherent and monumented, so the property owner can either see a line or build something based on its location. You can only do that with certainty after you did a full boundary survey. This is considered a construction staking task, and needs to be based on solid data that any construction staking would be done. If it involves a boundary, it consist of a full boundary survey.

There's no inbetweeners, like "my friend asked me to just" .... point at the monuments and spray paint the line it mark it with a lath. This is where you are telling the public location of a boundary, where you have no certainty that it is correct.

Ric7308 wrote: Fri Apr 15, 2022 7:46 am FYI, we sometimes hear people (read this as both licensed and unlicensed) say they were just doing "construction staking" and not a property line survey as an argument...you're marking the location of the property line regardless of how you want to categorize it and regardless of whether it is on an offset or not.

Any construction staking that involves a boundary, or a boundary offset can only be done after a full and proper boundary survey.
Lot in a tract with 25' stations for PL is no different that a commercial building site where a curb line is offset 5 feet from the PL and staked out. In either case, once must be very certain of the boundary survey they used to re-establish said boundary line.

Once we set stakes, whether the clients uses them to build something, to just look at them, to pull them out for sword fights, crack pipe kindling or run over them by a dozer, it's still just a construction stake. If they indicate a boundary location of some sort, it needs to be based on a solid boundary survey (as opposed to maybe a more random aerial target).

Ric7308 wrote: Fri Apr 15, 2022 7:46 am ...
FYI, we sometimes hear people (read this as both licensed and unlicensed) say they were just doing "construction staking" and not a property line survey as an argument...you're marking the location of the property line regardless of how you want to categorize it and regardless of whether it is on an offset or not.
...

It is interesting we still have folks out there setting approximate or temporary stakes indicating property lines [or building corners subject to setbacks, or walls or anything else with a relationship to the boundary] for lines that have not been shown previously on a map or from any two monuments in the county. The word has been out for a long time and yet, ...willful ignorance? Likely. Certainly willful/weaponized incompetence.

If only BPELSG had a knocking pen and captive bolt system in place specifically for these folks. For those unfamiliar or not having been exposed to rural America, think about the guy in No Country for Old Men.

DWoolley

DWoolley wrote: Mon Apr 18, 2022 4:20 pm ...

If only BPELSG had a knocking pen and captive bolt system in place specifically for these folks. For those unfamiliar or not having been exposed to rural America, think about the guy in No Country for Old Men.

DWoolley

Here's one to ponder:

Client contracts with Surveyor A to perform a record of survey for a line not previously shown on map.

Surveyor A bails on the job and asks Surveyor B to help him by finishing the project. There is no contract between A and B or B and the client. Clients writes a check to Surveyor B for the job completion.

Surveyor B performs a field survey and starts a record of survey. Survey B bails on the client. Enter Surveyor C.

Surveyor C knows Surveyors A and B well. Surveyor C contacts B for a status of the map after the client calls C. B commits to C for completing the survey and asks C to buy B time by staking the line B established on the unfiled record of survey. Surveyor C stakes the line for B - after B commits to completing the map. Surveyor B promptly disappears.

Client rightfully goes off the rails and blames Surveyor C [helping B] and hires Surveyor D.

Surveyor D completes the record of survey.

Question: where does Surveyor C stand? Should C have completed the work of B and filed the map?

DWoolley

Uh, Dave...that's kind of a complicated and unlikely scenario, with lots of players and a slew of "what ifs." If you're trying to make a point, I think you need to take another swing at it.

Not sure if this helps:


8759. Written contracts
(a) A licensed land surveyor or licensed civil engineer authorized to practice land
surveying shall use a written contract when contracting to provide professional services to a
client pursuant to this chapter. The written contract shall be executed by the licensed land
surveyor or licensed civil engineer and the client or the client’s representative prior to the
licensed land surveyor or licensed civil engineer commencing work, unless the client knowingly
states in writing that work may be commenced before the contract is executed. The written
contract shall include, but not be limited to, all of the following:
(1) A description of the services to be provided to the client by the licensed land
surveyor or licensed civil engineer.
(2) A description of any basis of compensation applicable to the contract, and the
method of payment agreed upon by the parties.
(3) The name, address, and license or certificate number of the licensed land
surveyor or licensed civil engineer, and the name and address of the client.
(4) A description of the procedure that the licensed land surveyor or licensed civil
engineer and the client will use to accommodate additional services.
(5) A description of the procedure to be used by both parties to terminate the
contract.
(b) This section shall not apply to any of the following:
(1) Professional land surveying services rendered by a licensed land surveyor or
licensed civil engineer for which the client will not pay compensation.
(2) A licensed land surveyor or licensed civil engineer who has a current or prior
contractual relationship with the client to provide professional services pursuant to this
chapter, and that client has paid the licensed land surveyor or licensed civil engineer all
of the fees that are due under the contract.
(3) If the client knowingly states in writing after full disclosure of this section that a
contract which complies with the requirements of this section is not required.
(4) Professional services rendered by a licensed land surveyor or a licensed civil
engineer to any of the following:
(A) A professional engineer licensed under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section
6700).
(B) A land surveyor licensed under this chapter.
(C) An architect licensed under Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 5500).
(D) A contractor licensed under Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 7000).
(E) A geologist or a geophysicist licensed under Chapter 12.5 (commencing with
Section 7800).
(F) A manufacturing, mining, public utility, research and development, or other
industrial corporation, if the services are provided in connection with or incidental to
the products, systems, or services of that corporation or its affiliates.
(G) A public agency.
(c) “Written contract” as used in this section includes a contract that is in electronic
form.

"If only BPELSG had a knocking pen and captive bolt system in place specifically for these folks. For those unfamiliar or not having been exposed to rural America, think about the guy in No Country for Old Men.

DWoolley"

The guy that comes to my mind in the movie is Tommy Lee Jones in the last scene. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXNfxK5Q2Qg
We have been discussing this issue my entire career and it is worst than ever. No Country for Old Men, Jp

Surveyor C ( and each surveyor) is responsible for his own work. He can't defer that responsibility to 'another surveyor said, promised hummed and hawed and didn't get to it yet or went bankrupt and closed door or skipped state, had his instrument stolen or who knows what.
You touch it, you buy it.

I would like to remind everyone that in the real world, our opinions matter little. The only one that counts is that of the client and the public. The public cannot distinguish between a property corner and a POL. It is all semantics. You should always perform your work in anticipation of someone relying on it for more than it may mean to you.

If it has a stake with a colored ribbon around it, it is a surveyor's stake and that makes it official.

So we had this situation not too long ago, during cleanup from recent forest fires - Cal Fire wants 'property lines' staked, or delineated in some fashion so their inspectors can go through and decide which debris pile cleanup falls under the state or federal emergency grant and which one does not.

They are frustrated with us because boundary surveys are expensive, we are frustrated with them because they are asking us for 'approximate accurate boundary' and I can't give them one without certain level of due diligence.

This is not a unique situation. It sounds like we need a mechanism which does not endanger the public, and gives some of the agencies what they need. Right now, instead of surveyors, since I can't put anything on the ground, there is a different contractor with phone GPS people flagging PL on the ground.
So, out of fear of 'someone turning you in and losing your license' over a few tenths, we have random people out there flagging PL's which can be off by 10 or 15 feet, or who knows what is in the GIS databases and how it is placed on the ground. How does that serve the public?
If a homeowner sees a stake that says PL, they don't know if it was a surveyor that set it or some kid was playing swords last week and just stuck it there, or it is a construction staking leftover, unless he was there watching it, and paying attention and ....actually understanding what is going on.

How do we improve upon these situation so that we serve public better?

Are we serving the public or are we serving our actual client? who is this "public" anyway? and why must we be so concerned about them?

Ric7308 wrote: Fri Apr 15, 2022 7:46 am if suitable monuments (pursuant to 8771(a) and 8772) exist at both ends of the line being marked which are consistent with recorded/filed maps and there is no mandatory trigger for filing under 8765(d) or 8762(b), feel free to set whatever you want on that line, regardless for why the line is being marked.

This is the part that I always have trouble wrapping my mind around. 8771 uses the word facile.... quoted below with boldness added.

8771. Setting of monuments in general; monument perpetuation
(a) Monuments set shall be sufficient in number and durability and efficiently placed so
as not to be readily disturbed, to ensure, together with monuments already existing, the
perpetuation or facile reestablishment of any point or line of the survey.

As I understand the logic it means that to be sufficiently facile (aka easy/efficient) there must be a monument on either end of a line. This standard for facile is pretty insulting to most surveyors abilities. Consider the following situation: 4 lots, 50x 100, making a block 200 E-W and 100 N-S. There are original mons at all block corners that are perfect measured to record (M&R). If you can't split a 200 foot line into equal parts of 50 and consistently re-stake one of those 50' positions, you are not minimally competent.

So to stake the N-S lot line in the middle of the block, which has no monuments defining the termini, is considered too hard for a licensed land surveyor to do? Or entails so much calculation and judgement that there could be alternate positions? Both of those seems pretty demeaning to me.

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

As I understand the logic it means that to be sufficiently facile (aka easy/efficient) there must be a monument on either end of a line.

"Facile" is subjective, just as "material discrepancy" is. It depends on the situation. Nowhere is it written in the law that every line must be monumented at both ends.

(Mikey - so complying with the prevalent sections and filing the appropriate documents should be extremely "easy" for you then, right?)

OP asked about setting points on a line between found monuments at each end of the property line, what material, tagging, and does something need to be filed. Did not ask about every line being monumented.

If the property line being marked in the field doesn't have sufficient monuments (aka one at each end) and markers are set anywhere along that line, then the appropriate document needs to be filed. If sufficient monuments exist (aka one at each end), then a Corner Record or Record of Survey may be filed, at the discretion of the land surveyor. No where am I saying that one must set a monument at every property corner, though it is in the land surveyor's (and the public's OLIN) best interest to do so.

I just edited my post to clarify that only the block had mons, so the interior lots in my example are lacking any original monuments.
I don't think it changes the heart of your response though, and I will attempt to clarify my point:

As Jim wrote, its not written anywhere that we need a physical monument at the ends of every line we set wooden stakes for fence building. As I see it the essence of the disagreement comes down to two points:
1. what is easy enough (facile) for 8771
2. what is a "monument" that requires a tag and something being filed. 8772

I am aware of the Boards position that a physical monument at the ends of all lines being staked is their standard for facile. I just think that it is too strict because I think most surveyors would set their line stakes on the same line in my example above, and thus there is no alternate position trigger, no material discrepancy IE no triggers for a RoS.

That means we are only deciding if a wooden ginny 6" long set in dirt is considered a monument requiring a tag and CR. If a physical monument at the ends of a line somehow makes said ginny not require a tag and CR, I am assuming its because there is sufficient certainty or facility (Is that the correct grammar for facile?) that is relieves the ginny of being the holder of certainty?

This is the part that I don't get. What is the threshold for making a ginny not need a tag and CR?

For what its worth, I personally think its like all our professional work in that we are always at risk of slippery slope arguments or "but what abouts", and in the effort to come to an agreement we define ourselves out of the ability to exercise professional judgement.

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

Edited for typos/spellin :)

Olin Edmundson wrote: Thu Apr 21, 2022 9:02 pm Are we serving the public or are we serving our actual client? who is this "public" anyway? and why must we be so concerned about them?

When a surveyor measures a line, we serve not just the guy who hired us, but are supposed to be a neutral party interpreting the evidence.

Licensure was put in place to protect the public from general measuring yahoo's, substandard, incompetent and fraudulent surveys. PLS act exists because we have attempted to standardize the practice over the years and define what a competent survey behavior and practices are - in order to protect the general public. (anyone and everyone involved in and interested in land transactions and isn't a surveyor).

If our execution and policing of our services results in driving a number of incompetent people towards serving public survey needs (even as unintended consequences) and adding to the confusion, the question we need to ask ourselves is, are we accomplishing the goals which were meant to be accomplished by creating the licensing system, or do we need to step back and rethink certain details, and possibly realign what we are doing.

I am not necessarily saying that examples I brought up do this, but they definitely make me want to stop and think and question/investigate/discuss to see more clearly what the consequences of certain actions and measures we take are.

Another reason why we are concerned about this is because in our country and even more so in California, land is a very pricey commodity. Part of the reason why it is at a premium is because our land records are fairly orderly and this makes land a very secure investment. If our land records were very messy and unreliable (as they are, for example in a number of developing countries), investment in land would not be wise (Russia is an example of this).