California Surveyors Forums

I have received comments from more than one county surveyor recently that the surveyor's, county surveyor's and recorder's statements are requested to be on sheet 1 of a multi-sheet survey. I've been tending to put them on the back page along with the notes and details.

While I don't really have a problem with honoring this request, it makes me wonder why this is important enough for them to comment and request that my layout be restructured....

Anyone have any ideas? BPC 8764.5 is silent on the location of the statements

It's merely convention - not mandatory.

David Kendall wrote: Thu Aug 25, 2022 11:22 am I have received comments from more than one county surveyor recently that the surveyor's, county surveyor's and recorder's statements are requested to be on sheet 1 of a multi-sheet survey. I've been tending to put them on the back page along with the notes and details.
...

David Kendall:

Have ever seen a filed record of survey with the certificates on a page other than the first page? If not, why would it occur to you to try it? Inquiring minds want to know.

In my years of land surveying, I do not recall a single record of survey with the certificates on a back page.

DWoolley

The last paragraph of PLS Act §8764.5 read" "No other statements may appear on the face of the map except those required or authorized by this article." (The first portion of this section being the wording of the statements to be made by the Surveyor, County Surveyor & Recorder.

I have always considered the "Face of the map" to be the first sheet.

While I might point it out on reviews, I would not make a big deal about it.

DWoolley wrote: Thu Aug 25, 2022 1:11 pm David Kendall:

Have ever seen a filed record of survey with the certificates on a page other than the first page? If not, why would it occur to you to try it? Inquiring minds want to know.

In my years of land surveying, I do not recall a single record of survey with the certificates on a back page.

DWoolley

How about “what difference does it make?” Or even better, “why is this important enough to discuss?”

Do you always answer a stupid question with another stupid question? Me too….

Here’s a wild scenario for you:
If I am printing out a map to take to the field, I want the information relevant to the retracement. That would be the map, details and corner notes. The statements add nothing meaningful to the retracement. If my record goes to two or more sheets then I try to put the statements on the back sheet along with the survey notes so the retracing surveyor can lighten his load of map sheets.

Call me silly but in all my years of surveying that’s how I thought it ought to be done

David Kendall wrote: Thu Aug 25, 2022 7:08 pm

DWoolley wrote: Thu Aug 25, 2022 1:11 pm David Kendall:

Have ever seen a filed record of survey with the certificates on a page other than the first page? If not, why would it occur to you to try it? Inquiring minds want to know.

In my years of land surveying, I do not recall a single record of survey with the certificates on a back page.

DWoolley

...
Here’s a wild scenario for you:
If I am printing out a map to take to the field, I want the information relevant to the retracement. That would be the map, details and corner notes. The statements add nothing meaningful to the retracement. If my record goes to two or more sheets then I try to put the statements on the back sheet along with the survey notes so the retracing surveyor can lighten his load of map sheets.
...

Thank you. I think I understand, strive to be less burdened by carrying one less paper map sheet and it is far better yet, to carry the single sheet 1 of 2 rather than the single sheet 2 of 2.

I appreciate the explanation.

DWoolley

If my record goes to two or more sheets then I try to put the statements on the back sheet along with the survey notes so the retracing surveyor can lighten his load of map sheets.

Please let me know which printers you guys use that force you to print an entire document so I can make sure never to buy one. All the printers I have around here allow me to choose which sheets I print.

DWoolley wrote: Thu Aug 25, 2022 7:59 pm
Thank you. I think I understand, strive to be less burdened by carrying one less paper map sheet and it is far better yet, to carry the single sheet 1 of 2 rather than the single sheet 2 of 2.

I appreciate the explanation.

DWoolley

I believe the point that I was trying to make is that the entire discussion is meaningless. Your inability to answer a simple question with a reasoned discussion supports this conclusion. If you feel the need to be self righteous about your voodoo superstition or tradition or quirks about 'how things ought to be because that's how grandpa taught me' then feel free but let's not pretend that your conviction is based in practicality or reason. I agree that sheet 1 or sheet 2 is irrelevant for the statements. I was simply wondering if I was missing something in the law.

Base on your two responses I can only presume that you are one of those nutty map reviewers that wastes people's time requesting that they make this change. Perhaps you could make a ten minute video on the topic of meaningless map review comments based on the reviewers personal preferences.

Thank you Warren and Ian for the straight answer, I appreciate your responses greatly.

FYI I am going to move the statements to Sheet 1. Easier to go along to get along sometimes, regardless of convictions.....

We always put certificates on the front sheet. Must be a regional thing down south.
When maps are printed, sheet 1 gets ignored

Issue with changing what people are used to seeing (in certain regions) is that it leads to errors. Map which leads people into making errors can be deemed technically incorrect. We have the duty to present the information in a way that makes most sense (not to us) but to our most likely audience.
If you are making a map for an area where certificate are customarily in the front, your target audience is 'people who are used to seeing certificates in the front'.

Little anecdote, in certain parts of Europe, traffic lights are positioned directly above tour stopping lane (rather than across the intersection where you can see them better). This leads to confusion when European drivers come here or US drivers go to Europe, and even though the light is signaling the right way (Red/orange/green), it's positioning leads people into making (sometimes) fatal errors. I understand that this is an exaggerated example, it's purpose is to point out the concept.

This is why, specially in the old days, map and technical report preparation, the symbology, placement, convention on how the information was presented was a bit more uniform. These things proved important over time.

If you ever work across different region, you will have seen this yourself, a map that has info in places different from what you are used to seeing will require a lot more focus and time to interpret correctly. When you worry about the time it will take some of these requests, remember you are one person producing the map for posterity, for potentially hundreds of people to see over time.

There is more to producing an error-free map than minding the 0.01' sum of the parts issue over three courses.

Edit:
There is one other thing, in subdivision map act it IS codified that certificates go on front sheets. Records of survey follow that habitual presentation. When I am interpreting a stack of maps, it is nice to have little bit of that uniformity.

Drafting details are stupid attitude is something that has produced piles and piles of badly drawn maps in recent years. (I'm preparing a seminar series on that topic.)

Issue with changing what people are used to seeing (in certain regions) is that it leads to errors. Map which leads people into making errors can be deemed technically incorrect.

If a map reviewer tried lame logic like this to tell me what sheet I had to put statements on, I'd ask them to submit draft language for the County Surveyor's Note and move ahead with my statements as-is.

I put ROS statements on sheet 1 because that's what I'm used to. I don't care what the county map reviewer is used to.

Corollary to calling one regional practice lame is that it makes your own practice lame as well. so lame, lame, lame, the whole world is lame, *grumble* *gripe* *cuss* *fart* *beer sip* yay, surveyors. Yes, I've seen this a million times, la-di-da. It brought the profession to the level it is today.

Part of being a professional is to have a toolbox which has sufficient breadth of skill and ability to accommodate tasks at hand, to the specs which are optimum for the project. Someone having to 'make' you do this means that you are operating at the edge of the bare minimum of the qualifications. It is a bottom feeding level, and not something to aspire to, or something that will earn respect.

Value of regional practices have long been recognized, to a point that the minimum level can be codified in local ordinances.

If you want to refute a logical argument, you need to do better than calling it names. Emotional reaction (which is what calling something names is) only means that the comment hit the target, and the target is not coping well. I wish more surveyors bothered to study up on concepts of emotional intelligence and get beyond middle school thought complexity.

Value of regional practices have long been recognized, to a point that the minimum level can be codified in local ordinances.

All fine for filings subject to local ordinances. Records of Survey, however, are regulated by state law, not local ordinance, so when a County Surveyor (or more often a subordinate map reviewer) tries to impose his/her parochial standards on my Record of Survey -- it is, after all, a record of *my* survey, not of his/her survey -- I usually note the limit of his/her statutory authority and decline to make the change.

The nice thing about standards is that there are so many of them. I mostly file maps in 3 counties, though I sometimes reach out farther. Each county has its own drafting customs, and I have my own. I prefer to maintain consistency between my maps rather than mix-and-match among the counties in which I practice.

The process usually goes something like this: I submit a ROS for review. The reviewer marks it up, requesting changes both substantive and those required to conform to county presentation preferences. I make any substantive revisions, note the limit of authority for those that pertain to style, and resubmit. The map gets approved and filed.

In 39 years of licensure I've filed about 130 Records of Survey. Offhand I can think of only 1 for which a disagreement resulted in a note on the map, and that had to do with my decision that parallelism of lot lines in a particular block better represented original intent than prorating distances along front and rear lot lines. I have yet to add a CS note over a drafting style matter, but there's still time I suppose.

Jim Frame wrote: Tue Aug 30, 2022 8:09 am

Value of regional practices have long been recognized, to a point that the minimum level can be codified in local ordinances.

All fine for filings subject to local ordinances. Records of Survey, however, are regulated by state law, not local ordinance, so when a County Surveyor (or more often a subordinate map reviewer) tries to impose his/her parochial standards on my Record of Survey -- it is, after all, a record of *my* survey, not of his/her survey -- I usually note the limit of his/her statutory authority and decline to make the change.

The nice thing about standards is that there are so many of them. I mostly file maps in 3 counties, though I sometimes reach out farther. Each county has its own drafting customs, and I have my own. I prefer to maintain consistency between my maps rather than mix-and-match among the counties in which I practice.

The process usually goes something like this: I submit a ROS for review. The reviewer marks it up, requesting changes both substantive and those required to conform to county presentation preferences. I make any substantive revisions, note the limit of authority for those that pertain to style, and resubmit. The map gets approved and filed.

In 39 years of licensure I've filed about 130 Records of Survey. Offhand I can think of only 1 for which a disagreement resulted in a note on the map, and that had to do with my decision that parallelism of lot lines in a particular block better represented original intent than prorating distances along front and rear lot lines. I have yet to add a CS note over a drafting style matter, but there's still time I suppose.

Jim, noone is trying to *make* you do anything by wielding a sheet of code over your head. I am well aware what is in the code.

I am talking about best practices and ethics, and in part mentoring up and coming surveyors. None of these are codified, so bringing up that someone can't 'make you' do it is a rather moot point. I'm not interested in the lowest common denominator.
If you prefer to run your business that way, knock yourself out. Philosophy I have adopted is different from yours. I know you think it's lame and noone can make you and yatta yatta yatta... I heard that argument easy thousand times in last 35 years in this business. Lot of surveyors insisting on doing the bare minimum, and worried that someone might try to make them think beyond the minimum. No-one can MAKE you, and it would be an effort in futility. Desire to expand your horizons needs to come from within.

But, this is edging into the emotional intelligence topic again, on that a lot of surveyors think is below them, so they dig their heels in at the first thought of doing something different.

A friend of mine used to laugh when someone digs in their heels and says "you can't tell me to do this", and would go, what is the worst thing that can happen, you actually listen? Must be awful.

If you don't want to do something, move along and leave room for those who will. This is not going to become a legislated set of minimum standards, so no need to get yourself all huffed-up and protesting.

In my view, adjusting my work product to fit local conditions (with respect to field precision, like rural vs. highrise maybe) and project needs and adjusting how my technical reports are presented to fit local business practices as best as I understand them is just a common courtesy professionals extend to one another. Many other professions do the same thing, it is not an outlandish concept crated to make your life difficult. It's just a part of being a professional.

If you ever do a survey in an area where I check, you don't have to worry about asserting your authority. All the commentary where I try to inform a surveyor of suggestions rather than requirements are color coded for your ease, you won't have to spoend tile calling back and explaining the LS act to the dreaded checker. It's already there outlined for you. Like I said, communication clarity is nice to have, and I practice what I preach. Once I developed a system of doing this, it is just as fast as not putting in the extra effort. Who Knew.

As for YOUR RS, it is not your RS, you made the survey, you are required to prepare a technical document of the survey you made and place it in a public trust for posterity. You are actually the least of the links in the chain. RS's are now requirement because in spite of all the teachings over hundreds and hundreds of years of the importance of land survey records, surveyors tend to be really bad at doing this part and making it available to the public, so it had to be codified... again, least common denominator. What is the minimum I can get away with.

But yet your licensing entrusted you with having a significant influence over a very valuable resource - people's land.
Did I mention we need classes in ethics too - yes, I believe I have, many times. Too many surveyors think that once they got licensed, the world revolves around them, rather than understanding that their level of responsibility just increased exponentially.

As for YOUR RS, it is not your RS

Once filed, the physical ROS medium isn't mine, but it remains my work product, and as such it affects my professional reputation as well as my liability exposure. Because it so intimately represents me, I want to control the content and presentation. It's not about lowest common denominator or bare minimum, it's about accurately reflecting the content and quality of my work in a consistent manner, regardless of which county I happen to be in.

Jim Frame wrote: Tue Aug 30, 2022 11:02 am

As for YOUR RS, it is not your RS

Once filed, the physical ROS medium isn't mine, but it remains my work product, and as such it affects my professional reputation as well as my liability exposure. Because it so intimately represents me, I want to control the content and presentation. It's not about lowest common denominator or bare minimum, it's about accurately reflecting the content and quality of my work in a consistent manner, regardless of which county I happen to be in.

If that is your goal, why are you vehemently opposing someone with apparently identical goal(s)? Kind of jumped into zero tolerance and name calling mode before the discussion evolved. If your product is up to standards and of exceptional in quality, why protest so much and bring in the concept of minimum standards (You started with, you can't make me do this... law says...)? What is behind this level discontent and resistance?

As a side note, upon more thinking and digging I realized that we are all neglecting here is the fact that many county recorders have specifications as well where certain certificates and labels may or may not occur, along with legibility requirements.

I "vehemently oppose" the concept that the sheet on which statements appear has anything to do with technical correctness. I didn't call anyone names, I said that the logic is lame and that in that circumstance I'd invite the CS to draft a note explaining that he/she believes that statements on Sheet X (>1) renders my ROS technically incorrect, and move on.

What is behind this level discontent and resistance?

Maybe where you practice all map checkers are competent and professional and don't ask for needless revisions. I'm not in that situation. Some are good, some are okay, and some should do something else for a living. On Parcel Maps and Final Maps I generally have to find a way to accommodate the request without compromising the integrity of my map, but on Records of Survey I don't have that constraint and am less inclined to indulge change requests that make pointless work or would produce a result inconsistent with my mapping conventions (yes, I rank my mapping conventions above those of the county).

CBarrett wrote: Mon Aug 29, 2022 6:22 pm We always put certificates on the front sheet. Must be a regional thing down south.
When maps are printed, sheet 1 gets ignored

Issue with changing what people are used to seeing (in certain regions) is that it leads to errors. Map which leads people into making errors can be deemed technically incorrect. We have the duty to present the information in a way that makes most sense (not to us) but to our most likely audience.

There is one other thing, in subdivision map act it IS codified that certificates go on front sheets. Records of survey follow that habitual presentation. When I am interpreting a stack of maps, it is nice to have little bit of that uniformity.

Drafting details are stupid attitude is something that has produced piles and piles of badly drawn maps in recent years. (I'm preparing a seminar series on that topic.)

Ms. Barrett,

I really feel that you are reading too much into this location of the statements issue. It is very hard for me to imagine any catastrophic error that can come from a reader being unable to locate the surveyor and recorder statements on sheet 2 or 3.....

I'm not familiar with the SMA code section that you reference but it is noteworthy that it does not appear in the PLS act.

I find that the tail-chasing, circle-jerk of the pigheaded map reviewer arguing with the pigheaded surveyor over trifles is a bit inefficient.

Understanding that public agencies propagate inefficiency by nature, I believe it is our duty as citizens and patrons to counteract that trend when we have an opportunity.

This is the point that I am trying to make. Review comments that are based in law can be mandated. Comments that are based in looney tunes, back slapping-public agency crapola should be noted as suggestive. Generally, I comply with the suggestive comments when I find it practical.

Restructuring a map layout to conform to a reviewer's personal value of traditional sensibility may be impractical from a consumer's perspective. Please understand that your values don't always correspond with the values of the public. I cannot understand how one could say (with a straight face) that map statements on sheet 1 is protecting the public interest or rights. This is a ridiculous statement.

The purpose of the original post was to try to understand where this suggestive comment was originating. Yours and Woolley's responses have served to confirm my suspicion that there is no legal foundation for this comment to be presented on a record of survey review.

I also support Mr Frame's idea of requesting a county surveyor's note on the map to explain the conflict with these suggestive comments. I have made this request before as well, but in my experience the reviewer usually backs off at that point, presumably realizing the futility of the discussion.

What will your note say?



PS

CBarrett wrote: Tue Aug 30, 2022 9:46 am All the commentary where I try to inform a surveyor of suggestions rather than requirements are color coded for your ease, you won't have to spend time calling back and explaining the LS act to the dreaded checker. It's already there outlined for you. Like I said, communication clarity is nice to have, and I practice what I preach. Once I developed a system of doing this, it is just as fast as not putting in the extra effort.

This practice is commendable and appreciated. CLSA should lobby to add this to the BPC

the pigheaded map reviewer arguing with the pigheaded surveyor

I prefer to be described as hardheaded rather than pigheaded. (I suspect that pigs prefer that I be described that way as well.)

David Kendall wrote: Wed Aug 31, 2022 9:12 am

CBarrett wrote: Mon Aug 29, 2022 6:22 pm We always put certificates on the front sheet. Must be a regional thing down south.
When maps are printed, sheet 1 gets ignored

Issue with changing what people are used to seeing (in certain regions) is that it leads to errors. Map which leads people into making errors can be deemed technically incorrect. We have the duty to present the information in a way that makes most sense (not to us) but to our most likely audience.

There is one other thing, in subdivision map act it IS codified that certificates go on front sheets. Records of survey follow that habitual presentation. When I am interpreting a stack of maps, it is nice to have little bit of that uniformity.

Drafting details are stupid attitude is something that has produced piles and piles of badly drawn maps in recent years. (I'm preparing a seminar series on that topic.)

Ms. Barrett,

I really feel that you are reading too much into this location of the statements issue. It is very hard for me to imagine any catastrophic error that can come from a reader being unable to locate the surveyor and recorder statements on sheet 2 or 3.....

I didn't read into anything, was trying to EXPAND the discussion from the narrow focus of the initial question and point out to a professional concept as food for thought. Perhaps I didn't make that sufficiently clear, because both of you and Jim jumped into "you can't make me' and dug their heels in.

No-one is trying to make you do a thing here, I was attempting a discussion about ethics and best practices, neither of the two belong in legal codes. I was trying to point you in the direction of giving the value of adaptability some consideration.

If anyone has taken a class on ethics or read about it, usually in the immediate intro it is explained that ethics are not something you want to legislate, and then a whole semester of examples and in depth review of concepts follows.

As for recorders certificate, for example, in some counties the recorder will reject a map unless it follows a specific format - mapchecker informs you, if you want to fight it, you get to do that with the recorder's office, if they are willing to entertain the idea. I don't know and I don't pay attention to what gave them that authority. One of the notes I frequently have to place on maps is "IT IS THE RESPONSIBILTY OF THE SURVEYOR OF RECORD TO REVIEW THE MAP PREPARATION NAMUAL..." and if I feel generous I will point them to the weblink where they can review the document and follow the associated checklist (which they clearly didn't bother to do prior to the submittal.) It has all the codes listed as well (at least those for two counties where I check as a consultant have those). You have not mentioned which county you are beefing right now, so I can't address your specifics. There is also nothing in the PLS act that precludes agencies from adding certain requirements, especially those coming from recorders office.

When I am on the map preparer side, frankly I'm ok with them asking for it. It would be a very lame non-productive argument to get into. It is in my and my client's interest to keep the map processing and recording going smoothly. I/we have sufficient skill and competence to make small changes which accommodate regional preferences and not lose product identity or quality.

If you are having a problem with lack of qualified staff checking maps, there are many other much more productive ways to tackle that (very real) problem, rather than creating mountains out of molehills.

I too believe it is our duty as citizens and patrons to counteract that trend when we have an opportunity.

CBarrett wrote: Wed Aug 31, 2022 1:01 pm No-one is trying to make you do a thing here, I was attempting a discussion about ethics and best practices, neither of the two belong in legal codes. I was trying to point you in the direction of giving the value of adaptability some consideration.

I am really struggling to understand the potential ethical or practical ramifications of placing the record of survey statements on the back sheet. In fact I actually just found a parcel map with all of the statements on sheet 2 and believe it or not, I was able to understand the intent of the document

CBarrett wrote: Wed Aug 31, 2022 1:01 pm If you are having a problem with lack of qualified staff checking maps, there are many other much more productive ways to tackle that (very real) problem, rather than creating mountains out of molehills.

Yes I agree. This is entire post is certainly a molehill.

You are also correct that the recorders are occasionally nuttier than the map reviewers. This potential for being unable to get the survey filed is the only valid argument that has come out of this entire discussion

David Kendall wrote: Wed Aug 31, 2022 9:12 am ...
Understanding that public agencies propagate inefficiency by nature, I believe it is our duty as citizens and patrons to counteract that trend when we have an opportunity.
...

Having spent most of my career working for or with public agencies (federal, state, county, city and special districts) - as an employee and as a consultant - I have not experienced "public agencies propagate inefficiency by nature". The public servant has a different level of accountability that requires documentation and maintaining standards. It is not less efficient, it is accountable and is usually tied to a higher level of competence. Before you crack wise, my personal competence is largely attributed to that fact I was trained in agencies or by people that came from agencies and started a business.

I believe there are government self-licking ice cream cones (look it up), I read the paper, I have not experienced it in the land surveying specifically. When I worked for the Orange County Surveyor, with 165 people at that time, I would hold that particular group against any 165 person private firm in both efficiency and competence. Any private business, except, maybe Amazon or UPS, that has 100, 1,000 or 10,000 employees has the same number of slackers per capita. Government simply has a harder time purging them.

Reframed, most every agency requires a license or minimally, an LSIT to be a party chief. How many private firms place basic minimal competency demands, through testing, on their employees? What, self certified party chiefs? Pleassssse. What firm would permit someone to stand around a truck for 5, 10, 15 years and cannot be bothered with passing a 4 hour LSIT exam? How is it efficient to have "field only" staff that is incapable of the most rudimentary skills like post processing, StarNet, Excel, Word or the ability to compose a professional email?

There cannot be a more inefficient business model than hiring people to perform land surveying that "perform non-mental work", "do not exercise independent thought or judgement" and can only function when directed by an engineer or surveyor, "are not professionals, subprofessionals or semi-professionals" - this is precisely how Operating Engineers describes their surveying members in writing.

I was content to leave this topic alone Mr. Kendall, but you continue to spew nonsense. Understand that in any given year a map checker will technically review - usually performing the research and checking the boundary - than you will make in your entire career. I understand they are not all created equal and some agencies will file anything on a 18x26 or allow a surveyor to resolve a boundary from any two monuments in the county, but they are in the minority in my experience. From Ventura County south to San Diego and in Humboldt there are high standards that are generally consistent. There is sure to be others, I am not familiar with every county.

Lastly, Mr. Kendall, to your point and credit, I suppose standardless and/or incompetent donkey surveying is probably efficient as hell. [Read it again, I am not saying you have no standards or are incompetent. General speculation and comment on the industry as a whole].

DWoolley

Jim Frame, I was done with the thread, but having jumped back in, your points are very well articulated and I enjoyed reading your professional posts.

I understand they are not all created equal and some agencies will file anything on a 18x26 or allow a surveyor to resolve a boundary from any two monuments

In my experience, the biggest map-checking problems don't lie with the counties, but rather with the small cities -- the ones that are large enough to have a public works department, but not large enough to have staff with boundary surveying expertise. This was a big problem back when most of these DPWs were run by a grandfathered CE, but it persists today in the practice of hiring an LS consultant to check and sign maps. If that consultant doesn't know much about boundary surveying, you can end up with subdivisions that have dismally poor boundary solutions. And the consultant selection process sometimes comes down to a low-price affair, whether by design ("all the candidates are licensed, therefore we can dispense with QBS") or as a result of offering payment that a well-qualified LS wouldn't consider.

Jim Frame wrote: Wed Aug 31, 2022 11:04 am

the pigheaded map reviewer arguing with the pigheaded surveyor

I prefer to be described as hardheaded rather than pigheaded. (I suspect that pigs prefer that I be described that way as well.)

If you have butchered/raised pigs you know that those those two terms are one and same :) Oddly enough, both in the metaphorical pigheaded = strong willed aspect and in hard headed skull strength/hardness.

Like most of our discussions here, it seems most are in agreement, just have a local glossary.

Mikey Mueller, PLS
Sonoma County