Activity Feed › Discussion Forums › Strictly Surveying › Is this allowed?
-
Is this allowed?
Posted by not-my-real-name on October 16, 2024 at 7:39 amI have been struggling with several survey maps in an area where every surveyor made up a highway layout in a different way. In the process of filtering out the layouts that do not fit current pavement, survey marks and occupation I came across one map from November of 2020 with the following note:
“This Plan [sic] prepared from available plans and deeds of record and does not represent an instrument survey by this Surveyor.” (Yet this non-survey shows monuments and lots).
I do not beleive this is allowable practice in our jurisdiction to show a subdivision of land. I seriously doubt this type of work allowed anywhere.
BStrand replied 12 hours, 35 minutes ago 8 Members · 16 Replies -
16 Replies
-
This survey isn’t a survey. Classic!
Is it stamped and signed? Maybe some rando took a site plan and recorded it without telling the guy.
-
It is stamped and signed.
Historic Boundaries and Conservation Efforts -
“This is not the survey you are looking for.”
-Obi-Wan Kenobi
-
A Tax Map is a compilation of available records. That’s not illegal. Is a licensed surveyor precluded form producing such a map by virtue of his licensure? I think not. As long as they make it plain that the map is a compilation of records and not an original work, I think that it is OK.
-
It is stamped and signed.
I see.
I’ve prepared descriptions from record data only and in those cases I include a note saying as much, but I think this is the first I’ve heard of someone preparing a survey from record data and then recording it. Weird.
-
Could a surveyor create a map and record showing the results of their research?
Isn’t that the question?
As long as they explained what, how, etc I do not see any issue with that.
-All thoughts my own, except my typos and when I am wrong. -
I think if I were to do this I probably wouldn’t show any monument symbols on it though.
-
This map shows lots being created without the benefit of a survey, and monuments, hopefully only the monuments that were from the previous surveys that were made into a mosaic here.
Historic Boundaries and Conservation Efforts -
In 2018 the Board made an advisory ruling about “compiled” plans. They don’t have an archive of these rulings, as far as I can tell. Just the current ones are available to view. I don’t think it was favorable though.
Historic Boundaries and Conservation Efforts -
I have prepared composite plats showing record measurements and the most recent monuments of record, but you’ll never mistake it for a survey. Washington State allows record monuments on maps, but I won’t do it on a filed map.
-
thebionicman: Washington State allows record monuments on maps, but I won’t do it on a filed map.
bstrand: I think if I were to do this I probably wouldn’t show any monument symbols on it though.
I opened a random survey recorded this past month. It is pretty common to show mons even though they are calculated.
I assume the method used to calculate the mon that is shown as existing, but was not visited, is explained in the notes, and is on one of the referenced surveys. This is very common around here (Seattle metro area). Showing a monument according to the record location on a survey or plat is pretty much standard practice for a lot of surveyors. Even the ones that appear to not be doing this are showing a location based on their visiting it 30 years ago.
-All thoughts my own, except my typos and when I am wrong. -
This map shows lots being created without the benefit of a survey, and monuments, hopefully only the monuments that were from the previous surveys that were made into a mosaic here.
That sounds like what we call a “paper short plat” around here. Not allowed at this point, but it wasn’t the board that ended the practice, it was the municipalities.
-All thoughts my own, except my typos and when I am wrong. -
It is pretty common to show mons even though they are calculated.
That seems more confusing than helpful to me and I’m learning about how you guys do the monument notes/table which I’m sure helps, but it still seems a little strange to me to show a monument that you didn’t actually visit.
I assume the method used to calculate the mon that is shown as existing, but was not visited, is explained in the notes, and is on one of the referenced surveys.
Definitely different than Idaho where we’d probably just show undimensioned, unmonumented linework since we didn’t actually retrace any of it.
-
The Advisory Ruling actually dates back to 2000. 250 Code of Massachusetts Regulations was revised/updated in 2013 but the advisory is still applicable, I believe.
-
Is this allowed? It depends on the jurisdiction. What type of map is it? A recorded survey, a map from the transportation department or other municipality?
I’ve prepared many maps over the years based solely on available record information but never once passed it off as a survey, because it’s not. These are usually more of a fact finding exercise for big picture planning and infrastructure. (Yes, we pull in available GIS utility data) As long as the map clearly states its sources and intended use, I don’t see any issues with this. Whatever it is identified as it certainly doesn’t qualify as a survey in any area i work in.
Someone mentioned putting calculated-not-visited notes on surveys. While somehow still allowed in WA, this practice is not allowed in ID. I personally think this is worse than original question in this thread. If you’re basing a survey off of a calculated monument it means you have not visited it and therefore can’t say with any certainty that it exists or is in the correct location. Hence the reason why ID banned this practice. If you’re using it in your survey you need to visit it and tie it.
- This reply was modified 12 hours, 49 minutes ago by WA-ID Surveyor.
-
If you’re basing a survey off of a calculated monument it means you have not visited it and therefore can’t say with any certainty that it exists or is in the correct location.
I was under the impression they’re sticking these record mons on record linework that is only there for reference and that the note would explain that this line or area wasn’t actually surveyed, but maybe that assumption is wrong? I think it’s dangerously confusing either way.
As far as stitching together various surveys or plats I don’t see a problem with that, but I guess I don’t see the point of recording it either. I don’t think it would meet the requirements of recordation, so wouldn’t the public be better served by just sending that drawing to your client and letting them use it to do whatever it is they need to do?
Log in to reply.