Man…

[dave-lindell]

I, too, check plats and subdivision maps for three cities.

I’m not bashful about bleeding all over the paper to correct what are obvious errors.

Things I can’t figure out I ask about, like “Why did you do this?” There’s always more than one way to do something so I give them the benefit of the doubt. They were in the field, not me. I usually accept all given measurements because they are licensed surveyors and should know how.

I’ve had maps that went through as many as seven checks before the surveyor/engineer got it right. I know when someone is trying and when they want me to finish their map for them. The latter get no sympathy from me.

I had one surveyor accuse me of excessive use of my authority. Hey, I didn’t make the half-of-a-foot error!

I just finished checking a lot line adjustment. I can’t believe what some people let out of their office: an extraneous course in one description and a missing course in another. I hope this guy appreciates someone looking over his crap so he doesn’t look so bad.

[Norman_Oklahoma]

Two reviewing pens. One blue, one red. Mark the absolutely must resolve things in red. Mark the suggestions for improvement in blue.

[holy-cow]

Reviewing plats is quite different from preparing our own plats. Some reviewers have the egotistical perspective that any plat that does not match their view of perfection MUST be changed.

An attempt should be made to be consistent in the review comments such that the plats tend to address the basic elements of proper procedure and clear descriptions. Try not to embarrass the fellow surveyors, but, hold the line on vital issues.

One example from this week. A survey was made to turn an aliquot part of a PLSS section into two tracts. In such situations, it is imperative to confirm within the description that the boundary lines being described are, in fact, following the boundaries of the ailquot part, except for the line(s) separating the aliquot part into mulitple tracts.

In this case, the north half of the northeast quarter had about 14 acres on the east end being one tract and the remainder of the north half of the northeast quarter being another tract. The description for the 14 acre tract began at the northeast corner of the section (OK, so far), then a bearing and distance, followed by three more bearings and distances to return to the POB. The first call should have included: along the east section line to the southeast corner of said north half of the northeast quarter. Similarly, the second call should have included; along the south line of said north half of the northeast quarter. Those boundary lines should have also been labeled as such on the drawing. Without tying the bearing/distance to section line or some other aliquot part line, it is impossible to know with certainty that they are specifically tied to the aliquot boundaries or merely some random lines that might still be in the same section.

This happens to be a case of a somewhat inexperienced field surveyor is working with a newly-hired draftsman. Both are not experienced in writing boundary descriptions. Typically, I would not be aware of the circumstances within the firm submitting the plat for review.

Several years ago, I had occasion to find fault with some work submitted by a licensed land surveyor who had served as President of the State Society and had previously served on the State Board of Licensure for land surveyors and similar fields. Errors are errors, no matter who is responsible for them.

In recent years, a change in the Minimum Standards was pushed through requiring the name, license number and date of the preparation of any new description. Certain reviewers dictated that this insertion must be made in the middle of the description as opposed to preceding or following the body of the description. That does not appear in the Standards. The location was a PREFERENCE of the reviewer. The argument was that it would be easier for others to delete the reference to the specific licensed land surveyor preparing the description if at the opening or closing. Cut and paste is great. But, so is the ability to delete anything someone desires to delete, no matter where the deletion occurs.

[holy-cow]

Very early in my reviewing career I encountered a case of where I felt the surveyor had not provided a proper procedure to the client. This may have been a rush job. It was clear that no search had been made for the four exterior quarter corners of a common PLSS section once the four primary corners had been found in place. There were old records indicating the placement of monuments by various surveyors over the century and more since the placement of the Government Survey monuments. I challenged the surveyor and asked why he chose to ignore proper procedure of evaluatiing all evidence. I received an eight-page letter that was still warm to the touch after traveling via USPS for a few days. The Government surveys are The Gospel, I learned, and are always perfect, such that midpoints on line between section corners are to be used for quarter corners and lines crossing from said quarter corners produce the TRUE center of the section, in the general case. One of us needed some retraining in proper procedure.

I was basically instructed that reviewers hold no authority over procedure. Reviewers should only look for significant spelling errors, mathematical errors, etc. Prepare yourself for defending your judgement against fierce attack.