Activity Feed › Discussion Forums › Strictly Surveying › Record Plat review and comments requested
Record Plat review and comments requested
bushaxe replied 2 years, 1 month ago 18 Members · 39 Replies
A sound reason for using recover. I’ll probably adopt the practice.
Thanks guys for responding.
This is how I use the terms recovered and found.
Recovered is a monument of record.
Found is a monument not of record.
That’s just me.
A lot depends on if the ROS is being prepared for the State as part of some improvement on State lands. They get rather persnickity about a bunch of things. One item that I try and get on to any ROS aside from the Basis of Bearings is a Basis of Coordinates. I will typically put the OPUS lat/long and State Plane values on my control point with a tie to the boundary along with the convergence and scale factor. Where this comes in really handy is for the GIS people to get it into their system accurately or another surveyor to be able to calc real world coordinates that would put actually put them on the corners. Most platting authorities don’t give ROS plats a second glance as far as reviews go. Having ties to controlling monuments that make clear how the boundaries were arrived at as well as a cap depiction details is also a big plus in my book. Just me .02′
Carry on!
Willy- Posted by: @williwaw
A lot depends on if the ROS is being prepared for the State as part of some improvement on State lands. They get rather persnickity about a bunch of things. One item that I try and get on to any ROS aside from the Basis of Bearings is a Basis of Coordinates. I will typically put the OPUS lat/long and State Plane values on my control point with a tie to the boundary along with the convergence and scale factor. Where this comes in really handy is for the GIS people to get it into their system accurately or another surveyor to be able to calc real world coordinates that would put actually put them on the corners. Most platting authorities don’t give ROS plats a second glance as far as reviews go. Having ties to controlling monuments that make clear how the boundaries were arrived at as well as a cap depiction details is also a big plus in my book. Just me .02′
Carry on!
I do miss the thoroughness of AK DOT and DNR/ASLS plats…as tedious as cap diagrams are to produce, they are incredibly helpful.
In WA, licensees generally avoid publishing coordinates at all costs. As far as I can tell it’s due to the statutory requirement to show a “control scheme through which coordinates were determined from known coordinates”. I never really found it much of a burden, but maybe I’m the odd one out.
“…people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think.” -Neil Postman Thank you. I’m somewhat surprised at the wide variation of information shown even in the same zip code.
- Posted by: @rover83
In WA, licensees generally avoid publishing coordinates at all costs.
Is it that they see publishing coordinates as a liability? In many cases I find private surveyors around here really go out of their way to try and keep their survey data proprietary under assumption that they don’t want to give any competitive edge away. I suppose I view coordinates as quite literally polar opposite of bearings and distances, where one is just the flip of the other. In the case of a ROS, I’m not creating anything but only documenting an existing entity that may well not conform well to the original record boundary to begin with. Over the years I can’t even begin to tell how much I’ve benefited from our AKDOT publishing their record coordinates on their ROW ROS surveys. Without them it would be very difficult to distinguish between their recovered monuments and where they claim their ROW limits. Rarely do they match exactly if the corner in question is not one their own and even then. Heaven forbid we should make it clear to someone following, exactly what we did.
Willy I’m in the process of doing a remote ASLS. The detailed Survey Instructions leave no doubt regarding DNR’s requirements for final plat approval. Kind of nice for a PLSS neophyte.
It’s like having someone hold your hand as you go through the process.
A common mistake, but it’s not the date of the patent that matters its the date of entry.
yes I was thinking that while typing, but went ahead with patent date
Locally, we have most roads defined specifically by an application process by concerned landowners to request the county commission to approve building a road along a specified course and of a specified width of right-of-way. For those roads without proof of intended width, we search out the year of approval and then apply what the State deemed to be the legal road width on that date. Very early roads were 66 feet. That number varied down and up of the time frame of most of our county roads. We have too many roads that were specified as only 40 feet in total width. That is inadequate for the ditches required along with a two lane gravel road.
In Alaska the building and maintenance of a road is very independent from the existence and establishment of a public ROW easement. Alaska is not flat and has many bodies of water, yet the section line easements exist in a grid. Often the goverments that have the authority to accept a ROW offer on behalf of the public don’t have the authority to build or maintain roads.
Wandering a little further…The concepts of unaccepted offers of public easements and vacation by abandonment don’t really exist in Alaska
I would expect nothing less from a place that has only been a State since I was six years old. I remember the little ceremony that took place at my school when they took down the 48-star flag and replaced it with the 50-star one. All these years and no other school kid in the U.S. has witnessed such a flag replacement.
@jim-in-az
Adding is difficult?
@jim-in-az
“When conditions warrant setting a reference or witness monument on an offset, the location shall be selected so the
reference monument lies on a line of the survey or on the prolongation of such line. Reference or witness monuments shall not be offset in fractional feet or less than two feet from the true corner unless a physical obstruction affects their location.”A fellow surveyor reported to me that he had a survey plat returned from that County’s official reviewer, with one of the comments complaining about the failure to follow the above requirement. That reviewer has been involved in “improving” the minimum standards for more than two decades.
Even though I am not in a PLSS state, I have really enjoyed the questions, answers, and comments in this thread. You guys are awesome.
Log in to reply.