I think I posted about this on the other site and I think the thread has since been lost, so… starting a discussion once more.
I’ve had some projects recently where the client either split or consolidated parcels and also created some easements. We’re required to monument corners that are unmonumented, as well as easements in certain circumstances, and monumenting things triggers the recording of a survey SO… these new easements are either going to show up on the survey as having an instrument number (from being recorded before the survey) or as being proposed (if recorded after the survey).
I’m not a fan of labeling things proposed on my survey, especially if there are also pins in the ground, because I think it has reasonable potential to confuse the public. So what I’ve been trying to do is make the client record the easement first so I can show it with confidence on my survey. So far I seem to get weird pushback (from coworkers, not client) on this even though nobody can supply me with a reason things shouldn’t be done this way. I mean literally the biggest and really the only argument I get is “Well, that isn’t how we’ve done it in the past!”.
I understand there is something to be said about local convention, but I don’t know widely shared this opposing sentiment even is. For all I know it’s just my coworkers who think this way.
Anyway, I plan to ask other surveyors this question at the annual conference and maybe at a society meeting too, but in the meantime I’m curious to hear what the guys here think.
Log in to reply.