GIS is not the problem. AICP is the problem. Anyone heard of that?
I remember Steve and Dan. Steve was worried about the shape files then. By the new law, our surveys tied to grid would have to come from 15 miles away. Nobody who worked on this legislation understands the nature of error. To them error is just wrong. To a surveyor, error tells a story and is a part of nature. We control error to the best of our ability, but they seem to live in a fantasy land.
GIS has never been for land boundaries. It is a powerful amazing tool for everything but boundaries. I have studied GIS/LIS since I began my surveying career in the '90s. How long has it been since anyone heard the term LIS? These were discrete practices from the beginning.
The GIS community is like pro level Call of Duty players who feel that they are ready to storm the beaches at Normandy. They have no idea what they are getting into. Surveyors have always played with live ammo, so to say. I know that getting through 4 years of college is hard. How about 20 years of the kind of work that would make them sissy in their pants. I am not mad at these people, although their smug attitudes generally make me want to vomit. I fear for those who jump at the opportunity to fall on their faces. Breaking the United States Public Land System is a pretty big deal, and that is the only thing that they can do.
I own my own full seat of Terramodel which can read and write shape files. I'm not worried about having to buy grossly overpriced ESRI products, I am worried about coming up with $30,000 dollars to provide my clients with a service that they do not need. Want to bitch about a $500 5 acre survey like the Honda ATV dealer berated me over saying that surveyors are worthless, try a $5000.00 5 acre survey. I don't know about you, but I may consider surveying for $300.00/hour just to cover my liability. Other than that, let the scumbags reign. Courts will chew them up. I have better things to do.
AICP?
The American Institute of Certified Planners is the American Planning Association's professional institute and the recognized leader in certifying professional planners and promoting ethical planning, professional development, planning education, and standards of practice.
Scott,
From reading your post from yesterday, I thought you were venting about the recipient moving of the Land Survey Division under the Arkansas Geographic Information Office. I counted quite a few references to GIS, but did not see any for AICP.
CFM = CERTIFIED Floodplain Managers are not LICENSED by the State. This CERTIFICATION is sponsored by ASSOCIATION of State Floodplain Managers.
GISP = CERTIFICATION as a GIS Professional and are not LICENSED by the State. This CERTIFICATION is sponsored by the GIS Certification INSTITUTE.
AICP = the American INSTITUTE of Certified Planners. The AICP hands out CERTIFICATION Certificates and are not LICENSED by the State. This CERTIFICATION is sponsored by the American Planning ASSOCIATION.
Certified professionals don’t worry me either.
DDSM:beer:
J. Scott Graber, post: 324294, member: 10104 wrote: By the new law, our surveys tied to grid would have to come from 15 miles away. Nobody who worked on this legislation understands the nature of error.
What law are you talking about?
On copyright, all of their arguments failed to take into account the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998. Before that, copyright was based on first sale. After that copyright was vested in the creator upon creation. Many rights are given to the holders of copyright, with making copies being only one of them. Changing form is another one. Turning our surveys into shape files is a right that I was trying to keep. Making PDF's and disseminating them is a right that we hold. One of the false assumptions was that our clients held the copyright to the plat. Not in this millennium. As independent contractors, it would take a written agreement for the copyright to fall to the client. The state surveyor wrote a letter effectively stripping us of our rights, and we all cowered. These rights are provided us by the federal government. Property may not be taken without due process. In filing plats, we waive our right to create copies. But what about the other rights of copyright holders? Check out the following page:
If anyone has a copy of the letter, it may be fun to see what these lawyers think about it.
As the Secretary of agriculture stated, Arkansas is the first state in the country to offer survey plats online to the world over the internet. Why is Arkansas the first? Because ALL of the other states knew better.
corey f, post: 324300, member: 287 wrote: What law are you talking about?
I live in Northwest Arkansas where first and second order monuments hardly exist. Grid coordinates must be tied to this type of monument. Even Corps monuments can't pass muster because they are in NAD 27.
I am dropping the AICP thing. Figure this out for yourselves.
corey f, post: 324300, member: 287 wrote: What law are you talking about?
http://web.lexisnexis.com/research/xlink?app=00075&view=full&interface=1&docinfo=off&searchtype=get&search=A.C.A.+%A7+15-21-307&apos ;">A.C.A. § 15-21-307
I understand you may be lacking first and second order monuments but what law says have to tie into them for a boundary survey? Some of the local planning department require you show state plane coordinates on new subdivision plats but that's been going on for awhile.
J. Scott Graber, post: 324307, member: 10104 wrote: http://web.lexisnexis.com/research/xlink?app=00075&view=full&interface=1&docinfo=off&searchtype=get&search=A.C.A.+%A7+15-21-307&apos ;">A.C.A. § 15-21-307
15-21-307. Proximity to stations required for recording.
No coordinates based on the Arkansas Coordinate System 1983 purporting to define the position of a point on a land boundary shall be presented to be recorded in any public land records or deed records unless such point is within fifteen (15) miles of a triangulation or traverse station established in conformity with the standards prescribed in § 15-21-306. However, the fifteen-mile limitation may be modified by a duly authorized state agency to meet local conditions.
J. Scott Graber, post: 324304, member: 10104 wrote: I am dropping the AICP thing. Figure this out for yourselves.
Scott,
You ARE talking about The American Institute of Certified Planners??
https://www.planning.org/aicp/
DDSM
This is mainly brought up to compound the fear of shape files that Steve exhibits. Maybe we don't have to tie our survey to these monuments, maybe we do. Geo referenced shape files will require this as we will need to defend ourselves when things don't fit like GIS practitioners expect them to. There are many other aspects of this completely re-written Arkansas code that allow for coordinates to be used for the description of property. What about "thence along a fence", or riparian boundaries defined by meander lines that by nature change over time? It could be argued that several interpretations of a curved fence are possible with the meaning being the same. They will simply see gores and overlaps.
J. Scott Graber, post: 324288, member: 10104 wrote: GIS is not the problem. AICP is the problem. Anyone heard of that?
Would you be referring to "https://www.planning.org/apaataglance/mission.htm&apos ;">The American Planning Association and https://www.planning.org/apaataglance/leadership/aicpcommission.htm&apos ;">American Institute of Certified Planners" and their mission statement.
[INDENT]
The American Planning Association provides leadership in the development of vital communities by advocating excellence in planning, promoting education and citizen empowerment, and providing the tools and support necessary to meet the challenges of growth and change.[/INDENT]
I believe the problem is larger than one organization. In 2001, when I prepared my paper mentioned above, release of two documents were recent events The first was "http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2002/of02-370/joffe.html&apos ;">Surveyors and GIS Professionals Reach Accord " (currently on the USGS web site) authored by Bruce A. Joffe, AICP published in Surveying and Land Information Systems, Vol. 61, No. 1, 2001, pp.35-36.. Mr. Joffe was a representative of the GIS community, active in Urban and Regional Information System Association (URISA), and had previously stated that recent changes to the NCEES Model Law amounted to "Surveyors' Full Employment Act" and attempt to control the GIS profession. Mr. Joffe's presentation "http://asprs.org/a/news/ncees/Joffe_URISA_Atlanta_10-15-03_short.pdf&apos ;">State Regulation of GIS (pdf)" to URSIA in 2003 provides a view of the issue from his perspective.
The second document "http://www.asprs.org/a/news/ncees/GIS_LIS_report_final.pdf&apos ;">GIS/LIS Addendum to the Report of the Task Force on the NCEES Model Law for Surveying" was the official document approved by the following seven organizations:
- American Congress on Surveying and Mapping (ACSM)
- American Society of Civil Engineers - Geomatics Division (ASCE)
- American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing (ASPRS)
- Management Association for Private Photogrammetric Surveyors (MAPPS)
- National Society of Professional Surveyors (NSPS)
- National States Geographic Information Council (NSGIC)
- Urban and Regional Information System Association (URISA)
While there is a relationship between, and overlap of membership in, the American Planning Association, NSGIC and URISA the problem defined in the official report was who should be in charge of GIS. Some view GIS as a profession rather than a tool and believe only properly trained GIS professionals should be in control. Also there was recognition that many technicians then beginning to use GIS had no professional level supervision. As many of you have stated this continues to be the case.
I have been in the middle of this since about 1994. I tried to educate Ohio surveyors and the Ohio GIS community on the laws controlling county government in Ohio. Unfortunately many in government do not believe those on the outside know anything about Ohio laws.
Put this on the ground: A part of Section 26, Township 15 North, Range 27 West of the Fifth Principal.... Less and except parcel numbers 100-00045-001, 11-00032-002, ... followed by 20 other parcel numbers.
Put this on the ground in 20 years. These are the type of legal descriptions that AICP practitioners HAVE WRITTEN IN ARKANSAS. See my concern?
J. Scott Graber, post: 324316, member: 10104 wrote: Put this on the ground: A part of Section 26, Township 15 North, Range 27 West of the Fifth Principal.... Less and except parcel numbers 100-00045-001, 11-00032-002, ... followed by 20 other parcel numbers.
Put this on the ground in 20 years. These are the type of legal descriptions that AICP practitioners HAVE WRITTEN IN ARKANSAS. See my concern?
Payton v. Blake, 210 SW 3d 74 - Ark: Supreme Court 2005
The question, then, for this court to resolve is whether a parcel number is a comparable description to a Lot-and-Block description in a deed which necessarily refers to a plat of the property that has been recorded. Testimony at trial by Connie Beyerle, an abstractor for the Crawford County Assessor's office, revealed that the legal description in Payton's tax deed was not complete by itself, but she went on to say that her office identifies what piece of property Payton bought by the parcel number. She gave the circuit court her understanding of what a parcel number is:
[INDENT]“That parcel number is basically like a social security number of that piece of property. Uh . . . you pull those cards, we have records, we have the old cards that we keep files on and we also have everything in computer, and on those cards and in our computer we have all the deed references, and anybody that is buying State land or is doing research whether it's State land or just buying it from an individual, when they come in and do research, we give them the book and page and they can go to the Circuit Clerk's office and pull the deeds and get the full legal description.”[/INDENT]
We conclude that the legal description in the Payton deed is not complete. Even considering Ms. Beyerle's testimony of what can be done to obtain the description, it involves several steps. One must first examine the cards in her office, find the book and page number, go to the deed records, and then ascertain the actual description from that book and page number. The property description found presumably would be the metes-and-bounds description in the Mayo deed to the Rices. This procedure fails the test of an accurate, complete, and specific legal description. Furthermore, we do not view a reference to a parcel number in a tax deed as remotely comparable to a Lot-and-Block description in a deed which necessarily brings into play a recorded subdivision plat.
Hence, it appears that the parcel number system is used by assessors and collectors to reference land for tax purposes. Yet, neither this court nor the General Assembly has sanctioned the use of parcel numbers as a substitute for valid legal descriptions, while Lots-and-Blocks descriptions in subdivision plats are a recognized means of describing real property.
DDSM
Thanks Dan. Doesn't a city annexation require a an accurate, complete, and specific description? So what happens now? It seems to me that the General Assembly HAS sanctioned the use of parcel numbers as a means of describing real property by removing all restrictions on the use of digital cadastre. Is this law change retroactive? So the land in question refers to a piece of land in two forties. The claimed parcel number is the same description as the unclaimed parcel number. Customer wants the line marked as to not build within the city. City engineer (PE, PS) suggested "Projecting out a road" to ascertain the city boundary. I'm not sure what survey principles he was employing when he suggested that.
If an accurate, complete, and specific description was not supplied during the annexation process, did the annexation even happen?
I have done tract splits that caused new parcel numbers to be created. This is an example of what I have noticed about this process. Original tract would be something like: 100-847564-001. after the split, one tract would retain the original number, and the other tract would get a number like 100-847564-002. So if this original number was used in or as a legal description before the split, it would have a completely different meaning after the split. Like I said, a dynamic system. The deed to my house is in my name. The deed to my house still exists in someone else's name, and if I sell my house, all deeds will still exist. This is what the statute of frauds intended. A system that stands forever. Static.
J. Scott Graber, post: 324452, member: 10104 wrote: Thanks Dan. Doesn't a city annexation require a an accurate, complete, and specific description? So what happens now?
If an accurate, complete, and specific description was not supplied during the annexation process, did the annexation even happen?
Title 14 Local Government
Subtitle 3. Municipal Government
Chapter 38 Incorporation And Organization Of Municipalities
A.C.A. § 14-38-104 (2015)
14-38-104. Order of incorporation -- Transcript.
(a) The county court shall make out and endorse on the petition an order to the effect that the city or incorporated town as named and described in the petition may be organized if the court shall be satisfied after hearing the petition that:
(1) The greater of either two hundred (200) or a majority of the qualified voters residing within the described territory have signed the petition;
(2) The limits have been accurately described and an accurate map or plat of the limits made and filed;
(3) The name proposed for the city or incorporated town is proper and sufficient to distinguish it from others of like kind in the state; and
(4) Moreover, that it shall be deemed right and proper in the judgment and discretion of the court that the petition shall be granted.
(b) (1) The order shall be signed and delivered by the court, together with the petition and the map or plat, to the recorder of the county, whose duty it shall be to record it as soon as possible in the proper book or records and to file and preserve in his or her office the original papers, having certified thereon that it has been properly recorded.
(2) It shall also be the duty of the recorder to make out and certify, under his or her official seal, two (2) transcripts of the record. The recorder shall forward one (1) copy to the Secretary of State and deliver one (1) copy to the agent of the petitioners, with a certificate thereon that a similar transcript has been forwarded to the Secretary of State as provided by this section.
HISTORY: Acts 1875, No. 1, § 37, p. 1; C. & M. Dig., § 7666; Pope's Dig., § 9788; A.S.A. 1947, § 19-103; Acts 1995, No. 299, § 1; 2001, No. 1233, § 3.
A.C.A. § 14-38-107 (2015)
14-38-107. Hearing on complaint -- Annulment.
(a) It shall be the duty of the court or judge to hear the complaint in a summary manner, receiving answers, affidavits, and proofs, as may be deemed pertinent.
(b) If it shall appear to the satisfaction of the court or judge that the proposed city or incorporated town does not contain the requisite number of inhabitants, that a majority of them have not signed the original petition, or that the limits of the proposed city or incorporated town are unreasonably large or small or are not properly and sufficiently described, then the court or judge shall order the record of the incorporated town to be annulled.
(c) (1) It shall be the duty of the county recorder to endorse on the record the order so made and to certify and transmit to the Secretary of State a copy of the order.
(2) Thereupon, the record shall be of no effect, but the proceeding shall in no manner bar a subsequent petition to the county court, on the same subject, by complying with the provisions of this chapter.
HISTORY: Acts 1875, No. 1, § 39, p. 1; C. & M. Dig., § 7669; Pope's Dig., § 9791; A.S.A. 1947, § 19-106.
Hope this helps,
DDSM:beer:
J. Scott Graber, post: 324452, member: 10104 wrote: It seems to me that the General Assembly HAS sanctioned the use of parcel numbers as a means of describing real property by removing all restrictions on the use of digital cadastre. Is this law change retroactive?
Scott,
Where do you find in Act 8 of the 90th General Assembly, First Extraordinary Session, 2015 (The one moving the Survey Division under the AGIO) that restrictions of use of the digital cadastre are removed???
Title 15 Natural Resources and Economic Development
Subtitle 2. Land And Water Resources Generally
Chapter 21 Land
Subchapter 5 Arkansas State Land Information Board
A.C.A. § 15-21-504 (2015)
15-21-504. Duties, responsibilities, and authority.
(a) The Arkansas Geographic Information Systems Board shall be empowered to:
(1) Provide a strategy for the continuing development of the Arkansas Spatial Data Infrastructure;
(2) Develop standard metadata reports through the Arkansas Geographic Information Office; and
(3) Direct available funds to mapping and land records modernization projects at various levels of government.
(b) The board shall:
(1) Undertake a continuing study of the land information needs of federal, state, county, and local agencies and private entities in the state;
(2) Review current and projected technology, standards, and collection methods and all statutes pertaining thereto;
(3) Develop strategies and guidelines for spatial data systems and land records modernization; and
(4) Pursue activities that result in coordinated cost-effective programs for spatial data development and distribution.
(c) The board shall coordinate completion and maintenance of shareable statewide framework data, applications of geographic information system technologies, spatial project methodologies, and methods of funding.
(d) (1) The board will develop and implement a program to further the process of land records modernization.
(2) (A) The board, using the technical support provided by the office, shall coordinate the development and maintenance of a statewide digital cadastre system.
(B) The digital cadastre manages and provides access to cadastral information. Digital cadastre does not represent legal property boundary descriptions, nor is it suitable for boundary determination of the individual parcels included in the cadastre.
HISTORY: Acts 1995, No. 1259, § 4; 1997, No. 914, § 29; 2001, No. 1250, § 4; 2009, No. 244, § 1; 2011, No. 559, § 1.
Curious minds and all that...
DDSM:beer:
Might I suggest that your survey be billed out as 2 line items.
Line item 1 boundary Survey. $995.00 or what ever you would normally bill
Charge to comply with GIS. $12,545.79 or what ever you need to charge to recoup your costs and a fair profit.
The above amounts are for discussion purposes only and are not suggested prices.
The requirement to comply with GIS will go away in a hurry if all surveyors did that so make line item 1 fair for both parties
Steve Corley, post: 324554, member: 23 wrote: Might I suggest that your survey be billed out as 2 line items.
Line item 1 boundary Survey. $995.00 or what ever you would normally bill
Charge to comply with GIS. $12,545.79 or what ever you need to charge to recoup your costs and a fair profit.The above amounts are for discussion purposes only and are not suggested prices.
The requirement to comply with GIS will go away in a hurry if all surveyors did that so make line item 1 fair for both parties
Steve,
I'm afraid that this will backfire. Mr. GIS man will market the 'compliance' portion to the land owner (say $200 to cogo a shape file)...and broker the survey out to another surveyor for another $200. Land owner is happy with having a REAL Professional only charge them $400 when the you, the greedy Surveyor, wanted $13,000.
Just keepin' the discussion alive...
DDSM:whistle::beer: