How do you check a rebuilt plat someone hands you?

Boundaries are made up of elements in the record and conditions on the ground. Each needs to be reviewed to come to the correct conclusion. If those aren't fully available it's not possible to review a plat.

Maybe I'm not understanding the question, but that's how I evaluate a plat. The record, the field data, the basic facts such as location (T&R, Section, Block, Lots, owners names, easements, roads, ect), check all those, move on to the geometry, the regulatory requirements, the description. It's often best to create a checklist of items to include or look out for. Then you can look at the surface look of the drawing, the legend, always use a scale to check the scale, be sure the bearing basis statement is correct along with county/city blocks, notary, signature blocks, dedications. Not sure what is meant by "rebuild". 

@mightymoe redraw not rebuild is maybe the right word here. I don't mean reviewing the boundary determination itself - need full record and ground for that. I mean the narrower case - as you're working on the boundary, someone takes an existing recorded plat and redraws the linework in CAD from it, and hands you the CAD file. Essentially whenever it's useful to have the geometry in CAD of a record plat. For that, how would you verify the geometry? Sounds like overlaying it on the PDF, eyeballing the drift. Then is it running call by call, or looking at misclosures, whether the outer bounds fit to everything that's within etc.? When you mention checklists, do you have any codified or is this different each time based on the project and what's there?

There is a routine in Acad called mapcheck, it will do most of the review of the boundary for you once it's in Cad. 

One CAD function that may be helpful is BOUNDARY. Use it to create a fully closed figure of each lot on a unique layer. Dimension those figures by selecting the lines (not the endpoints of the lines). Compare the dimensions to the plat that you have been presented, and to the record plat.

Why not run and print a traverse closure then check some bearings and distances on the printout against a copy of the original plat that was rebuilt? 

Edit: I was too slow. Ya'all beat me to the reply.

@vance-grissom my first question is who is the "someone" that is creating the CAD file and handing it to you and where did the original come from?  Are you checking and signing off on somebody else's work or does this originate under your supervision?

@mightymoe perfect thank you will look into this

@norman-oklahoma yep this is what I was looking for (also the mapcheck in autocad). So are you looking at every bearing and distance to compare against the original plat? and then marking anything that's off or just fixing it on the spot?

@chris-bouffard important question. If it's someone on your team, how would you handle it?

And if was from outside of your team, would you just restart from the plat as a PDF/image/sheet and redraw it in CAD yourself, or would you take the CAD file and go and double check everything yourself (and if so, would you check every line and curve, see if things calc against each other, etc. or anything else).

Posted by: @vance-grissom

↑

or just fixing it on the spot?

For the most part I'm doing my own CAD work these days. So if there is a mistake I made it, I found it, and I must fix it. Nevertheless, if you find and fix mistakes without informing the perpitrator, they will never learn to avoid them. On the other hand, if you go to your CAD guy with every little thing he/she may begin to feel nitpicked.  As a manager you can't deal with everyone in exactly the same way. Different people, different stages of development, different expectations.

Guess I'm still not clear on what your role is.  If your role is to determine the "correctness" of a survey drawing for recording it in public records, there are many things to check over.  That can be a very long list in some cases.  Several things have been mentioned by others already.

If they are giving you something that is to be used in the field to search for existing monuments that is a radically different thing.

we actually had a check system. 

Various reviews for certain things and one was geometry. 

someone that did not draft or comp the plat would compute everything off the plat in a junk file checking bearings, distances, coordinates, closures and areas. 

Posted by: @vance-grissom

↑

Question for the boundary folks - if someone hands you a plat that's been rebuilt in CAD (a junior, tech, sub, or anyone else) - what's your process for checking it and cleaning it up? And overall at what point do you trust it enough to put your name near it?

Review seems like an issue I've heard from several folks. In some cases the only way to really trust it is to rebuild it yourself, which then is repeating the work instead of reviewing it. Wondering if people have any systems or just typical checks they're devised within their teams or how they do work, other than only taking work from people whose work you trust.

What do you mean rebuilt?  Someone drew out an existing plat?  If it's just for search calcs then I'm probably just gonna make a quick glance to see if the lots close.

The answer really depends on what the linework is being used for.

Generally speaking I don't really like having people draft my stuff.  I usually have an idea of how I want things to look and I'm just as fast or faster than they are, so it's just better if I do it myself.  Having to review it multiple times and finding errors is the worst, imo.

@vance-grissom 

Mapcheck prints out a report, it's sometimes required for reviewers. It is handy once you figure out how it works, I don't do it often so I always have a bit of pain remembering the trick to make it work. Polyline the boundary, pick the figure and it will generate a document listing bearings and distances for each course, you can print it and walk down each course to be sure the labelling on the drawing checks. 

@vance-grissom If it's done by a team member I've already had input but I would still check to make sure everything works.

It the information comes from outside of my team, I'm tearing everything apart and starting from scratch.

Posted by: @bstrand

↑

Generally speaking I don't really like having people draft my stuff.  I usually have an idea of how I want things to look and I'm just as fast or faster than they are, so it's just better if I do it myself.  Having to review it multiple times and finding errors is the worst, imo.

How would you react if you were working for someone who acted as you do?

It's really not all that hard to inverse around a drawing and compare inverses with the record and if something's wonky, start tugging at the thread. I've done more of this kind of work than I care to admit, usually for the purpose of coming up with search coordinates to get me on to hard evidence on the ground. There's an order of operations that I've used that works for me, check the boundary first, see how that closes, and then start working my way inward. Often I'll throw a tax map or sometimes a scaled and oriented image of the plat in the background to see if anything jumps out. Everyone makes mistakes, and often those lead to a teaching or learning moment. I embrace them. It's a less than perfect world out there and the real challenge is moving through it with a bit of grace and when the opportunity arises, helping others to as well. 

Creating a plat and drawing a plat map are 2 drastically different products and workflows in my Cities and States.  Creating a plat is a boundary survey and is reviewed extensively by multiple agencies and can take 6 months to 2 years to complete. 

Drawing a plat is something we do weekly at a minimum.  I check things the first few times staff are introduced to drafting maps of any sort.  Once i'm comforatble with there work my spot checking is minimal at best.  These instances are primarily used to establish search coordinates.

Posted by: @bstrand

↑

Having to review it multiple times and finding errors is the worst, imo.

Do you have a specific method to do different rounds of review (if you have to do review)? Agreed that issue seems to be that review isn't worth it if catch errors and also not in the way that you want the final version anyways