For the last couple of years I have been conscripted to present a workshop at a regional Arc/Info user's group annual hoo-forah. Today was the 2016 get together. My workshop has focused on the topic of legal descriptions. And it can get downright scary listening to all the participants relate how they create and enter their shape files for parcels into their database. I guess my lot in life is to keep them from inflicting too much damage to the cadaster with their tasks.
I have been surprised over the last couple of years with the attitude and abilities of the group. A lot of really intelligent folks that take their job seriously. Some are little misguided in some areas, but all in all I've been impressed...up until today.
We discussed what I consider to be a safe and prudent approach to interpreting property description to get them "glued in" in a relatively representative manner. The whole time I was trying to emphasize the dangers in creating mosaics of parcels and their most assured misuse by a flippant end user. I have stressed over the years my opinion that a description is merely half of a boundary. The other half exists on the ground and there are specific instances that one may usurp the other. I keep to myself my opinion that boundaries cannot be properly shown without a bucket load of caveats (at the least) or some serious investigation including filed work (at the best). These people have a job to do and they are going to do it. I guess the best we can do is attempt some rudimentary instructions.
Several of the members worked in county assessor's offices across the state and I discovered some downright scary practices. For example:
1. Junior-Senior rights really means which shape file got entered in first.
2. Bearings are witchcraft and usually pulled out of a surveyor's backside...and no one can tell me anything about their Db reference...other than it's State Plane (they think?).
3. North-South-East-West directions are held as 90 degree figures.
4. Curves are complex figures which require a PhD in calculus and probably wind up as hand drawn free form splines to make the parcel close.
5. And the one that made me shake my head the most: Acreage on deed descriptions is usually wrong. Several of the folks agreed that their .shp file's area was more precise that the deed description and most assessor's info gets updated with the 'new' acreage. If a property owner complains about an updated area for tax assessment purposes, they're told to contact a surveyor...and maybe the assessor will change the area.
I was appalled at this practice. I will agree that the acreage of a parcel may be recorded either inaccurately or incorrectly. But changing things up just because someone interpreted a deed with a shape file seems a bit drastic. Sadly it appears the handwriting is on the wall. Deeded boundaries and areas are now in the hands of those that harvest revenues. The proverbial fox watching the hen house.
I may bail on next year's class...I'm getting too old to listen to some of the stuff they come up with. 🙁
PS - There was one gent there from a place called Universal City, in Bexar Co., Texas. I would love to be a fly on the wall when he and Kent finally meet...
When I get back to the office tomorrow, I'll post a snip of a letter I got back from a county planner down south telling me that I have to submit a copy of my survey to the FREAKIN' GIS dept for approval..... not sure how many laps I went around my desk after I read that, but I'm counting it as my cardio workout for the day....
I dunno if this fits here exactly, but the county I live in just had the commissioners vote to close the jail because it costs to much to keep it open. But, they voted themselves (the commissioners) a raise, and bought a new dump truck and new pickups. I think its the end of the world as we knew it.
Rankin_File, post: 391761, member: 101 wrote: When I get back to the office tomorrow, I'll post a snip of a letter I got back from a county planner down south telling me that I have to submit a copy of my survey to the FREAKIN' GIS dept for approval..... not sure how many laps I went around my desk after I read that, but I'm counting it as my cardio workout for the day....
Like I said, the handwriting is on the wall. I'm not so sure large preemptive legislation requiring published GIS info to be supervised by a PLS might be in order.
Retirement looks better and better every day.
My Dad used to say that our county was 50 years behind the times. That was 20+ years ago, so I reckon that makes the county 70 years behind the times now! One instance... When acquiring a road right of way, the county doesn't have it surveyed (no survey department and too poor to hire it out). They acquire it by "blanket deed". Of course, we all know the pitfalls of that type thing in a fee simple conveyance. To determine the acreage to be deducted from the parent tract, they simply scale the distance on their maps and multiply by half of the deeded width (Who needs an expensive surveyor?). I guess it's better than nothing....
Rankin_File, post: 391761, member: 101 wrote: When I get back to the office tomorrow, I'll post a snip of a letter I got back from a county planner down south telling me that I have to submit a copy of my survey to the FREAKIN' GIS dept for approval..... not sure how many laps I went around my desk after I read that, but I'm counting it as my cardio workout for the day....
A friend of mine has fought for literally years with the Clerk of Courts office in a county in Georgia because they will not record a plat that does not agree with the GIS. I sure am glad I'm about retired, I don't know if I could handle much of that.
Andy
Here it is. 
The gis dept reviews subdivision plats in our area. Mainly for addressing. Recently had to file plat of correction...the new addresses they provided were wrong...
Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk
Most of our GIS folks have the following disclaimer:
Map graphic and text data in a web-based Geographic Information System (GIS) are representations or copies of original data sources, and are provided to users as is with no expressed or implied warranty of accuracy, quality, or completeness for any specific purpose or use. These data do not replace or modify site surveys, deeds and other conveyances; original and as built engineering plans; and other drawings and/ or legal documents that establish land ownership, land use, or on-site structure location. Please contact your local officials for additional information regarding specific data sets.
Hopefully they mean what they say/say what they mean.
The second concept (after reading the above) everyone involved needs to understand is those lines on the screen if painted on the ground would be three to ten feet wide depending upon scale. That kind of accuracy would not satisfy most land owners.
Steve
Sometimes it is hard to jump in to these threads. The responses always range from astute observations to the ludicrous and wisenheimer comments.
Paden, you are to be commended for your effort to try to bring the surveyor into the world of Geo-Information in the Information Age. Unfortunately, you cannot do this on your own.
To discuss this concern, one must make it political.
Once upon a time, (not to far in the past in the scheme of things) the technology of mapping was evolving to the digital. Preceding this for a very long time, there were a group of people being educated with a dead-end BS / BA degree in geography. With the advent of digital mapping, they saw the future and the opportunity to stake their claim. In order to secure their domain, they collectively organized on different levels. On the academic level, they successfully revamped the curriculum. On the professional level, they amended and created societies, organizations and other groups to enhance their power and influence. Both professional and politically. Most (not all) surveyors failed to react to
changing times of mapping except for the advance of equipment technology.
By their "individualist"nature, there wouldn't be a movement to establish themselves as an important cog in the Geospatial world.
This has been discussed before at this forum.
The creation of the geomatics degree tries play catch-up with the situation.
There maybe other disturbing trends in the future but the young surveyors must deal with it.
I suggest that they start organizing now in some fashion. These young surveyors need to galvanize into a new group to address and represent them.
Have a Geo-special day!
Robert Hill, post: 391853, member: 378 wrote: ...Once upon a time, (not to far in the past in the scheme of things) the technology of mapping was evolving to the digital...
It's probably been close to 15 years ago, but Oklahoma surveyors were grappling with a proposal to allow the licensing of photogrammetry under surveying. Naturally we all spit and kicked the dirt and said nope.
In hindsight it may have been that one street car that could have taken us to a professional confluence...
Number 5 is a serious problem, but I don't really see a problem with numbers 1-4, provided the GIS disclaimers are understood and abided by. Do do more than they are doing would require a surveying lisense in most states. I don't think I would want a GIS technician trying to determine junior senior rights. A survey is expensive ( or at least it should be). In many cases the information that a survey can add is not worth the cost. Does it really matter for apprasial uses whether the bearing is N 90å¡ W or N 89å¡ 59' 03" W ?.
GIS is a great tool as long as the limitations of the information presented are clearly understood. Land Surveyors really missed the boat when we did not assert ourselves early in the GIS development process.
