9:30 AM Rant

I staked a building off the civil plans........................once

structurals only. only. always. never flinch.

Check again. Maybe it's not supposed to be square. Idiots have been known to design foolishness such as that into their plans to prove that they are "different" and, therefore, superior in some way to the commonplace designer of dull structures.

Here is another small detail I just found out.....The entire design is based off of a third party ALTA that was never verified (corners set, conditions, etc.)

But Architect says, " You're right, lets make sure that the building sets parallel with the property line, I don't think we ever verified that?" Once you have that, square up off that line.....There's hope yet

StLSurveyor, post: 421758, member: 7070 wrote: Here is another small detail I just found out.....The entire design is based off of a third party ALTA that was never verified (corners set, conditions, etc.)

But Architect says, " You're right, lets make sure that the building sets parallel with the property line, I don't think we ever verified that?" Once you have that, square up off that line.....There's hope yet

Hopefully the property lines are parallel and perpendicular or you have an issue of which property line. I've had that happen to several stake-out jobs. Hope you put in your contract that any work beyond what is stated in the Scope of Work is additional work at your hourly rate.

StLSurveyor, post: 421758, member: 7070 wrote: But Architect says,

https://surveyorconnect.com/community/threads/staking-opportunity.324739/#post-349675

You're PREACHING to the choir....never have seen a set of Architectural or Engineering dwg's that EVER matched...
unless it was ME working for both...ALWAYS get the HARD copy foundation/site plan...ALWAYS...and then the cad versions of everything

At least they didn't move the lot lines further out so the building wouldn't violate the setbacks on the plan.

StLSurveyor, post: 421737, member: 7070 wrote: "Can't you just make it work?"

I could if the design didn't place the buildings at minimum setbacks.

S1.1

Scotland, post: 421759, member: 559 wrote: Hopefully the property lines are parallel and perpendicular or you have an issue of which property line. I've had that happen to several stake-out jobs. Hope you put in your contract that any work beyond what is stated in the Scope of Work is additional work at your hourly rate.

hopefully they're NOT- almost makes a built-in need for verification. here's how i always handled any layout (understanding that i was almost always coming from a position of inside the civil company that did the work): the proposal always states any building will be staked from structural files. it's in the proposal, nobody can come back later and whine. but invariably you get the structurals (which, in my experience, can and will change up to the second you're on site to lay it out), you get the architecturals (which, 98% of the time, may as well just be a comic book- at least they'd have some entertainment value), and you get the civils. and there begins your job- making the civils and the structurals jive. this alchemy is also built into the proposal: get paid to clean up the mess. because the structurals will tend to be GOOD CAD almost always, and the civils consider everything outside the slab.

usually the conversation goes like this, after i've xref'd one file into another (or both into my survey base):

ME: so yeah, the structurals are at 0,0, and your civils are CLOSE to the survey base i gave you 6 months ago, but yet again you managed to shift everything by a tenth or two. good work. so, tell me, what is the absolute critical setback or line i need to hold to get this building in properly?

PE (depending upon the specific site): we have to stay 15' off that r.o.w./ it can't back up to that ditch bank/ it doesn't matter, we have plenty of room all the way around, so long as we can work that driveway in.

at that point i usually have the info i need to get it right. take the civils, nudge them back to where they need to be (or not, if you're working with a semi-competent EIT/PE), and take the structurals (which are almost never oriented to anything other than ortho 0,0) and establish the single corner and linear constraint by which the rest will follow.

at that point there are a zillion ways to double check everything works like it's *supposed to*

of course, per the original citation of your statement, scotland- about a year ago i found this process was still leaving some goofyness between the three files (survey/civil/structurals) on a particular downtown, high-rise, blown-out-to-all-r.o.w.-lines kind of job. at which point i discovered the EIT had "squared" (rotated) a boundary line (amounted to less than half a degree) to get a nice 90 that lined up with the building walls. you can imagine how pleasant i was with the young feller. told him i hadn't spent a month of research and digging holes in asphalt simply to re-establish a boundary that wouldn't give him nice, even offsets from both corners of his high-rise condo.

that event turned out to be the beginning of the end for us as coworkers- was but one piece of evidence that i needed a change of scenery, and he ended up being relieved of his duties not too long after.

This is a continuous rant for me. Plans just plain suck. I think I saw it here, they aren't prepared to build anything from anymore, just to get a permit to do so.

thebionicman, post: 421782, member: 8136 wrote: S1.1

Best advice ever given.

Just 1 more reason I quit doing ANY staking.

Don't need the headaches or liability.

Mark Mayer, post: 421780, member: 424 wrote: I could if the design didn't place the buildings at minimum setbacks.

Yes, I can just make it work, but since I will be doing your job, I will send you to the field to do mine.