Accuracy standards

ALTA drives most minimum accuracy standards nationwide.  Some towns and counties have created their own requirements here in NJ and for subdivisions require closure reports for the parent tract as well as each individual lot created whether it be 2 lots or 200.  When they tend to be required in certain towns it's an added cost for the client, most cogo software programs have that routine built in and I believe C3D does too, what kills me about it is that the Local Engineer's are reviewing them (at least they say they are) and bilking the clients escrow account when an Engineer's license clearly does not qualify them to legally review survey work, without having a licensed Surveyor on staff to do that for them, yet, they get away with the money grab and unlicensed practice.

Does it protect the public?

It provides your state board a quantifiable standard by which a registrants performance can be evaluated.

The only mention of an accuracy standard in Oregon's statute (ORS 92.250) is as follows:

In Washington:

WAC 332-130-085 Relative accuracy standards for land boundary
surveys. The following standards may be applied to boundary surveys
utilizing field traverses and shall be applied when positioning techniques used in a land boundary survey are not amenable to analysis
with standards in WAC 332-130-090. Such standards should be considered
minimum standards only. Higher levels of accuracy are expected to be
utilized in areas with higher property values or in other situations
necessitating higher accuracy.
The maximum allowable relative accuracy for positions shown on a
boundary survey under this standard is 0.07 feet plus 200 parts per
million at the ninety-five percent confidence level, based on the distance shown on the map between the two positions being tested. It is
recognized that in certain circumstances, the size or configuration of
the surveyed property, or the relief, vegetation, or improvements on
the surveyed property, can result in survey measurements that may
cause the maximum allowable relative accuracy in the survey to be exceeded. If the maximum allowable relative accuracy in the survey is
exceeded, the surveyor shall report the reasons for exceeding the
standard, shall identify those monuments whose positions exceed the
standard and the amount by which said monuments exceed the standard.
[Statutory Authority: RCW 58.24.040(1). WSR 19-01-045, § 332-130-085,
filed 12/13/18, effective 1/13/19.]

And then there's this:

WAC 332-130-090 Field traverse standards for land boundary surveys. The following standards shall apply to field traverses used in
land boundary surveys. Such standards should be considered minimum
standards only. Higher levels of precision are expected to be utilized
in areas with higher property values or in other situations necessitating higher accuracy.
(1) Linear closures after azimuth adjustment.
(a) City - central and local business and industrial
areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1:10,000
(b) City - residential and subdivision lots. . . . . . . 1:5,000
(c) Section subdivision, new subdivision boundaries for residential lots and interior monument control. . . . . . . . . . . 1:5,000
(d) Suburban - residential and subdivision lots. . . . . 1:5,000
(e) Rural - forest land and cultivated areas. . . . . . 1:5,000
(f) Lambert grid traverses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1:10,000
(2) Angular closure.
(a) Where 1:10,000 minimum linear closure is required, the maximum angular error in seconds shall be determined by the formula of 10
√n, where "n" equals the number of angles in the closed traverse.
(b) Where 1:5,000 minimum linear closure is required, the maximum
angular error in seconds shall be determined by the formula of 30 √n
where "n" equals the number of angles in the closed traverse.
[Statutory Authority: RCW 58.24.040(1). WSR 90-06-028 (Order 568), §
332-130-090, filed 3/1/90, effective 4/1/90; WSR 89-11-028 (Order
561), § 332-130-090, filed 5/11/89.]

Does anyone still run a closed traverse? Asking for a friend...

Does anyone still run a closed traverse? Asking for a friend...

It is way past time to update that standard, isn’t it?

I ask that same question on running regular traverses. Had to pull history on my boss on that one. He said surveyors always have and always will run the standard traverse. I said well what about all those triangulation surveys and baseline and offsets ones and distance only surveys that has been done over the course of our history. Now with gnss and such along with robots and our total stations today I approach each project with care and build a network for LSA when I can determine it is the best approach and allows me to do it efficiently and allow the time savings to recovering evidence and such. It took me a while to earn the trust and get his confidence built in. I did several jobs again on my own time my way to prove that but it is now worth it. Especially when he sends me a job he is about to bid on and sais i don’t want to traverse this 1000 acres what can we do. I look at it in google earth and where i am i use the county gis as i can usually nail down the last times it was timbered. Which a freshly timbered property that has been left to regrowth a few years is a nightmare of thickness that only quail and copperheads and rabits can navigate. We had one here by the house that i was down with the flue one night and the wife let the dog get away one night. A tie out cable rainy night and he chased whatever into that thickness and got all tangled up. With a flashlight i could not see past my nose. Had to make the wife hollar so i could find my way back out.