In my present position, I review surveys in PLSS and Non-PLSS states. I have spent most of my career in GA and had truly hoped that some of the substandard practices that I had observed were less frequent in some other states. Now having a more regional experience, I have determined that the Region that produces the best and worst surveys resides between the left and right earlobe of the Surveyor. Good surveys are a result of the surveyor applying knowledge with diligence. No system is "fool proof" as fools are so ingenious. I have seen the good, bad and ugly in both systems. Anyone who has put in the effort to acquire knowledge, commits to continuous learning and applies the diligence to not rest until the original intent of the Deed is accurately depicted on the Survey is to a true Professional. The system is not the main factor.
While I undoubtedly agree with you as a whole, I have questions:
Are you a licensee? Reviewing work in what capacity? For municipality? For insurer? QaQc in private firm?
Do you use some sort of minimum standards checklist in the course of your reviews? Could a document you review fail some elements of your checklist yet dillegently and accurately apply sound field technique and boundary resolution, ultimately resulting in an accurate boundary determination that misses the mark on some checklist item? Would you know either way?
Likewise could a document you review check off all your boxes yet be performed by the praticioner with substandard field procedures and haphazard or totally arbitrary application of boundary dispute resolution principles? Would you know either way?
Does meeting your seal of approval truly mean one survey is "better" than another?
I am not judge nor jury. But I am eager to hear the opinions of a "checker" and have a thoughtful conversation on the subject.
Having worn most of those hats at some point I tend to think more of the funky maps come from non recording areas.
But my sampling is too small to draw clear conclusions.
I'm guessing the rls on the end of lmbrls means something of value.
Chopping_Broccoli, post: 441705, member: 9083 wrote: While I undoubtedly agree with you as a whole, I have questions:
Are you a licensee? Reviewing work in what capacity? For municipality? For insurer? QaQc in private firm?
Do you use some sort of minimum standards checklist in the course of your reviews? Could a document you review fail some elements of your checklist yet dillegently and accurately apply sound field technique and boundary resolution, ultimately resulting in an accurate boundary determination that misses the mark on some checklist item? Would you know either way?
Likewise could a document you review check off all your boxes yet be performed by the praticioner with substandard field procedures and haphazard or totally arbitrary application of boundary dispute resolution principles? Would you know either way?
Does meeting your seal of approval truly mean one survey is "better" than another?
I am not judge nor jury. But I am eager to hear the opinions of a "checker" and have a thoughtful conversation on the subject.
Although I must admit that I find being referred to as a "checker" offensive, I understand that many surveyors including myself have been reviewed by people who had no idea what significants each box represented on the golden checklist.
1. Yes I am licensed and have been for 32 years. I was in private practice for 30 of these years.
2. I work for a Government Agency, which I will not reveal as otherwise my statements could be referenced as Agency Policy. This is a major issue with my Supervisors.
3. I use a Minimum Standards Checklist for each respective State.
4. No, I do not mindlessly go through a checklist that I don't understand. If the surveyor's opinion can be supported, I will not try to dictate my opinion.
However, when the plat does not close by several feet, it is no longer just a matter of opinion. If no field evidence is found and the survey has calls that are many feet different than the deed calls by several feet is this just the opinion of the mindless checker?
5. My "seal of approval" is an opinion that the Survey is adequate for the purpose for which it was made. My job is to protect my employer as a "subject matter expert". The key word is adequate. I have too much to do to worry about my personal preferences.
6. The original post was not meant to be a put down of all surveyors. The point is no system alone can guarantee an accurate survey. I believe recording requirements could only help. However, the person responsible for an accurate survey is and always will be the Surveyor.
No offense intended or implied in calling you a checker. I was simply referring to your stated duties of reviewing others work. Checkers can be mindless little Hitlers or experienced professionals like yourself. I will ALWAYS prefer dealing with the later. I often wonder why state boards of licensure have not come down on unlicensed checkers and some of the asinine/unethical/illegal demands they make. Anyone practicing for any length of time will undoubtedly have their own horror story. I know I do.
The crux of my post was really to spur conversation as to just what in fact makes a survey "accurate" and can a reviewer looking at a solitary map or plat or exhibit and comparing it to a checklist and a current deed of record, make that determination...accurately. lol.
Mathematical closure.
Compliance with state minimum standards.
Correct address/source of title/owners name/zoning/etc.
Scale. Sheet size. Stamp and signature of PLS. Signature of owner if applicable.
And on and on. I'm sure there are countless things you check for.
I have no doubt that your efforts and those of other reviewers in similar positions all over the country make for more COMPLETE products and as such raise the standard of practice of those performing work within your jurisdiction. This is a good thing and one I wholly support. I interact with some dedicated and professional reviewers on at least a weekly basis myself and applaud their efforts as my work is better because of them. I know they receive tons of blowback from their boss, owners, licensees, realtors, auctioneers, lenders, and every other stakeholder. It is a thankless job. That said many checkers do not grasp the limited scope of their review.
The food for thought that I propose is that completeness and accuracy are not synonymous and that a reviewer, armed with deed/plat/checklist cannot attest to its accuracy, but rather to its completeness.
In a way I think it relates to being an expert witness in a legal proceeding. The expert witness gives his opinion without smearing the opinion of another. He speaks expertly about matters he is in a position to have an accurate and complete understanding of and refranes from conjecture about things he is unequipped to do so. Unequipped does not equal unqualified.
State boards check practitioners.
Practitioners check each other.
Checkers check practitioners.
Who's keeping the checkers in check?
A different set of eyes can pick out major goofs that the originator and his co-workers somehow cannot see. It happens all the time. I'm guilty of the same thing with my own work.
A 60-foot road, clearly drawn to occupy 60 feet, but labeled as being only 30 feet.
Fourteen calls around a tract but only thirteen distances shown despite there being fourteen bearings shown.
A subdivision for which no information is provided for street curvature.
A subdivision showing a road extending into the adjoining property, but there is no road there of any kind, let alone one that has been dedicated to public use in some fashion.
The absence of monuments where monuments MUST be placed.
An excellent description is provided with great detail..............except it ends by identifying it to be in a different county about 100 miles distant.