not my real name, post: 412865, member: 8199 wrote: The lives that are at risk by agencies preferring the marking services rather than an actual utility location are my concern. Using the same logic I could have some boy scout map my property line using coordinates from google and a recreational grade GPS receiver. As long as we use a proper disclaimer no one would object to placing their surveyor's seal on such a plan, right? While I understand that using a disclaimer attempts to limit liability I would rather show no false indications even if it means risking one person that does not understand the marking service is merely subjective and arbitrary.
I would rather show an approximate location based off a utility's paint mark with a disclaimer than not show anything and have someone dig there thinking it's clear space. The disclaimer is not for me but for the public to not dig and to BE CAREFUL if they do and notify the proper parties about their plans. I don't compare this to boundary line in regards to an unlicensed individual like you are saying, but rather it's akin to showing encroachments/possesion that might encumber a line. The public needs to know there's something up there.
If something might be a false indication (which is only determinable by excavation) are you just not showing anything at all?
not my real name, post: 412871, member: 8199 wrote: Regulations and shirking responsibility for providing actual data is unprofessional. In my opinion the regulations are the result of lobbying efforts to make the process as simple and inexpensive as possible. Thus, providing potentially misleading information becomes the existing state of affairs. I consider the persons using the information to be more important than the regulators whose job appears to be making sure the proper disclaimers are in place.
" In my opinion the regulations are the result of lobbying efforts to make the process as simple and inexpensive as possible."
No - they are in place here because the State viewed that as the best method of protecting the public. Whether or not it works is debatable, but that's why the regulations were implemented here.
Are you proposing that physical excavation of all utilities during the design process is a better way?
I have worked in subsurface utility engineering where the actual locations and depths of utility services are verified after location. After the verification process the map is made. Verification involves vacuum excavation on a series of random locations made by instrumentation. In some cases the verification is done by an independent agency.
Subsurface utility engineering is cost effective because it protects lives, eliminates potential damages to utility systems, change orders, claims and legal fees. The American Society of Civil Engineers recognized this and developed and published a national standard on the mapping aspect of utilities.
So I would certainly see the need of a disclaimer for any street scribbling made by a so-called utility locating service. My preference would be a verification before any excavation takes place. If I can't get that I make a site visit prior to excavation to alert the construction crews that the street markings are most likely unreliable.
Historic boundaries and conservation efforts.
not my real name, post: 412876, member: 8199 wrote: I have worked in subsurface utility engineering where the actual locations and depths of utility services are verified after location. After the verification process the map is made. Verification involves vacuum excavation on a series of random locations made by instrumentation. In some cases the verification is done by an independent agency.
Subsurface utility engineering is cost effective because it protects lives, eliminates potential damages to utility systems, change orders, claims and legal fees. The American Society of Civil Engineers recognized this and developed and published a national standard on the mapping aspect of utilities.
So I would certainly see the need of a disclaimer for any street scribbling made by a so-called utility locating service. My preference would be a verification before any excavation takes place. If I can't get that I make a site visit prior to excavation to alert the construction crews that the street markings are most likely unreliable.
If you can't get an excavation like in this scenario, then what do you put on your survey?
I would refuse to do the survey if given the opportunity. As a professional I refuse to compromise my standards. There will be others that don't seem to care as I do. However, I reserve the right to my professional opinion based on my education and experience. I realize others may have a different opinion.
Historic boundaries and conservation efforts.
not my real name, post: 412894, member: 8199 wrote: I would refuse to do the survey if given the opportunity. As a professional I refuse to compromise my standards. There will be others that don't seem to care as I do. However, I reserve the right to my professional opinion based on my education and experience. I realize others may have a different opinion.
That is a reasonable (perhaps an only) answer based up those standards.
not my real name, post: 412849, member: 8199 wrote: Most utility location services are fraudulent because those who request the services are only interested in first cost. There is absolutely no benefit to anyone to have a utility location service that trains their people for a matter of a few weeks, having only the knowledge of which OSHA approved colors to use to make a bloody mess on the streets and sidewalks. In fact people who rely on such services may be in extreme danger performing excavation. To me a paint mark on the ground only represents just what it is. I would never rely on it to represent the location of any utility ever.
Agreed! The utility markers do not understand their job duties and are not trained properly! In my experience, if they even suspect it's for a land survey, most of time they don't go out to mark the property, or we get bumped to the bottom of the list!
It's very frustrating and unreliable, which causes a huge liability for us!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk