I am finding too many examples of the labels for each line of a boundary survey being North (something) East or North (something) West no matter what the words in the description say about those lines. For example: The first call after reaching the POB says to go "South (something) East, 504.00 feet". But the label for that line on the drawing reads "North (something) West, 504.00 feet".
Granted, there are cases where a certain line is common to two adjoining tracts that are being described with one having a southerly bearing and the other described as having a northerly bearing for the same boundary line. Sometimes, the drawing is so busy that getting that line labeled once is difficult. But, I'm referring to a line that is only used one time.
Too many clients barely comprehend why bearings are needed in the first place. Why add to the confusion by trying to explain why the words in the description don't agree with the line labels on the drawing?
We've gone back and forth over this for years. I don't care about it at all, on the other hand I make the labels go the direction of the legal. But it's a very minor issue. Some surveyors are of the opinion that it's cannon, others are meh!
I prefer to label the lines in the direction of the survey where they were established. That isn't likely to match the description on every line...
I was taught that labels read in the direction of the line, lines run clockwise. If that means the text is upside down so be it.
36 years later I insist my staff prepare plans in this manner.
I really don't care if the direction matches deed directions, I think most of us try to, but what really bugs me is when they are not continuous
I'm pretty picky about having my own stuff read clockwise, but if you're doing something like a property split survey then the common line is gonna read opposite directions depending how you look at it. If I write a description it's always going to read clockwise.
I've also kicked plats back when the subdivision boundary bearings didn't go all 1 direction. Partly because I think it's an eyesore but also because it technically causes a map check report to fail and that's an actual requirement by the city or county.
Yes, always clockwise and continuous as much as possible.
Our state regulations require describing the POB in a certain manner and proceeding clockwise. We're south azimuth, so swapping of N/S E/W doesn't come into play but Az direction does. It does bother me when I see Az 180d off, but it doesn't seem surveyors get nicked for it here.
I annotate my ALTA surveys to match the deed, showing record and measured, but not because I think it is a good idea: The attorneys claim they can't "track" the boundary unless I show record. However, for an ALTA survey I know will be going to an design firm, I strip the record from the drawing before I send it to them. Why? Because I know it is 50-50 some doofus will use record instead of measured on the design plans. And, for my record of surveys (using measured only) I turn on North sensing so everything is NE or NW. I find it makes it clearer for the next guy.
You only label everything NE or NW if you want to do it right.
then I changed places of employment...
And it is far more random at the new place, and since I really do not care, I don't make any comments on that. I can understand it either way.
If you made me choose, I suppose using the bearings in the direction of the deed would be my preference, and on a new platted subdivision all NE and NW. But that is just personal preference.
it technically causes a map check report to fail
How so? N80E is exactly the same bearing as S80W. On a plat there is no single direction of a line because there is no metes and bounds. There is a direction of a map check report, but the only point is to CHECK the map, so if the bearing of the line is the same, all good. Your way would require two bearings (reciprocal) on each shared line, which would be most lines in a plat. That is just silly.
Your way would require two bearings (reciprocal) on each shared line, which would be most lines in a plat. That is just silly.
I don't understand what you're talking about.
I was referring to the subdivision boundary only, not lot lines. There's a metes and bounds description of the subdivision boundary usually on or near the signature page, and often times when a random bearing is going the wrong way on the map it's going the right way (or vice versa) in the description and that's a discrepancy that needs to be corrected anyway.
I draw out the plat exactly as the stamping surveyor has it shown and the map check routine I use has me click the line labels which, when not all going the same direction, leaves a gap. Could I swap the bearing to make the boundary close? Probably, but I'm not going to because then I've gone from checking the plat to interpreting the plat.
I was referring to the subdivision boundary only, not lot lines.
Is there a difference?
I draw out the plat exactly as the stamping surveyor has it shown and the map check routine I use has me click the line labels which, when not all going the same direction, leaves a gap.
So, this is just a problem with random software that you are using to check the work, not an actual error by the surveyor?
Could I swap the bearing to make the boundary close? Probably, but I’m not going to because then I’ve gone from checking the plat to interpreting the plat.
You are interpreting it when you type in the info. You find the info, you determine which line or line portion it refers to, etc etc etc. It just seems obtuse. You aren't making any change, simply modifying the (correct) info so that it works with your chosen software.
There’s a metes and bounds description of the subdivision boundary usually on or near the signature page, and often times when a random bearing is going the wrong way on the map it’s going the right way (or vice versa) in the description and that’s a discrepancy that needs to be corrected anyway.
It isn't a "wrong way". That isn't how bearings work. It just isn't how you like to see it. It sounds more like a way to show power than an actual fixing of problems. The plat is not the city's document, it isn't your document, it is the owner's document prepared by their surveyor. And if something isn't actually wrong (and not just different than "how we do it") then it should be approved.
It sounds more like a way to show power than an actual fixing of problems.
haha OK, now this has got to be the first time I've heard that literally copying the surveyor's work, word for word, is considered "showing power".
You really can't win as a reviewer. If you go outside of the checklist the surveyor whines like crazy and if you quote their work you're "showing power".
This entire thread should have been posted in the "The dumbest thing you will read today" thread.
I think that perhaps the reverend Mr. Cow is pulling your collective leg.
In all my years of licensure in 2 states and working in 3 states, I've never heard this discussion come up. I can think of much more important issues than this to spend my time on.
Just my opinion. I hope no one gets their feelings hurt by my personal dismissal of this issue.
Happy Saturday!
