Oh, boo hoo, boo hoo. My day has been destroyed. Woe is me.
Seriously. Sloppiness should not be tolerated. Make the effort to remember that the bearings used in a metes and bounds description on a survey plat should agree with the labels on each boundary line shown on the drawing. It's really that simple.
Make the effort to remember that the bearings used in a metes and
bounds description on a survey plat should agree with the labels on each
boundary line shown on the drawing.
Why is this the case? I have not seen that requirement before.
The only time I know it's a requirement is for subdivision boundaries. I recently finished 8 BLA's and Family Exemption Plats. They all had multiple descriptions. The choice is to go clockwise, then counterclockwise to make the common lines go the way of the labels. Or what I do is label each side with different directions.
But I really don't care.
It's a non-issue to me.
It's a label of a line on the plat, if you can't see it as either direction,,,,,,,,,,,it's really, really, really picky.
I recall a case from many years ago where I had the closing call of my survey say: thence south (something) west to to the east line of the subject section. That would have involved a trip of over 15,000 miles to get to the east line of that section. Words are very important.
Another oddity came to my attention today. A survey drawing did an excellent job of delineating a new boundary. It showed that it was entirely within the west half of the southeast quarter of the section. The description, however, had six places that called out that the new tract was in the northeast quarter of the section..
Seriously. Sloppiness should not be tolerated. Make the effort to remember that the bearings used in a metes and bounds description on a survey plat should agree with the labels on each boundary line shown on the drawing. It’s really that simple.
No. NE and NW are the only bearings that should show on a proper plat. It isn't wrong. It is just a different style, no matter how much we argue about it.
(And why I do not actually follow that idea, but I can recognize that it is just fine, thus the sarcastic assertion that there is only one correct way to do the thing.)
As a group we surveyors suffer from congenital inability to be flexible in so much of our thinking. Our way is THE ONLY RIGHT WAY. It just isn't the case.
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”.
No, choosing to be obtuse because you can is the "showing power". In private practice you often don't have that luxury. I am not trying to be mean, but no one should be sending a plat back because they cannot do the mental gymnastics of converting NW to SE. It is just absurd, IMHO.
But in practice, I would just change the line and everyone would note who the reviewer is. So, I guess my final assessment is this:
But I really don’t care.
It’s a non-issue to me.
It’s a label of a line on the plat, if you can’t see it as either direction,,,,,,,,,,,it’s really, really, really picky.
Have you done any plat reviewing out of curiosity?
Have you done any plat reviewing out of curiosity?
Yes.
I am so old I remember when reviewers understood what this meant.
