reviewed an alta of a 32 acre apartment complex about a week ago. hadn't seen it before. typically, this is a process on my end that takes maybe a couple hours. review the commitment, review the exceptions, check the survey for agreement with applicability and/or location of exceptions. check the survey for correct legal info, ownership, etc.
last step i always do then is to run closure on the measured boundary and the vesting boundary, whether that be off a plat or metes and bounds, or a tract minus save and except(s).
well, when i reviewed this thing last week somebody (assuming a mid-level tech, not being familiar with the particulars of this company aside from the fact they do a fair bit of work across the state from one office in houston and signatures and seals are all digital) muffed up the line table and associated tags, which created a boundary that made no kinds of sense. otherwise all the calls matched record to the T, which is de rigeur for this particular outfit.
get it back today and the line table issues are cleaned up (as well as my red lines concerning various other items on the survey). i knew from last week that the platted 32 acre lot in question was problematic (as in- doesn't close by 20'+). today's survey is nice and neat, all comments addressed. blindly run the boundary around in CAD (starting from an arbitrarily different POB on purpose), calls match plat all the way around and... of course.. doesn't close worth a damn.
having looked at this thing enough now, and run it out plenty just to make sure i'm not nuts- i've fairly convinced myself where the cause of the issue lies (basically it amounts to the haphazard placement of leaders and calls in the area of confluence of several lot lines).
lesson here: if you're gonna half-ass your professional responsibility, you might want to at least check that the guy before you didn't half-ass his too.
Well said.
I spent the first half of my career trying to figure out an easy way to do things. Somewhere in my late thirties I realized the best way to do something is the right way.
Warning to other Oklahoma surveyors: I WILL eventually follow your survey and figure out what you really did. Don't try to BS me because I wrote the book on it....;)
flyin solo, post: 438871, member: 8089 wrote: lesson here: if you're gonna half-ass your professional responsibility, you might want to at least check that the guy before you didn't half-ass his too.
Was doing an ALTA on a 20 unit apartment complex about a dozen years ago. The owner provided me a copy of the previous ALTA from when he purchased the property. Copy of said previous survey was in the field folder.
Would you believe the coincidence that the old ALTA had a couple of typos on the building dimensions and the crew's field notes and sketch of the buildings had the exact same error. I mean what are the odds of that?
Moral of the story: if your crew chief writes his self given nickname on his data collector case, and that nickname is "Super Surveyor" chances are he's neither super nor much of a surveyor.
James Fleming, post: 438874, member: 136 wrote: ..Moral of the story: if your crew chief writes his self given nickname on his data collector case, and that nickname is "Super Surveyor" chances are he's neither super nor much of a surveyor.
Makes me wonder what Kent has written on the sweatband of his straw hat.....;)
paden cash, post: 438875, member: 20 wrote: Makes me wonder what Kent has written on the sweatband of his straw hat.....;)
"Manuals? Texans don't need no stinkin' manuals!
James Fleming, post: 438874, member: 136 wrote:
Moral of the story: if your crew chief writes his self given nickname on his data collector case, and that nickname is "Super Surveyor" chances are he's neither super nor much of a surveyor.
Hahahaha. Reminds me of a frie- acquaintance of mine (grown-ass man) from outside of surveying. He doesn't like me much, as I call him "Phil" (his given name) as opposed to "Panther."
flyin solo, post: 438871, member: 8089 wrote: lesson here: if you're gonna half-ass your professional responsibility, you might want to at least check that the guy before you didn't half-ass his too.
Thanks, that's a keeper!
Everything, is Always remembered.
Doctors bury their mistakes.
Lawyers lie about their mistakes.
Fishermen, simply go hungry, when they make mistakes.
Airplane mechanics kill people, when they make mistakes.
Coons loose fingers, and feet, when they make mistakes.
Whole nations are destroyed, when Politicians make mistakes.
Roofs leak, when Carpenters make mistakes.
Surveyors Monument their mistakes.
I agree with most of what you've said. But not all instances of measured = record, are necessarily a case of bad surveying or bullsh!tting.
Most of the time the plans close fine. The surveyor has run his traverse, located monuments, and in his opinion, they check so closely to record that he sees no reason to change the record.
It's different philosophy, and to be honest, sometimes I do it, sometimes I don't, depends on the situation.
JPH, post: 438897, member: 6636 wrote: I agree with most of what you've said. But not all instances of measured = record, are necessarily a case of bad surveying or bullsh!tting.
Most of the time the plans close fine. The surveyor has run his traverse, located monuments, and in his opinion, they check so closely to record that he sees no reason to change the record.
It's different philosophy, and to be honest, sometimes I do it, sometimes I don't, depends on the situation.
I agree, but why not at least put a positional tolerance to which you found the monuments within? I don't know, it is a new world since we are no longer are using lines to survey from but points in many instances. Any suggestions on reading material addressing this issue? Thanks, Jon
Jp7191, post: 438904, member: 1617 wrote: I agree, but why not at least put a positional tolerance to which you found the monuments within? I don't know, it is a new world since we are no longer are using lines to survey from but points in many instances. Any suggestions on reading material addressing this issue? Thanks, Jon
there ya go. i get it- your predecessor did a really good job and what you found matches close enough for the chicks we date. but, like in this particular case, i'm sorry- ain't no way you go to san antonio, tx (where there is an ordinance on the book that allows for watering your house foundation in times of drought because of how prevalent and severely the ground moves with moisture) and find 29 corners that were set in 1995 and all of them happen to be so dead-on that you just call record as good. not a "from which" one on the survey.
not saying it's a completely invalid way to go- just makes me suspect the work more. and... makes me look at everything else this guy has signed with a little less rosier lenses.
flyin solo, post: 438905, member: 8089 wrote: there ya go. i get it- your predecessor did a really good job and what you found matches close enough for the chicks we date. but, like in this particular case, i'm sorry- ain't no way you go to san antonio, tx (where there is an ordinance on the book that allows for watering your house foundation in times of drought because of how prevalent and severely the ground moves with moisture) and find 29 corners that were set in 1995 and all of them happen to be so dead-on that you just call record as good. not a "from which" one on the survey.
not saying it's a completely invalid way to go- just makes me suspect the work more. and... makes me look at everything else this guy has signed with a little less rosier lenses.
Those corners doing the San Antonio Stroll again?
tanya tucker reference = dead thread.
flyin solo, post: 438910, member: 8089 wrote: tanya tucker reference = dead thread.
I was going to post a recent pic of Tanya....but it fried my video card...
paden cash, post: 438922, member: 20 wrote: I was going to post a recent pic of Tanya....but it fried my video card...
Saw her at the Colorado or bust rodeo round '80 or so. The phrase the came out of my sweet little mother's mouth about Ms. Tucker would probably have had the same effect on your video card.
flyin solo, post: 438926, member: 8089 wrote: Saw her at the Colorado or bust rodeo round '80 or so. The phrase the came out of my sweet little mother's mouth about Ms. Tucker would probably have had the same effect on your video card.
We have long time lamented around here that Ms. Tucker is/was a straight up dishrag wh0r@. I'd be willing to be we are close to your mothers assessment circa 1980. 🙂
flyin solo, post: 438871, member: 8089 wrote: .
[ . . . ] blindly run the boundary around in CAD (starting from an arbitrarily different POB on purpose), calls match plat all the way around and... of course.. doesn't close worth a damn. [ . . . ]
??? I don't get how this could happen. When preparing any map for submittal, the last step (except for signatures, etc.) is to have an employee who has nothing to do with the map type in a traverse in COGO by reading the measured BRG-DIST annotations *from the paper map*, for every closed figure on the map. Closure should be perfect, less than least count 0.01'. If not, back the map goes to the LS who figures out what's wrong and fixes it. These are called mapchecks and added to the project file (some jurisdictions require submittal of the mapchecks). An interesting note is that some of the best mapcheckers I've worked with were lowly secretaries (and even a receptionist!) who caught on to Bearings, distances, curves, etc. perfectly and were really fast at it. It's a lot of work to prepare 60 sheets of mapchecks and they could pick it up and put it down between phone calls, etc. Respect.
Put me in the annotate "record = measured" camp if the monuments are +-0.05' Urban, several tenths Rural, within record based on my field survey. Yah, I can measure better than that terrestrially, barely or maybe not using GPS, but if they're that close, what do you do? Pincushion, or show your field measurements and call the monument off BRG-DIST 0.03'? How does that serve the public?
Any LS that submits a map based on his/her survey calling out record as measured and the boundary doesn't close by 20' because the record traverse was busted should be getting a letter from the Board for a conversation.
Mike Marks, post: 438933, member: 1108 wrote: ??? I don't get how this could happen.
well, i am prone to conjecture. i happen to fixate on a few disparate pieces of information: a website that boasts 50+ employees, a company that routinely gets large title surveys hundreds of miles from its one office, only one registrant's name that ever appears on any finished survey, and all signatures and seals are in digital format.
i mean, i'm not SURE, but i'd be willing to bet a beer or three that the percentage of completed surveys that said registrant actually lays eyes upon is in the single digits.
I'm following a 2004 survey now that followed their own crew from about 2000 and they called for rebar which bears 0.21', or 0.13' at so many degrees from the original call. Sometimes the Texas crust cracks and moves. The drought we went through the last few years may come out to be as bad historically as the one in the 1950's. Cut and paste is a dangerous thing.
[USER=11913]@Monte[/USER]
Those calls make me cringe and I start looking for the big red Easy Button the techs are using to apply the surveyor's seal to their work.
I have the opportunity to survey next to my work occasionally and usually find a new fence corner or guard post set in place and the monument will be anywhere from just where I set to a foot and half away.
Since they are mine, I put them back where they belong even if I have to get out the power tools and insert it in, on or under something.
Mike Marks, post: 438933, member: 1108 wrote: ??? I don't get how this could happen. When preparing any map for submittal, the last step (except for signatures, etc.) is to have an employee who has nothing to do with the map type in a traverse in COGO by reading the measured BRG-DIST annotations *from the paper map*, for every closed figure on the map. Closure should be perfect, less than least count 0.01'. If not, back the map goes to the LS who figures out what's wrong and fixes it. These are called mapchecks and added to the project file (some jurisdictions require submittal of the mapchecks). An interesting note is that some of the best mapcheckers I've worked with were lowly secretaries (and even a receptionist!) who caught on to Bearings, distances, curves, etc. perfectly and were really fast at it. It's a lot of work to prepare 60 sheets of mapchecks and they could pick it up and put it down between phone calls, etc. Respect.
Put me in the annotate "record = measured" camp if the monuments are +-0.05' Urban, several tenths Rural, within record based on my field survey. Yah, I can measure better than that terrestrially, barely or maybe not using GPS, but if they're that close, what do you do? Pincushion, or show your field measurements and call the monument off BRG-DIST 0.03'? How does that serve the public?
Any LS that submits a map based on his/her survey calling out record as measured and the boundary doesn't close by 20' because the record traverse was busted should be getting a letter from the Board for a conversation.
I have had my nine year old check out closure before. It's not too hard.
