On your survey plats, do you label it as "Basis of Bearings" or "Basis of Bearing"?
I have always figured that if all of your bearings are orientated to a single reference (be it a property line of record or calculated from a GPS observation) that it is Basis of Bearings. Plural. But I commonly see surveyors call it their Basis of Bearing.
Discuss.
Basis of bearing for me.
I have used both but always thought ..bearings made more sense practically and ..bearing is a title or description so either or.
If you have more than one line on your map labeled with a bearing, isn't it plural?
In Nebraska, we labeled the angle between 2 lines, if we needed to. If it was 90 we drew a little square.
after moving to Washington; I shook my head when I heard surveyors whining about another surveyors basis of bearings...
I use the state plane, most of the time, and rotate all others into me.
Easy Peasy.
If you have more than one line on your map labeled with a bearing, isn’t it plural?
Yeah, but the way I look at it is I generally don't refer to more than 1 bearing at a time so it doesn't make sense to have it be plural.
Bearings are based on the State Coordinate System NAD 1983 (2011), East Zone.
We're citing one basis (singular) for all of our bearings (plural).
Our statutes would seem to back this up:
"The record of survey as required by RCW <font face="inherit">58.09.040</font>(1) shall show...Basis of bearings used to describe or locate such monuments or accessories"
Although I tend to go with "all bearings shown hereon are Washington Plane Coordinate System, North Zone grid bearings" or some derivative thereof...
Your Bearings Basis is your Basis of Bearings.
The requirement to make a Basis of Bearings statement is a pet peeve with me. In all my years the basis of bearings has not mattered one iota on any boundary survey of mine. Never, not once.
For some years now I have put all my surveys on the local projection of the Oregon Coordinate Reference System (an LDP defined in the state Administrative Rules) and made a statement "The basis of bearings is the Oregon Coordinate Reference System (OCRS) Portland Zone projection of the North American Datum of 1983, 2011 adjustment (NAD83(2011))".
In Colorado, to leave it off can be a violation of the law, and minimum standards.....
We need to get a universally acceptable process for the math and science parts of the state survey laws like medicine etc, and stop dragging crap that isn't relevant except for that the long standing laziness of updating the board rules etc..... I'm invoking by proxy sentiments from Knud Hermansen, and all the other Licensed surveyors I've discussed this with and heard them discussing....
THRAC over I've been busy, sorry Ive neglected everyone here for so long.... 😉
Next to my North arrow in arial font, "NC Grid - NAD83-2011". I'd roll with Basis of Bearings if that's what the Romans were doing but I'd prefer to say, "North referenced to..."
In North Carolina the requirement reads:
"An accurately positioned north arrow coordinated with any bearings shown on the plat. Indication shall be made as to whether the north index is true, magnetic, North Carolina grid ('NAD 83' and realization (date of adjustment of coordinate system) or 'NAD27'), or is referenced to old recorded deed or recorded plat bearings. If the north index is magnetic or referenced to old recorded deed or recorded plat bearings, the date and the source (note if not determined) shall be indicated. "
I can agree that the absence of a basis of bearings might not be a deal breaker in any survey, but I've had it come in mighty handy before. I had a 1970 plat where the PLS referenced north to a 1910 plat. I looked up the declination, did the conversion, then let my compass guide me into the swamp where I found an old cedar tree with hacks on it. I'd like to think I'd have found it no matter what, but I certainly look harder for things when I have a strong lead. Particularly when it's 95 degrees with a 76 degree dew point and the only thing keeping the cotton mouths from reaching me is the cloud of mosquitos carrying me through the air.
We need to get a universally acceptable process for the math and science parts of the state survey laws like medicine etc, and stop dragging crap that isn’t relevant except for that the long standing laziness of updating the board rules etc….. I’m invoking by proxy sentiments from Knud Hermansen, and all the other Licensed surveyors I’ve discussed this with and heard them discussing….
I dunno, I think the standard language has been out there for years, I think there's just a significant chunk of practitioners who have taken the "you can't tell me what to do! I been doing this for XX years!" approach.
I don't know...Colorado recently rescinded the ridiculous position of..." You cant and better not take the FS or PS without our permission..." stance and codified it. New Mexico and Arizona are still the same unless they too have recently gotten on the .." its 2023, stop acting like its 1978" wagon....the whole system IS getting better, but stalwarts to the past are going to be a problem until they disappear.
Neither. I vote in favor of using the English language in such a manner that you can actually understand what is being relayed instead of some "Surveyor Speak". For instance, I have two standard ways of saying it. (1) "Bearings are based on the deed call of North 88° East, along the North line of the 24 acres shown hereon." Note, that rotation will then set ALL bearings, thereby making the use of the plural form a necessity. (2) "Bearings are based on the Texas Coordinate System of 1983 (Texas Central Zone) per GPS observations. All coordinates are U.S. Survey Feet, NAD83(2011) Epoch 2010.0000 per Trimble VRS Network Solutions/OPUS solutions through the NGS website. At the Point of Beginning, the angle of convergence is 02°14'38" and the combined scale factor is 0.999975. To get geodetic bearings, rotate the bearings shown hereon, clockwise, by the angle of convergence. All distances are grid and to get surface distances, divide the distances shown hereon by the combined scale factor." As with the first, ALL the bearings and influenced by this projection, thus requiring the plural form.
Feel free to molest for your own use....
Kris
Getting back to the original question - since there are usually multiple bearings annotated on a survey map the plural form would be appropriate.
"Neither. I vote in favor of using the English language in such a manner that you can actually understand what is being relayed instead of some “Surveyor Speak”."
Oregon statute require that the "basis of bearing" [SIC] be stated on the map. So it is common practice to make a statement, often like Kris's, under the heading of "Basis of Bearing", to make the checking of the box easier for the reviewers.
Oregon statute require that the “basis of bearing” [SIC] be stated on the map.
What would be wrong with "BASIS OF BEARINGS IS ASSUMED" Regardless of what was used.
My favorite "Bearings are GPS"
I've always preferred the assumed bearing based on two key monuments.
This generally prevents the anal retentive types working with State Plane or Geodetic North from viewing the work product of others reporting in those styles as inferior because MY bearings don't agree with YOUR bearings by 4 arc-seconds over a half mile distance.
My teeth grit when I see such differences reported on plat such that there are three or four lines of data showing the B & D of each of prior survey of record compared to the current work (and three of those are by their own company).
I use the plural form. Perhaps using Bearing Basis would satisfy both conditions. Around here most do not even make it a statement. They just write whatever alongside the north arrow.
What would be wrong with “BASIS OF BEARINGS IS ASSUMED” Regardless of what was used.
Nothing, IMO. But Oregon Statute also gives the county surveyor wide latitude to accept or reject just about whatever he deems fit. Some are easier going than others.
