We cogo them all up and rotate them to a section line within our state plane coordinate system database.
Does this database consist of Certified Corner Records (CCRs) like we use in Florida?
I don’t find that a basis of bearings is a necessity but I’ve noticed that it helps all parties involved to have surveys tied to state plane in states where GIS based tax maps are the standard. Now that many states provide free LiDAR and orthos referenced to state plane, it just seems natural that boundary data be reference to the same.
I think a better solution is for states to strongly recommend slapping a couple of state plane coordinates on two platted monuments along with the metadata. The PLS can choose to keep magnetic or true or plat north but the coordinates provide the GIS tax mappers a way to anchor plats to their database. We joke about GIS being an acronym for, “Get it surveyed”, but folks have enough to worry about without seeing a tax-map boundary line going through their garage.
Coming from Oregon, where we do have the previously mentioned OCRS network, I think it would be great to see maps and plats with coordinates and metadata as Murphy suggested, and instead of bearings on the lines we show angles. It would sure make it easier to compare multiple surveys to each other if they all showed angles instead of bearings when they have different basis of bearings, and by providing coordinates with metadata its easier for another surveyor to follow in your footsteps and at least start out in a very small ballpark for search positions to make his/her own measurements. As long as the map has a north arrow pointed in the right direction to help orient the reader, I don't see a benefit to using bearings over angles.
I now have the pleasure of reviewing survey plats where the bearings on the new plat are said to differ from the bearings on an earlier plat of the same tract by the same surveyor.
They will show a line as being north so many degrees and so many minutes and so many seconds east as being the "magic black box" numbers from the prior survey and then a similar but so many seconds different bearing on the current survey and a distance between the same two monuments as differing by 0.01 to 0.04 feet.
Apparently, what ever the "magic black box" says is perfect....................except for when it is not.
Them monuments and lines wiggle around when you're not looking, you know.
Does this database consist of Certified Corner Records (CCRs) like we use in Florida?
The key word is 'our' database. We've been creating a database for 2 decades and most areas we work in we have a good starting point. When we survey in areas outside of our database we try and start with statewide GIS data or county GIS data, if available. Just to get us 'close enough' as a starting point.
Idaho has corner records but coordinates are not required as in your examples. WA has corner records too, but I rarely use them because they are not required like Idaho.,
Always discussing this topic. Some government agencies require bearings to be referenced to True (geodedic) North. Didnt seem relevant unless a landowner wanted to take out his/her compass and run their line (accounting for declination of course). However, in thinking about the subject matter more, the True North basis of bearing would be pertinent in the PLSS hence why BLM uses True North. Specifically, and most importantly in a double proportion scenario. If you are proportioning based on Cardinal Equivilents the basis of bearing must be the same or your cardinal equivelents proportions will not be correct. With the emergence of NATREF 2025 and new LDP state plane layers hopefully more jurisdictions adopt those layers as the required coordinate system so everyone is surveying on the same basis of bearing.
It seems to me that the original posting is way overcomplicating the situation. The idea that the general public will grasp the basis of bearings and the iterations possible are absurd. The idea that using one particular method to get all surveys across an entire state to seamlessly knit together is nothing more than a pipe dream.
If I have done my job correctly, I have stated my basis of bearings, whether it be state plane, assumed, former plan, ect., I've located found corners to project my lines on, set my corners and prepared my plan with all of the relevant information to follow in my footsteps.
No matter how you look at the whole basis of bearings, using solar observations, GNSS, total stations or any other tool, introduces error through quality of equipment, practices employed, introduction of human error, and the like. At the end of the day, there is no single perfect system that can be employed. We live on a sphere that wobbles its way around the sun, we have magnetic declination, slight shifts in orbit, floating continents and crustal movement, as well as periodic adjustments to geodetic data through densification of the network.
I'm thinking about adding a note to my drawings:
Basis of bearing is assumed. I assumed I knew what I was doing. Based on the ever present human error, the wobble of the planet on it's axis and the consistent movement of continental plates; You can assume the information provided hereon will get you close to where you think you want to be.
What do all y'all think?
Basis of bearing: NAD83(2011) +/-
I guess you could use angles turned only and be good to go, but it's kinda nice to be able to glance at a map and quickly get the general orientation of things with respect to cardinal directions. Not every map has to be a super busy ALTA to be useful...
