> If others had of paid attention to what I had written in my "Thank You All" post they would have seen that I was not talking about a county or city employee here who is checking the map, it is a "private engineering firm" who is doing the check.
>
> >On November 22, 2010 the developer paid $ 6552 for a private contract firm to check this map.
>
> The person who I spoke with last week who checked the map said that "the engineering on the second sheet is fine". I am glad she saw that but I am wondering what engineering she is talking about. She also wants me to bend to her drafting style, not happening as I said before.
>
> I want to bring this person up to speed that surveyors are no longer required to place an expiration date of the license on the map so there is no reason to make it a correction. Let her spend her time on more productive corrections like line types and commas, boy this gal likes commas. The commas are there, she just wants them larger.
>
> I had set two centerline spike and washers on the parcel lines produced, she wants those taken off of the map.. They stay. They are set monuments and she should have been aware that the parcel map is based on a 'field survey' and not record compilation and that I have certified that all monuments shown have been set. I know why she wants them off the map. It is because if there is an existing centerline monument within 100 feet of a Tract or Parcel Map line produced we are not required to set any others at CL/PL intersections. Both of these are within 100 feet but I chose to set them anyway. This is a LA County / City thing and not statewide.
>
> I don't like rolling over just because some checker has an itch that they want scratched. If it's a valid request, I do it, if it's just because they want it that way, I wont. If you guys want to bend to the whims of the checkers, be my guest.
>
>
> Middle eastern accent comes to mind but I wont mention that.
The day a "Checker" tells me what monumentation to show or not show on one of my plats and gets me to agree hasn't been seen and is not likely in my lifetime.
Formats to fit a client's or a client's vendor's requests is not a big deal, but the boundary and how I depict it and the reference monuments is mine alone. Pertinent suggestions MAY be considered.
What does her coming from Virginia or Maryland have to do with it. 😉
> I don't remember Andrew.
>
> We are meeting with Jim McCavitt and one of his Cadastral Surveyors on Wednesday to look at some monuments in Section 9.
Say Hi to Jim for me. We worked together long long ago. He's a good surveyor.
DJJ
> If others had of paid attention to what I had written in my "Thank You All" post they would have seen that I was not talking about a county or city employee here who is checking the map, it is a "private engineering firm" who is doing the check.
>
> >On November 22, 2010 the developer paid $ 6552 for a private contract firm to check this map.
>
I saw that but guess I thought that the client had spent this money for some other review and then comments came back from the County anyway, implying a waste of money for the private firm review. My confusion.
> The person who I spoke with last week who checked the map said that "the engineering on the second sheet is fine". I am glad she saw that but I am wondering what engineering she is talking about. She also wants me to bend to her drafting style, not happening as I said before.
>
A pretty clear indication that this map reviewer is well outside of her element. She may be perfectly competent to review actual engineering drawings, but as most engineers refuse to understand, survey drawings are not engineering drawings.
> I want to bring this person up to speed that surveyors are no longer required to place an expiration date of the license on the map so there is no reason to make it a correction. Let her spend her time on more productive corrections like line types and commas, boy this gal likes commas. The commas are there, she just wants them larger.
>
I take, it back, maybe, she isn't competent, to review drawings, of any kind.
> I had set two centerline spike and washers on the parcel lines produced, she wants those taken off of the map.. They stay. They are set monuments and she should have been aware that the parcel map is based on a 'field survey' and not record compilation and that I have certified that all monuments shown have been set. I know why she wants them off the map. It is because if there is an existing centerline monument within 100 feet of a Tract or Parcel Map line produced we are not required to set any others at CL/PL intersections. Both of these are within 100 feet but I chose to set them anyway. This is a LA County / City thing and not statewide.
>
Maybe a potential for education, but going back to the "correction" of linetypes and comma size, she may be uneducable.
> I don't like rolling over just because some checker has an itch that they want scratched. If it's a valid request, I do it, if it's just because they want it that way, I wont. If you guys want to bend to the whims of the checkers, be my guest.
>
That's the bottom line with how I, and probably most of us do it as well. I first attempt to educate on the matters which cannot be compromised on and try to understand the logic on the other matters. If I can accept the logic offered on a particular matter, I'll make a change to make a better map. If it boils down to the preferred style of the checker, I may make a change if I am also addressing something else and if I like how it looks and if it doesn't take too much of my time, otherwise style matters will not be addressed.
This may also be an opportunity to educate your client about the potential of saving $6500 next time if the comments provided by the private firm cannot be complied with as a matter of law and/or do not provide any value in terms of minimizing County comments or otherwise expediting the County review.
Dave
🙂
