Jim
I wouldn't say the repository would become worthless because there would still be a majority of surveyors that would do a good job and file good maps. I do like the idea of County Surveyor review, though. Maybe I'm just brainwashed because it's been that way all my life. Even though a surveyor can reject the CS's comments and demand that the map be filed as is, the CS can place a note of disagreement on it with a response from the surveyor. I have very rarely seen that done, but when it was it was justified.
The cost of CS review is significant in Sacramento County and I'm sure that it is a factor in so many "failure to file" cases which seem to be the majority of consumer complaints the Board deals with. It'll never happen, at least as long as government revenues are so slim, but the filing of surveys is more for the good of the general public than it is for the property owner of the land being surveyed, and it should be financed by the public. Good luck with that.
Reality Rears Its Ugly Head
> That would work great if every licensee were truly a professional. Unfortunately -- at least in California -- there are enough licensees willing to ignore their professional responsibilities in the interest of increasing profit margins that the repository would quickly become worthless as a source of reliable boundary information. The California legislature recognized this early on and required that Records of Survey be reviewed by the County Surveyor for adherence to minimum standards.
>
I'd agree with you, Jim, that there are surveyors out there who do really great work and those who do really crappy work. Sometimes the great ones crap out on a survey and sometimes the crappy ones get it right. The basic nature of that concern attempts to get it right all the time and to at least, when it's not right, make it look like it is. We end up setting up our little kingdoms where the top king (the appointed ruler) has the control and an unfettered way of subjecting taxes (fees) over his subjects. I just don't buy into it. I think professionals need to be professionals and we will measure ourselves against ourselves naturally.
And, lost in all of this thinking is the most important reason that we need a repository in the first place: EVIDENCE. Every survey, good or bad, documents evidence, good or bad. When I do a survey, I need evidence. I don't care where the evidence comes from, who prepared it, or who may or may not have reviewed it. I want it. The more evidence I can gather, the better I weigh that evidence, and the better I can make my determination of the boundary location.
I've seen, throughout the 23 years of filing surveys here in Utah, a dramatic increase in the quality of the surveys and, more importantly, the amount of evidence being perpetuated. It makes me wonder how much evidence we could have had available if there had always been a pubic repository. We have no review, other than a cursory review for indexing information and a few basic requirements such as a north arrow, scale, basis of bearings statement and a narrative. From there, it's up to the professional to determine the clients needs and to meet them. No level of review will make the surveyor's determination of the boundary correct, nor will it relieve the surveyor from the liability associated with making an improper determination.
I think surveyors want to be professionals and will step up when given the opportunity. Overbearing governmental restrictions and minimum standards have a tendency to work against the true professional.
JBS
Reality Rears Its Ugly Head
Well put JB. I agree.
As to:
>Why should I pay the additional cost and delay when some plat-checker (who is trying to justify his existence) doesn't like the font size in the title block?
You/we should lobby against those plat-checkers to have the power or authority to make those decisions. Not to do away with the ability to have a depository. It sounds like California's system is overbearing and expensive. If my plat is legible and has the necessary information required by law, it should be deposited.
Another advantage, in my opinion, is that if I deposit a good plat that shows what I did and why, many other surveyors will be more inclined to agree with my corner location. As opposed to finding my monument, no record of how it go there and possibly not finding the same controlling monuments I came from. Also, if they retrace my survey and find an error, they would probably be more likely to call me and discuss it with me. (I know some won't, but most the surveyors I associate with, I think would.)
Reality Rears Its Ugly Head
The County Surveyor has no authority over fonts, title blocks or other trivial matters on Record of Survey maps. On subdivisions the C.S. or City Engineer does have more ability to check for those things. City Engineers do not check Record of Survey maps; only the C.S. can do that and they are mostly pretty reasonable. I have had them make stylistic requests but didn't mind too much because it made my map look more like the local standard which would reduce future confusion over it, I would think.
They can check for the statutory statements, sheet size and legibility. The C.S. can have an opinion about professional matters but the most they can do in the case of an unresolved dispute between them and the surveyor is put a note on the map which the Surveyor can then refute with a note.
Reality Rears Its Ugly Head
> The C.S. can have an opinion about professional matters but the most they can do in the case of an unresolved dispute between them and the surveyor is put a note on the map which the Surveyor can then refute with a note.
I'm not too sure that I favor the idea that a surveyor who hasn't been paid to do the work and isn't taking any professional responsibility for the work would have the right to publicly declare that they disagree with my results in a permanent public document. No surveyor should have that authority. It's one thing to have a disagreement between two surveyors on equal footing, each free to formulate their own opinion, each taking responsibility for their own opinions. It's an entirely different thing when one of them is placed in a position of authority over the other.
Just saying... ;o)
JBS
Reality Rears Its Ugly Head
It doesn't happen very often, probably less than 1% of the time.
The few cases that I have seen have mostly been something minor or something the County Surveyor felt strongly about but just couldn't get through to the Surveyor. There is one where I agreed with him because he was defending some WWI era section corners set by his predecessor C.S. by single proportion (should have been D.P. but this was 1969) so it made sense but the Surveyor did not agree with him although there was a lot of evidence of reliance right there on the map.
My employee worked as a checker for a short time; he said the one case where they were about to put a note on the map was where they had tried numerous times to get a Pre-82 CE to understand that 200.00' to such and such line (which was about 202') means you go to the line not just 200.00' and stop. He said they were about to file it with the note when the Engineer called and said he finally gets it so it got fixed on the final version that got filed.
I had a disagreement one time with a C.S. and I actually offered the Note solution but he just backed down and let it go finally. It was over 2 tenths. Do you measure from here (close by) or use a remote tie to a non-original street P.I.?
Reality Rears Its Ugly Head - JBS
> I'm not too sure that I favor the idea that a surveyor who hasn't been paid to do the work and isn't taking any professional responsibility for the work would have the right to publicly declare that they disagree with my results in a permanent public document.
It's peer review. Some of the notes I have seen placed ..
Insufficient control (justified)
Requires the filing of a Record of Survey
(justified in the case of a CR filing, at times)
Not considered a durable monument
(Maybe justified in the case of 2 x 2 hubs if redwoods are not used. But for setback control for rear yard additions it would not be justified)
One Deputy threatened a huge note on one of my RS. He used words like 'incompetent' 'unprofessional', I mean, he was really pissed at me. He refused to sign my RS. All this was over a note I had on my RS showing a centerline based upon curb splits that were +/- 0.03' from being in a perfectly straight line and I placed the +/- 0.03' note on my RS. I later found out that this deputy was just an office LS who had never done any field work beyond college courses.
If you cannot take peer review, that is strictly limited to spelled out technical checking MTS, then it's best not to do any surveying in California.
I will say this though, that some of my colleagues do allow checkers to run over them with corrections so it's their own fault that they have to live with checking procedures that they complain about.
Reality Rears Its Ugly Head - JBS
> It's peer review. Some of the notes I have seen placed ...
It's not a peer review if the two surveyors aren't on equal footing. If I want a peer review, I go have breakfast with surveyors who I know I can talk with and who will give me their opinions. I will then consider those opinions and decide what I'm going to do. I don't have them put a note on my survey that says they disagree with my opinion.
> I will say this though, that some of my colleagues do allow checkers to run over them with corrections so it's their own fault that they have to live with checking procedures that they complain about.
That's more to my point, Paul. We seem comfortable with a review authority when it's a good decision, but we loathe the review when it's not a good decision. The only way to avoid the bad reviews is to avoid reviews. I've seen too many surveyors who will leave their checking to the checker, just because they're there. Put out crap for a map and not care other than to "get it approved."
I do believe wholeheartedly on subdivision plat (or any other conveyance instrument) review. Those are documents which will affect land title. A retracement survey, however, is not. It's just an expression of opinion based upon the evidence. It's also provides a medium for perpetuating evidence.
The professional should be left to their own opinion. If they're screwing up, they need to be sanctioned for screwing up. Those sanctions are a civil matter, not an administrative matter.
JBS
Reality Rears Its Ugly Head - JBS
> It's not a peer review if the two surveyors aren't on equal footing.
That does not make any sense.
I have never been told how to do a survey, what monument should be held over another, what approach to use, what analysis I should do, or anything of the like as far as someone reviewing my work.
I have however been shown that I had some typos, a math bust, or a missing document reference, which I was glad to correct.
Reality Rears Its Ugly Head - JBS
I agree, it is an equal footing because the C.S. can not refuse to file the map. He can comment, he can put a note on the map but he has to file it as long as it meets the statutory requirements (statements and size). The C.S. does not have much power when it comes to R/Ss and frankly all of the C.S.s I have dealt with so far have been very helpful. I had one dispute but that eventually was resolved; he wasn't unreasonable or on a power trip we just had a difference of opinion that he eventually yielded on at least partly because it is my map, not his.
Partly for the reason we have C.S.s in California they tend to have a lot of good information in the form of maps and other stuff. There is a side benefit to having checked maps in that you have an interested office which I can go to when new in a County to get information (not everything is filed, especially old stuff). I've read about non-recording States where the statement is made that you better not survey in a County unless you have been there a long time or have a lot of experience. I guess that's true anywhere but much less so here because I can always ask questions of the local C.S. and get a lot of good information.
Reality Rears Its Ugly Head
Well, the thing about the survey repository is that having to put your work on display for other surveyors to see and use should, in theory, be a step towards increasing the quality of surveys. I think surveyors would generally do a better job if they know it is very likely that another surveyor is going to follow their work, and it gives good evidence to file a complaint against the surveyors who routinely screw up ... This is coming from Florida, where we have no recording of surveys, but I occasionally get some "WTF?" surveys via fax.
Now, the real question is, are the low ballers and corner cutters really going to record their crappy surveys, or are they just going to mooch off the honest surveyors for even higher profits?
