"Are you saying we shouldn't try to improve on that? Just because that system is failing, we should perpetuate it?"
I have no doubt that some Counties have not met their obligation as the stewards of public records. However some have it all figured out and can furnish records within minutes. If you come into our surveyor's office, you can literally research a recorded survey using a physical graphical index, and retrieve a full size physical copy of the map within minutes.
You stick with that most basic working system and supplement it by leveraging technology.
As far as retaining a record of survey that a future surveyor (100 years from now) can use, I don't see a failing system. You can use a record of survey drafted in 1913, just as easily as one drafted in 2013. That works.
Having the single final product be a digital file with pop ups, linked images, and x-referenced files is a nightmare from the aspect of looking forward.
I'm not saying it would not be helpful, but from the aspect of maintaining a public records depository it simply would not work.
Reminds me of the time when our office was "going paperless". They invested thousands in equipment and training, not to mention the time spend scanning and SHREDDING public documents (took a genius to come up with that idea).
Well...the system was proprietary and we can no longer access the database or the images.
I'm all for technology, but in my opinion it needs to be implemented parallel to a consistent physical system that does not change every time someone invents a new mouse trap.
Very good points. I don't know if my county shredded or burnt or even ever had any survey records, there just isn't any until private surveyors were required to file them starting in 1987. There are some excellent county surveyors offices in Utah but not in my county (poor rural).
Does your county have a required drafting standard for survey plats. There are places that do. Probably the best ones I've ever seen are from Canada and Australia (not invented here).
Whether drafting standards and universal conformity should be imposed or not and whose ideas should rule the day, well that would set off another firestorm wouldn't it.
I don't know why the Texan gets so fired up about this. He can't even file his private collection in the public record except for subdivision plats (never heard him say he did one of these). No matter, the rest of the world should follow his standards and superior ways I suppose. Maybe the filing states should revert.
I guess I'm dense. I don't know what any of your response has to do with the idea I've suggested. GIS methodology will increasingly become the way surveyors collect and store data.
No drafting standards except perhaps minimum font size.
A surveyor only has to meet the state min. standards. I have never seen any major problems related with drafting. Most people try their best to convey information clearly in their own style and it seems to be working.
I think access to the records is much more important than the drafting style.
Of all of our records, the recorded surveys (8,000) are the easiest to access.
That only touches the surface of the 52,000 scanned maps/records and the 90,000 associated database entries.
This is also a rural county.
> I guess I'm dense. I don't know what any of your response has to do with the idea I've suggested. GIS methodology will increasingly become the way surveyors collect and store data.
Well, the point was that land surveys are mainly important as they relate to property boundaries and those property boundaries are reflected by conveyances. So, presumably you're proposing to make some "GIS methodology" take the place of the instruments of writing by which property is presently conveyed. That reasonably implies that you want to have property rights depend upon some "GIS methodology" with the latent potential to alter and impair property rights. Do you not see any problem with that?
GIS methodology for conveyances? I never suggested or hinted at such. I only mentioned collection of data and data storage.
> GIS methodology for conveyances? I never suggested or hinted at such. I only mentioned collection of data and data storage.
Oh, you were referring to the way that private records are maintained in one's office? That's different. In that context, GIS is essentially just another way of indexing one's records.
Leon's riff was on GIS becoming the focus of conveyancing. That is a much, much different proposition.
:good:
Leon's riff was on GIS becoming the focus of conveyancing. That is a much, much different proposition.
Stop trying to spread false info Kent. Either you can't read or it's just more of your put down BS. You're just the ever ready slander machine aren't you. Here I thought your posts were actually headed to better drafting standards but you just reverted to the old Kent.
Maybe my plat had a bit of blizzard of text. Jeez, your posting here is a BLIZZARD of BS.
You could communicate a lot better if you'd just speak for yourself and not keep trying to say for others what they didn't say. I'd recommend about a 75% reduction or more.
> Leon's riff was on GIS becoming the focus of conveyancing. That is a much, much different proposition.
>
> Stop trying to spread false info Kent. Either you can't read or it's just more of your put down BS. You're just the ever ready slander machine aren't you. Here I thought your posts were actually headed to better drafting standards but you just reverted to the old Kent.
Leon, you might want to reread what the other Leon Day posted to this thread. I get the idea that your argument is with him. I wish you both the best of luck in your struggles. :>
I was writing about modern mapping. I never said anything about conveying property. You should learn how to read and listen, critical communication skills. Then maybe you could comprehend a conversation.
They should rename this place KentLeg or KentConnect, or the Austin BS machine or whatever. It's on it's way to the same demise as POB. Nobody gets a word in edgewise except you. I don't even post that much.
> I was writing about modern mapping. I never said anything about conveying property. You should learn how to read and listen, critical communication skills. Then maybe you could comprehend a conversation.
Actually, what you posted was that once your GIS-based system was fully implemented, there would be no need for title insurance. That comment only makes any sense if you have in mind that the descriptions of properties are to be based upon the GIS. That naturally has plenty of implications for conveyancing. If I am mistaken, what alternative sense did you have in mind perchance?
The United States is a third rate country when it comes to our land records system. I'd expect that you'd know that.
> The United States is a third rate country when it comes to our land records system. I'd expect that you'd know that.
Move to strike as non-responsive.
Our land record system isn't title but evidence of title, thus we have title insurance.
You might read the first couple of chapters here:
NEED FOR A MULTIPURPOSE CADASTRE
The report is over 30 years old, and it's coming along, but the original problems still exist. The technology has mostly been developed and is being implemented.
I'm sure there is an update to the report. Maybe someone can post a link.
The development of our land tenure system and the problems are nicely presented in the report.
> Our land record system isn't title but evidence of title, thus we have title insurance.
> [...}
Move to strike as non-responsive. Again.
So you're filing a complaint against me in the District Court.
You must read fast if you read that report already. But then again, you don't read, listen, or communicate, you just talk for yourself and everybody else preaching communication skills.
Basically I've wasted all the time and more I can right now. I've heard most of what you have to offer several times before. I admit, you are the brightest Model T on earth.
What you posted was that once your GIS-based system was fully implemented, there would be no need for title insurance. That comment only makes any sense if you have in mind that the descriptions of properties are to be based upon the GIS. That naturally has plenty of implications for conveyancing. If I am mistaken, what alternative sense did you have in mind? Deja vu, eh?
Well, a lot of countries have title registration. I don't know if I want us to go there or not, but it seems to work for them. Do you buy insurance to insure the title to your truck?
Why do you need insurance for a deed. Maybe it's because the deed is not title but just evidence of title. Considering the mess of land records in many places, maybe your deed isn't enough so you buy insurance, mostly lenders require it.
I don't know, maybe plowing through all the records to day one is a good way to do it, abstract your title, prove your evidence and facts, adjust every survey line to the original and such. You're a real expert I judge, you've found your niche. Tell me this, a thousand years from now its going to be more than colossal in scope to go through every record, correct every error and tweak every TDOT marker. Maybe there is a bright spot, you'll only need to do one project for your whole life, billed monthly of course.
Over and out. Read that report yet?
Ps comprehension challenged. If the GIS coordinates for corners where the legal corner positions, the GIS could generate a new and improved legal description for the property. What would be the difference if Kent did it of the computer did it? Don't you support rewriting the description after each survey for the next conveyance? That's your standard operating procedure from what I've read. The description must be accurate, you been preaching that forever. I don't advocate this, but hey, it might happen.
> Well, a lot of countries have title registration. I don't know if I want us to go there or not, but it seems to work for them. Do you buy insurance to insure the title to your truck?
So, basically you're agreeing with what I observed about your views. Thanks for that. I appreciate the confession.
