Is it a requirement in your area to show acreage to four decimal places??ÿ That would get under my skin more than acre vs acres.
Is it a requirement in your area to show acreage to four decimal places??ÿ That would get under my skin more than acre vs acres.
Looks like OP is from TX. Four digits for acreage was definitely common when I worked there ~10 years ago...and yeah it was pretty annoying then too.
There have been attorneys in Alaska who have been disciplined for writing legal descriptions. At least one lost his license.?ÿ
@holy-cow Although including attorneys is obviously not desirable (what do most attorneys know about boundaries?) that's better then nothing. Maybe its time to push enforcement? Having the attorneys on board could be helpful.
I've asked this question before; If he's reviewing a Surveyor's work, is he technically Surveying? If he is, then the company (or Municipality) he works for, should be told to cease and desist; at a minimum.
I'm getting tired of hearing about non-surveyor's, reviewing a Surveyor's work, and making unfounded comments...
Anyone and everybody can review a surveyor's product.?ÿ Whether or not they can manipulate the surveyor into making a change is something different entirely.?ÿ It could be anything.?ÿ Some city planner asking that a certain label be moved to a different location on the drawing so as to keep a specific area easier to see.?ÿ A county official asking you to label what you show as Valley Road to be Wallace Road (it really does have two names).?ÿ A FEMA employee asking you to add street names to county roads that truly have no designated names.?ÿ Explain your reasoning to them if you disagree.?ÿ Come to a resolution.?ÿ Move on with more important things in your life.
@dougie?ÿ
Some of a surveyor's work isn't really surveying. As mentioned above designating street names is a common one. Others are interpeting subdivision ordinances, flood plain regulations, even local platting regulations (text size, legibility, required non boundary notes, etc..).
There is no reason to require a license to review these things, but I agree, the content of a land description is going too far for a non surveyor (or possibly an attorney).?ÿ
The reviewer should be reviewing to make sure that the description is "definite and certain", no more. Grammar and stylistic comments should be taken as suggestions only.
Discovered yesterday that I needed a reviewer to have looked over one of my plats from last Summer.?ÿ Had labeled the four streets surrounding the block.?ÿ Two of them were Main Street.?ÿ Easy to do, tough to catch because we tend to look at the little things and overlook the really obvious ones.?ÿ That is why headlines in newspapers are frequently wrong or downright funny.?ÿ Saw one yesterday announcing four new employees.?ÿ The story told the reader a great deal about each of the FIVE new employees.?ÿ The story was segmented such that the start of each employee's story had a bold headline like: Mary Stephens
Two of them were Main Street.?ÿ Easy to do, tough to catch because we tend to look at the little things and overlook the really obvious ones.?ÿ?ÿ
Was working a little late one evening, while my employer was in the other room making prints to turn in to the city. Next thing I know I hear "OH CRAP" from the other room, went to find out what was wrong. He had made I don't know how many sets he had printed before he realized that none of them had a North Arrow. Like you said, we are looking at the technical and miss the things that we expect to just be there. We also had a block of standard notes for one of the cities that would just get copied from one set of plans to the next, complete with the original misspelling of "trunk caliper" as "truck caliper" (no spell check is gonna see that). The city reviewer pointed it out in a meeting with the bosses. This was a married couple running the business, so after that the wife, who was the business manager, would go through all of the plans to check grammar and spelling, and the plans weren't stamped until after her review.
At a different job, an administrative assist was just hanging around the office at lunchtime, she took a piece of paper off the printer and just started looking at it. She brings it over to me and asks about a misspelling or grammar mistake, I agreed with her, thanked her, and marked it up to bring to the attention of the drawings creator.
Sometimes it just takes the eyes of the "non-technical" staff to catch those types of things.?ÿ
No EIT is reviewing them in our office, though I wouldn't have a problem with an in house EIT trained in surveying to provide a review of one of my surveys, the more checks the better in my opinion. However, the EIT from the OP is working for a county agency and likely has little to no survey related training, also the refusal to accept my decision as final is the real concern here.?ÿ
?ÿ
In my mind, the comment was made, I addressed by saying it did not need to be changed, that should be the end of it, but that is not what happened, so here we are. I'll let yall know where this ends up.?ÿ
Why is an EIT checking an RPLS??s work??ÿ
That is not allowed in my State. Check your Board's Rules..
@bstrand?ÿ
The term "true point of beginning" came about through the use of "beginning" when "commencing" is meant.?ÿ Typically done, in my experience, by abstractors and attorneys.?ÿ Wattles,1979, Section 11.9, says that there is no hard rule on this.?ÿ IMHO, "true" should only be used when the point of commencement is called "beginning."?ÿ Never should be used when the point of commencement is called that.?ÿ "Beginning/True Beginning" or "Commencing"/Beginning".?ÿ The main thing, according to Wattles, is that there is a distinction between the two points.
When I worked at a county in GIS, OCCASIONALLY I would be mapping a plat for the GIS and I'd find a bust or a blunder.
The one I found that got a lot of attention occured before I worked there, and just landed in my lap prior to it being signed and accepted.
I found a big bust, like 285.45 ft of Non closure and didn't match the legal description etc.
I figured out that through the multiple easement/ROW vacations and Lot line adjustments (Park county Colorado has?ÿ huge areas of zombie lots/plats and this happens more often than the norm at least there) the Surveyor missed a lot on the QC before printing and I reached out to ask him if he saw what I did.
Luckily he did. He thanked me for the heads up, but I never told him he was wrong or hey go fix this. I just wanted to confirm what I was seeing on the submitted plat and he confirmed.
Big PITA?ÿ though was it had been filed and was a giant undertaking because so many of the signatories we're not local or even dead, so he was going to have to file an amended plat to resolve the bust I found and noticed.
So it goes.
?ÿ
Please lets us know, and good luck.?ÿ Anyone not licensed coming down and trying to lay down the law needs a really good back hand of reality to get them straight.?ÿ
Was reviewing one last week by another surveyor before being filed.?ÿ The job was a ballbuster with an ancient description that began at the east end of a bridge that was replaced in 1950.?ÿ I was very thorough on this review as I knew someone in the future will want to challenge the revised description as being wrong for some reason.?ÿ Every i was dotted and every t was crossed.?ÿ Well, that is, until his statement of creating this description on 7-25-22.?ÿ It should have been 2-2-22.
I'm thinking more like fat-fingered, or not clear handwriting that was incorrectly interpreted by whoever was at the keyboard (and just typing and not paying full attention), I've seen two's that can look like sevens and vice-versa. Given that the differences between 2-2-22 and 7-25-22, I'd say it was a combination of the two.
I despise numerical months. Even within the US you can run onto variations in the order within dates, and more so in communicating across borders. And is it really too much trouble to include the other digits of the year? How did we ever get through 01/03/02,?ÿ 02/01/03 etc?
Post made on 2022 Feb 14. (Most significant to least significant, like we do most other things.)