Personally, I like a more ornate north arrow; but then again rather than adjoiner information I just draw one of these:
with the note "Beyond here there be monsters"
> 2. A major flaw in my eyes is the lack of data on ties across the street. Are the ties 90 to the streetline or an extension of lot lines. I probably can determine that from the coordinates but I would much rather see it right there.
The main reason for the road widths indicated is to demonstrate that a road originally established in the 1880's is now occupied as significantly less than its original 40 ft. This is explained in one of the notes that I posted above. If this were a subdivision plat, yes, a better tie with a bearing on it would be warranted although the subdivision on the West side of the road would still be the encroachment that caused the apparent narrowing of the road.
Example of Map of Survey (Kent)
> 1. The legend. There is absolutely a time and place for a legend and using point symbols; however, I prefer to have the corner markers actually labeled beside the point. In cases of multiple markers, especially at larger scales, I think this is a better approach than the legend due to the graphic cannot relay with a written word can, (i.e. Set Standard Rod & Cap, Fnd. 1/2" Steel Rod East, 2.10 feet, Fnd. 1/2" Iron Pipe North 20°15' West, 2.62 feet).
The problem with using different symbols simply to differentiate between different materials is that it overlooks the important information. What the user should want to be able to determine at a glance is which monuments are original, controlling monuments and which are not. If a monument is original and controls the boundary shown on the map and is described fully elsewhere, I don't really care whether it's a pipe, a nail, a rebar, or a whatever for the purposes of initial examination.
> 2. The data table showing the calls vs. the found. Much like the legend, the end user must transition from the table back to the graphic. I think a better way to do it is to place the deed call, on the appropriate side of the line, so that it's representative of that particular deed call, so that when the end user is looking at the differences, they see the founds vs. the calls very easily within the graphic. This method keeps the end user focused.
The end user is almost always another surveyor when resurvey results are being compared to records of prior surveys. The map should reflect a proper boundary resolution and should note specific unresolved discrepancies or confusions, not rely upon the viewer to hunt them up. In that light, creating a blizzard of text by annotating several record calls from earlier conveyances on lines just to compare to a resurvey finding is counterproductive. Flag discrepancies and refer to tables.
Example of Map of Survey (Kent)
>
> The end user is almost always another surveyor when resurvey results are being compared to records of prior surveys. The map should reflect a proper boundary resolution and should note specific unresolved discrepancies or confusions, not rely upon the viewer to hunt them up. In that light, creating a blizzard of text by annotating several record calls from earlier conveyances on lines just to compare to a resurvey finding is counterproductive. Flag discrepancies and refer to tables.
That is going to be the chief difference in what drives your surveys vs. mine. My opinion and stance is that the client is the end user and very seldom are wise in the ways of surveying. Also, I very seldom have the plat when I'm retracing a survey, so the description is what I'm working with.
The stance that I take, and is how I was taught, is to evaluate the end user. What I attempt to do is prepare a plat, in such a way, that the absolute dumbest end user can use the product. This may be the client, the clients neighbor, or the divorce attorney hired to represent the client in a land litigation case.
As far as what the plat should reflect, I agree and stipulate that there are a myriad of ways that it can be accomplished. As I mentioned previously, there is absolutely a time and a place for those tables; however, I think the tables and legends should be used at a minimum instead of a standard.
All that being said, you prepared an excellent plat that accurately reflects the boundary and it's construction.
Just an observation, but did you mean to have a one second bearing break on that west line, at Dacy Lane?
The east side, over at Lots 6-11 would have made an interesting example with the "best fit line" thread a little while back.
Example of Map of Survey (Kent)
> My opinion and stance is that the client is the end user and very seldom are wise in the ways of surveying. Also, I very seldom have the plat when I'm retracing a survey, so the description is what I'm working with.
If you think that Mr. Client is the primary consumer of the maps of your surveys, then that only reinforces my point that maps should be as clean as possible, plainly illustrating problems discovered instead of providing a sort of "kit" by which Mr. Client can take a stab at discovering them.
On the subject of boundary resolution, for example, it's obviously best practice to write in an accompanying report that "I prepared a map of survey No. [identify map] that represents in the main the shape and location of your land according to the results of my resurvey. While several of the markers originally placed by [so-and-so] when the lot was originally created have evidently been destroyed by construction activities following the layout of the subdivision, I was able to determine to my satisfaction where the positions of the missing markers had been and have placed new markers as shown upon my map to replace them".
On the other hand, suppose that you find some obvious discrepancy. By your method, you would seem to just want to note that the record and resurvey data are significantly different and let Mr. Client figure out what the implications of that might be. That is much less professional than giving a discussion of exactly that in an accompanying report.
So, to summarize:
- Map cluttered with blizzard of stuff that Mr. Typical Client isn't likely to understand = BAD.
- Report discussing in plain language any underlying problems discovered = GOOD.
In the long run, the primary value of a map of a survey is to have a record of what was done presented in a way that will be as intelligible as possible in the future to some other surveyor should the work ever be called into question.
I see...I guess its easy to survey in the middle of nowhere...nothin' to locate...nobody around...no trees 😉
> Just an observation, but did you mean to have a one second bearing break on that west line, at Dacy Lane?
No, that was a round-off error in CAD. The metes and bounds description gives the bearing as S1°14’08”E, so I'll be expecting a phone call any day now from another surveyor letting me know that he or she is missing the bearing by a second. Or ... maybe not.
> The east side, over at Lots 6-11 would have made an interesting example with the "best fit line" thread a little while back.
Actually, what was happening to those lot corner markers on the West side of the subdivision was that they were moving downslope. There is a natural swale on the West side of the subdivision that tends to minimize wet-and-dry cycle effects, but gravity and a plastic clay were still at work. The boundary of the subdivision still ran straight between the corners of the tract subdivided even though the re-bar markers were no longer exactly on it.
Example of Map of Survey (Kent)
> On the other hand, suppose that you find some obvious discrepancy. By your method, you would seem to just want to note that the record and resurvey data are significantly different and let Mr. Client figure out what the implications of that might be. That is much less professional than giving a discussion of exactly that in an accompanying report.
That statement is intellectually disingenuous on your part. At no time in this VERY civil discussion have I typed or advocated not explaining what was done. Far from it. Your statement implies that you feel that my method for explaining the calls vs. found is unprofessional and does a disservice to the client. That is also incorrect.
Not ALL boundaries require a long narrative explaining what was done. Some are very cut and dried and others require much explanation and discussion.
Back to the point, which was that the tables showing the calls vs. founds and point symbols leave an end user jumping back and forth from "What does that symbol mean again" to "What was this line supposed to be." That was my point. At no time did I ever question the professional status of your survey. Your comment above was poor form and a defacto ad-hominem.
Example of Map of Survey (Kent)
The stance that I take, and is how I was taught, is to evaluate the end user. What I attempt to do is prepare a plat, in such a way, that the absolute dumbest end user can use the product.
I tire of this homily, when applied to Professional Land Surveyor deliverables.
Is the pathologist's biopsy report comprehensible by the patient? Are court opinions on findings of law easily understood by the contestants? Is a set of building construction plans prepared for digestion by the owner? Are the Space Shuttle turboboost pump plans drawn up so astronauts can understand them?
We too are professionals; our work products are highly technical in nature and should be sculpted for their intended audiences, not "the dumbest end user." That being said, simplicity and clarity are virtues. What irritates me is when I can't figure out what the heck a surveyor is doing on a map or legal description, etc. Prepare them so *I* can understand them, not so the client thinks he understands them.
Example of Map of Survey (Kent)
> Your statement implies that you feel that my method for explaining the calls vs. found is unprofessional and does a disservice to the client.
Well, if the test of a professional service is whether it properly serves the need for which it was requested, and if one of those needs for surveying services typically is to inform a member of the public about what of significance a resurvey of a property has disclosed, then isn't it less than fully professional not to highlight items of concern, but to simply place them in a great clutter of information presented on a a map? I mean, many tracts will have several prior resurveys represented when adjoining landowners are considered as well as all prior conveyances in the chain of title back to common source.
The reality is that attempting to annotate these multiple record measurements along nominally the same line creates a cluttered map that doesn't communicate efficiently and clearly. Vastly more professional to write a separate report in plain English that highlights the problem. Alternately, a very clear note on an uncluttered map would be second choice. Leaving the client to roll his or her own conclusions has to be at the back of the pack.
Example of Map of Survey (Kent) Mike Marks
>
> I tire of this homily, when applied to Professional Land Surveyor deliverables.
>
> Is the pathologist's biopsy report comprehensible by the patient? Are court opinions on findings of law easily understood by the contestants? Is a set of building construction plans prepared for digestion by the owner? Are the Space Shuttle turboboost pump plans drawn up so astronauts can understand them?
>
> We too are professionals; our work products are highly technical in nature and should be sculpted for their intended audiences, not "the dumbest end user." That being said, simplicity and clarity are virtues. What irritates me is when I can't figure out what the heck a surveyor is doing on a map or legal description, etc. Prepare them so *I* can understand them, not so the client thinks he understands them.
Silly me. This wasn't intended to be a sermon as much as it was a conversation about ways to convey thought via graphics and written words. I thought we were supposed to provide a professional service to the public and not other surveyors.
As far as the "intended audience", I guess you glazed over when I typed, "evaluate the end user", or to say it another way, tailor it to the client and other intended end users.
As far as your last statement, that appears to be a personal issue and not one that I currently am afflicted with.
Example of Map of Survey (Kent)
>
> Well, if the test of a professional service is whether it properly serves the need for which it was requested, and if one of those needs for surveying services typically is to inform a member of the public about what of significance a resurvey of a property has disclosed, then isn't it less than fully professional not to highlight items of concern, but to simply place them in a great clutter of information presented on a a map? I mean, many tracts will have several prior resurveys represented when adjoining landowners are considered as well as all prior conveyances in the chain of title back to common source.
>
> The reality is that attempting to annotate these multiple record measurements along nominally the same line creates a cluttered map that doesn't communicate efficiently and clearly. Vastly more professional to write a separate report in plain English that highlights the problem. Alternately, a very clear note on an uncluttered map would be second choice. Leaving the client to roll his or her own conclusions has to be at the back of the pack.
I agree with your "litmus test". Currently I'm working on a project, that when you abstract it back to it's inception, it's the same record description carried forward for nearly 100 years. I see no reason to put the the 25 conveyance calls on the plat when they are all the same. So in that regard, I would agree with you.
Look, like I said INITIALLY, there is a time and a place for it. Typically, and I know you do it a bit differently, when it gets past the cut-and-dried surveys, all of that information goes into a narrative. Whether or not it gets recorded is not within my purview, but I can promise that you can follow it, or my map, or my description.
The survey you provided had, in my opinion, the room to show the call vs. found on the face of the plat. If you don't think so, then I yield to your drafting styles. I suppose that if I worked in an area where the land was conveyed more by newer surveys with problems, then I might take your approach. Most of mine are quite old though.
> > Just an observation, but did you mean to have a one second bearing break on that west line, at Dacy Lane?
>
> No, that was a round-off error in CAD. The metes and bounds description gives the bearing as S1°14’08”E, so I'll be expecting a phone call any day now from another surveyor letting me know that he or she is missing the bearing by a second. Or ... maybe not.
>
> > The east side, over at Lots 6-11 would have made an interesting example with the "best fit line" thread a little while back.
>
> Actually, what was happening to those lot corner markers on the West side of the subdivision was that they were moving downslope. There is a natural swale on the West side of the subdivision that tends to minimize wet-and-dry cycle effects, but gravity and a plastic clay were still at work. The boundary of the subdivision still ran straight between the corners of the tract subdivided even though the re-bar markers were no longer exactly on it.
So...Kent, Do you ever have situations where you show bearing breaks between monuments that are supposed to be on a common line? What if they are, say 4 on-line original marks that are based on a plat that calls a straight line and you can't isolate that movement such as what you described above has caused them to become off-line with each other. Sorry if I missed earlier posts or threads where you already answered this question.
Just curious. Nice plat, by the way. I think many of us never learned quality drafting techniques and some of your pointers are excellent. More cad classes I have been involved with teach how to use a software vs. actual drafting use, line weights, placement of texts, etc.
Example of Map of Survey (Kent)
> So, to summarize:
>
> - Map cluttered with blizzard of stuff that Mr. Typical Client isn't likely to understand = BAD.
>
> - Report discussing in plain language any underlying problems discovered = GOOD.
>
If you care, I think that the debate on this point has a lot to do with personality. Do you prefer a sketch or a narrative (personally). Yes, we all want both, but it seems that different people place a different value on these.
Personally, I like the emphasis on writing. But, I enjoy reading, and have pretty good comprehension. On the other hand, I could see a non-surveyor looking at blocks of text and assuming that they are too full of jargon to be understood. Then they might not read it at all.
Two different perspectives. If drafting was free and cheap and easy, we could do pages and pages of drawings and narrative, but then only the page with the map would get printed out by 99% of users (probably even a good number of surveyors).
Thanks for sharing Kent.