I'm going to say this right now

Too bad people have to fuss over such trivia, when I can show you a plat where lots that are staggered along both sides of a common rear line add up differently on each side by most of a foot.

@dmyhill

I agree 100%, but the County will reject the map if the sublengths don't add up perfectly around here.  I tried to educate them to no avail and acquiesced years ago.  Their position is 100.00' x 10 = 1000.00', not 1000.04'  Simple math, right?

Another pickle that annoyed me is  some Counties require(d) a tie to an NGS control station (or a pair) of record on the map (early GPS).  Well, in the boonies the nearest NGS control station might be ten miles distant from the site.  Ignoring geodetic considerations (and the near impossibility of surveying to meet an accuracy of +- 0.01'), that means reporting the bearing to the nearest second (and distance to 0.01') could be off by as much as 1/4 foot, or much more.  Clearly the bearing in such a case must be reported to the nearest tenth of a second to meet the +- 0.01'  (+- 0.03' based on trigonometry) standard.  The 0.01' distance annotation is clearly inaccurate even with today's GNSS capabilities. They didn't care, said the requirement was there only to allow them to plop the survey into their GIS immediately. AOK by me and I'll tie to an NGS control station as part of my submittal (as an off record attachment) but to require such a ridiculous statement on a record map where the surveyor knows he's lying and can't possibly survey that accurately is disconcerting.

I was also disgruntled by the requirement that calls to monument accessories as in "found golden monument of record, from which a not of record jackleg rebar bears S62°W 0.42'  "  is unacceptable even though the the the bearing/dist. statement locates the offending rebar to within 0.01'.  Got maps bounced for doing so; they demanded I report the bearing to the nearest second which implies I know (measured) the angle factor to within 0.0002'.  Silly.

I think the problem is there's a bunch of local agency uneducated dick swingers who make up the rules, sometimes in contravention to State laws, and the clueless plan checkers just check off the boxes and bolo your map even though your annotation is reasonable and accurate.  All while collecting thousands of dollars in plancheck fees. BTW, my numbers above may be off by a factor of ten here and there, but the points still stand.  Feel free to correct me.

@bill93

Yup, that's the stink that develops concerning adjacent subdivisions surveyed/laid out in different eras.  One of the surveyors is culpable in such cases.  Although a foot here and there may not be a cause for concern (transit/tape surveys); tens of feet should result in litigation and one surveyor being censured by the State Board.

Sadly, you can be a cowboy lowballer and survive until retirement without Board censure;  the issues concerning  malfeasant practice may take decades to come to the fore, long after the perpetrator is dead.  Such cases are sad, but I have faith that 95% of boundary surveys are performed by competent surveyors and the really bad players are caught by the Board within a few years.  One thing we can do as PLSs is alert the Board when we detect bad players ASAP.  I know it may result in repercussions and have experienced the result of reporting the local Mr. Big guy crook with pressure to shut the f^k up, but after a few years he lost his license.  I'm glad I did it.

Posted by: @mike-marks

@bill93

Yup, that's the stink that develops concerning adjacent subdivisions surveyed/laid out in different eras.?ÿ

Yeah, but my example is in the middle of one subdivision.

@monte

Are you sure about 3/8", 200', and 6 seconds?

@mathteacher

I get 32"

@dave-karoly

That's what I got. I think that 1,070 feet and 3/8 inch will get 6 seconds.

@mike-marks

I like the comment about the NGS ties. I saw a survey the other day with bearings to the hundredth of a second and a thousandth of a foot, and I was mystified...until I saw the distances involved and that the surveyor had published coordinates a few various locations. Without the added precision of the calculations, you would have had a tenth here and there. Is that a big deal? Well, it can be depending on what agency is following the legal along on your survey. I know many here would have condemned the surveyor, but I (following in his footsteps) appreciated the added clues.?ÿ

For the record, I NEVER thought that his signing that survey indicated that he measured anything on the ground to the precision shown in his calculations. I read his instrument note, so I knew what he was starting with.?ÿ

Like all things, we need to simply ask ourselves what information we would want if we were following the survey. That some guy thinks you need to indicate a bearing to the nearest second on a 0.4' distance is simply ignorance on his part. When we are forced to do nonsensical things on a survey or plat, we often explain the insanity on a note.

Perhaps: "Bearings are shown to the nearest second to comply with code and/or reviewer comments. They do not indicate expected precision of measurement."

@bill93

I'm surprised it wasn't caught in the agency plancheck process.  Is your example subdivision really old?

@mike-marks

There is two schools of thought on dividing 2641.73 feet.  One is two lengths at 1320.87 feet therefore edit the overall to 2641.74 feet or the other way is give your client 1320.86 feet and the neighbor 1320.87 feet which is what my first boss would do.

And then there are the surveys showing a prorated 1/4 along an east-west section line with an odd chain record dimension at mid-point.

@dave-karoly

The other is two lengths of 1320.86 and leave the overall alone. If someone calls you on it, take thier PLS and hand them a PE application... 😉  

@thebionicman

You are triggering my nervous tick.

@dave-karoly

Feed that poor tick some Xanax.

Posted by: @mike-marks

?ÿ1958