Bill93, post: 423783, member: 87 wrote: Hijack:
I was interested to note the location near 8 Mile Creek, as in the 1830's my g-g-g-g-grandfather Truman Hart raised a family on 13-Mile, probably along Arbuckle-Tribble road. I've learned a brother of my g-g-g-grandfather is buried in a little cemetery on top of a hill north a road (35/10 ?) that intersects Arbuckle-Tribble.When we drove through the Leon and 13-mile area a few years go I wasn't fully prepared to find specific locations and had a scheduled destination to reach that evening, but was very interested to see the area. I was just curious if you've worked in that particular neighborhood, as it is close to the second plat you posted.
Most of the family moved on in the later 1830's and several of the family then ended up in southern Iowa and northern Missouri. They probably left because their title fell on the wrong layer of one of those overlapping large land grant situations, Thomas O. Taylor being owner of the other grant, with Henry Middleton agent. I have copies of a couple court documents where they fought this, and those documents are in the most difficult handwriting I've ever tried to read. Do those names ever come up in your research, or is that too ancient?
I have worked on thirteen mile at Deerlick a few years ago. Don't remember a whole lot about it though off the top of my head. It was at the intersection of Secondary 50/1,30/1, and 60.
I wouldn't do that, not unless they are my contours. On the location map ok; but not in detail on the boundary. It gives the impression that they were generated to be valid at that scale, and a quad map is1:24,000.
When I lay quad sheet contours over field topos there are always differences, it doesn't mean the quad contours are wrong, just not appropriate at the scale shown, and not done to the level of accuracy implied.
Plus contours from quads are usually old contours.
Around here I obviously work with much smaller parcels. Topo is still gathered with total station. I don't even want to tell you how much I charge for topo surveys but just due to that fact you wouldn't see me just 'throw in' some contours.
Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk
aliquot, post: 423773, member: 2486 wrote: Yes they do, but that does not mean they have to be on the plat.
I had to reissue a drawing some 40yrs ago (hand drawn era with 10 bluelines required) to include the address of a house beside the location of the house on the drawing and I've been doing it ever since, especially FHA and other Federal Money Loans.
I like client's name and address plus property address to be on the drawing.
It helps some people that can not read plats know what paperwork goes with what.
Basically it depends upon the person behind the Federal desk.
MightyMoe, post: 423792, member: 700 wrote: I wouldn't do that, not unless they are my contours. On the location map ok; but not in detail on the boundary. It gives the impression that they were generated to be valid at that scale, and a quad map is1:24,000.
When I lay quad sheet contours over field topos there are always differences, it doesn't mean the quad contours are wrong, just not appropriate at the scale shown, and not done to the level of accuracy implied.
Plus contours from quads are usually old contours.
I generate the contours from google earth using plexearth program and they match the quad very well. I put a note that they are approximate. I do see that they could be interpreted by some as something they are not even though my note states they are not anything but approximate. I want to make it easier on the client to be able to walk their property lines and if they can read a topo then they would be able to walk the lines more easily. That's why we have this board. I'll have to weigh everything before I make a final decision though. It is so much easier on me to overlay the topo than to trace all the creeks and drains like I usually do. I think if I cover my butt with a note stating they are approximate it would keep me out of trouble. If another surveyor came in behind me, read my note, then tried to use my topo for anything other than its intent, seems it would be on them not me. I don't see a difference in the information I'm providing than if I had just traced the hollows off a topo. It's all just approximate to aid the client in finding their lines years from now. I only show the contours at 20' intervals just like the quads show. I'm not showing any more detail than the quad is showing.
I like it. Clients can get access to quad sheets, topo maps, aerial images and long list of other items on a map and could use for more than they should. When we overlap our boundaries on topos, aerials etc it gives them a product they can actually relate to and understand. Cover yourself with disclaimers, bold and red. If they use them for other than intended that's their fault. If they show their buddy the very useful survey plat they received, then that's good for business
disclaimers can be dangerous, and I've never had much luck with google contours or elevations, just be careful, someone may design off it, you are expanding a 1:24,000 map and you never know how it will be used, I get where you are coming from, it does look nice, but it might be better as an add on say a different sheet.
MightyMoe, post: 423805, member: 700 wrote: disclaimers can be dangerous, and I've never had much luck with google contours or elevations, just be careful, someone may design off it, you are expanding a 1:24,000 map and you never know how it will be used, I get where you are coming from, it does look nice, but it might be better as an add on say a different sheet.
Good idea on the different sheet
I would say that every entity I have ever dealt with considered the biggest block with the biggest letters as the Title Block of a drawing. That the information is in such small type indicates it is not important.
Paul in PA
I can see that the contours might have some reference value to a client or other users of the map. The danger, as someone else pointed out, is if someone takes the contours for something that they aren't and uses them in a way you don't expect.
Your disclaimer statement is a start, but I think not fully adequate to clearly state the limitations. Google Earth data is reasonably good to a point in some locations, and dangerously inaccurate (or perhaps imprecise) in others. Saying that they (and other general topographic features) are approximate does not clarify that they are not based upon your field survey.
"Approximate" can be read to mean that they are based on your field data, but that you didn't collect as much data as you would have had you been hired to perform a detailed topo survey. In that case, although not necessarily expected to be as precise as a fully performed topo survey, it would be expected that you at least verified the accuracy of the data at a few locations on the ground by standard field survey methods.
Quadrangle topo info is nowhere near as precise in location as the contours and natural features placed on your maps seem to imply. Google Earth info may or may not be more precise and may or may not be as accurate. To my knowledge, and in my experience, there is not a spatial standard to which Google Earth data universally holds to.
I think that generally, it adds to the overall attractiveness and appearance of greater completeness to the map, but that it can interfere with the readability of the map's boundary info. More importantly, inclusion of the contours can be unintentionally misleading by seeming to provide more useful data than is actually included on the map. Inclusion of the contours, as long as not contrary to statutory content, should be included only if the client requests them and is adequately informed of the source and the limitations for which the info is applicable.
If you do include them, I would beef up that statement to include the source info and the limitations of reliability of that info (i.e. "Not Field Verified", and "Not intended for base mapping of design projects"). Make it clear that they are not based on your surveying, that they are for graphical reference only, and specifically not verified to be adequate to rely on for any design work.
I like the contours, I can't say this enough "a picture is worth a thousand words". I would state that the contours are for general topography only.
John Giles, post: 423733, member: 57 wrote: the tail to the west is an adjoining lot.
Here is a blow up of my title block.
The plat is designed to be folded with the far right sections being the covers.
I tend to be a bit cynical and apologize in advance, at first glance title block states, "PRESERVING THE PAST FOR THE FUTURE", the map in total (minus client) is entitled "BOUNDARY SURVEY FOR". The question that opens up in my mind is, although it looks nice what is being preserved by showing inaccurate topo data on a boundary survey, how were the contours derived? If these questions arise in my simple mind, if ever your work is contested you can be sure a well articulated attorney will use these items to smash your work, even if the boundary survey is 100% correct. Why open the door?
BK9196, post: 423979, member: 12217 wrote: I tend to be a bit cynical and apologize in advance, at first glance title block states, "PRESERVING THE PAST FOR THE FUTURE", the map in total (minus client) is entitled "BOUNDARY SURVEY FOR". The question that opens up in my mind is, although it looks nice what is being preserved by showing inaccurate topo data on a boundary survey, how were the contours derived? If these questions arise in my simple mind, if ever your work is contested you can be sure a well articulated attorney will use these items to smash your work, even if the boundary survey is 100% correct. Why open the door?
I have explained the purpose of the contours. They are approximate.
Chris Bouffard, post: 423724, member: 12313 wrote: It may look pretty but it also opens up the door to liability. If somebody uses that information for anything any purpose you could be in big trouble if it isn't accurate. The chances of it being accurate are fairly slim as the location of them is scaled onto your plan. Also keep in mind that is this is a USGS Quad Sheet it is likely scanned from a paper copy that could have stretched over the years from reproduction.
I would limit my plan illustration to the boundary information only if that is all that you were contracted to do. If you are going to show the topo it would be in your best interest to add several CYA noted indicating the source of the information, it's published accuracy and make it clear that the information is for illustrative purposes only and is not to be used for any design or permitting purposes.
The one time depicted contours and i REALLY should not have....that's all I'm gonna say about dat!
Thanks for all the input. I'm leaning against doing it. Just because of the liability of it all that has been pointed out several times on here. It does look good, but I don't know that a client is going to be able to read the contour lines anyway.
I can get contour shp files straight from the usgs website and state the contours are a scaled up version from usgs 1:24,000 topographic map. But even at that I don't know.
I'm not doing a topographic survey, I'm doing a boundary survey.
John, stuff like that looks great to surveyors. But, to common people, it's a lot like all of the "extra" stuff that appears on sheets of music that only true musicians understand. You know, stuff like a Demisemihemidemisemiquaver / Two hundred fifty-sixth note
Admittedly misappropriated from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_musical_symbols
John Giles, post: 423997, member: 57 wrote: Thanks for all the input. I'm leaning against doing it. Just because of the liability of it all that has been pointed out several times on here. It does look good, but I don't know that a client is going to be able to read the contour lines anyway.
I can get contour shp files straight from the usgs website and state the contours are a scaled up version from usgs 1:24,000 topographic map. But even at that I don't know.
I'm not doing a topographic survey, I'm doing a boundary survey.
Even though it is an awesome addition to your survey plat, sadly today people take advantage of it and don't read the disclaimers. You are setting yourself up. I get the same BS when I do ILR (Improvement Location Reports) here in NM. Many of the land owners come back thinking it is a survey (and they are not supposed to have a copy) and questioning it. I point on the HUGE disclaimer on TOP of the page.
Maybe you could punt and just email them a GoogleEarth kmz file of your boundary. Even the most computer illiterate clients can be shown how to download the GE app and select a link from an email.
John Giles, post: 423997, member: 57 wrote: Thanks for all the input. I'm leaning against doing it. Just because of the liability of it all that has been pointed out several times on here. It does look good, but I don't know that a client is going to be able to read the contour lines anyway.
I can get contour shp files straight from the usgs website and state the contours are a scaled up version from usgs 1:24,000 topographic map. But even at that I don't know.
I'm not doing a topographic survey, I'm doing a boundary survey.
Just curious,,,,,,,how did the boundary corners fit the contours,,,do you have elevations for them?
MightyMoe, post: 424038, member: 700 wrote: Just curious,,,,,,,how did the boundary corners fit the contours,,,do you have elevations for them?
No, we don't carry elevations around the boundary. But as far as how it looks as to what is on the ground. It looks great. Drains where they belong, knobs where they belong.
