I have been struggling with several survey maps in an area where every surveyor made up a highway layout in a different way. In the process of filtering out the layouts that do not fit current pavement, survey marks and occupation I came across one map from November of 2020 with the following note:
"This Plan [sic] prepared from available plans and deeds of record and does not represent an instrument survey by this Surveyor." (Yet this non-survey shows monuments and lots).
I do not beleive this is allowable practice in our jurisdiction to show a subdivision of land. I seriously doubt this type of work allowed anywhere.
This survey isn't a survey. Classic!
Is it stamped and signed? Maybe some rando took a site plan and recorded it without telling the guy.
It is stamped and signed.
"This is not the survey you are looking for."
-Obi-Wan Kenobi
A Tax Map is a compilation of available records. That's not illegal. Is a licensed surveyor precluded form producing such a map by virtue of his licensure? I think not. As long as they make it plain that the map is a compilation of records and not an original work, I think that it is OK.
It is stamped and signed.
I see.
I've prepared descriptions from record data only and in those cases I include a note saying as much, but I think this is the first I've heard of someone preparing a survey from record data and then recording it. Weird.
Could a surveyor create a map and record showing the results of their research?
Isn't that the question?
As long as they explained what, how, etc I do not see any issue with that.
I think if I were to do this I probably wouldn't show any monument symbols on it though.
This map shows lots being created without the benefit of a survey, and monuments, hopefully only the monuments that were from the previous surveys that were made into a mosaic here.
In 2018 the Board made an advisory ruling about "compiled" plans. They don't have an archive of these rulings, as far as I can tell. Just the current ones are available to view. I don't think it was favorable though.
I have prepared composite plats showing record measurements and the most recent monuments of record, but you'll never mistake it for a survey. Washington State allows record monuments on maps, but I won't do it on a filed map.
thebionicman: Washington State allows record monuments on maps, but I won’t do it on a filed map.
bstrand: I think if I were to do this I probably wouldn’t show any monument symbols on it though.
I opened a random survey recorded this past month. It is pretty common to show mons even though they are calculated.
I assume the method used to calculate the mon that is shown as existing, but was not visited, is explained in the notes, and is on one of the referenced surveys. This is very common around here (Seattle metro area). Showing a monument according to the record location on a survey or plat is pretty much standard practice for a lot of surveyors. Even the ones that appear to not be doing this are showing a location based on their visiting it 30 years ago.
This map shows lots being created without the benefit of a survey, and monuments, hopefully only the monuments that were from the previous surveys that were made into a mosaic here.
That sounds like what we call a "paper short plat" around here. Not allowed at this point, but it wasn't the board that ended the practice, it was the municipalities.
It is pretty common to show mons even though they are calculated.
That seems more confusing than helpful to me and I'm learning about how you guys do the monument notes/table which I'm sure helps, but it still seems a little strange to me to show a monument that you didn't actually visit.
I assume the method used to calculate the mon that is shown as existing, but was not visited, is explained in the notes, and is on one of the referenced surveys.
Definitely different than Idaho where we'd probably just show undimensioned, unmonumented linework since we didn't actually retrace any of it.
The Advisory Ruling actually dates back to 2000. 250 Code of Massachusetts Regulations was revised/updated in 2013 but the advisory is still applicable, I believe.
