what are your general thoughts about this when you come across a map of a boundary survey with the notes "line not surveyed" or a line type in the legend that denotes such? I've stumbled across quite a few maps over the years where a surveyor has used the deed or map recorded for an adjoining parcel, some that agree with the field work nicely enough and some that are pretty far off. It appears to be a somewhat common practice here in NC (from what I can tell) especially whenever the lines are difficult to survey (water involved or densely wooded) or where somebody else has done a recent survey on the adjoining parcels. I've also stumbled across several where error has appeared to have been played out at one or two of the adjoiners or at curves when involved (R/W usually). Just curious about what the rest of the group thinks here - especially considering how technology keeps making things easier and what is an acceptable level of care to others or where they've seen this backfire on the surveyor
It depends on your registration board, and state laws in regards to professional practice.?ÿ
In Washington state, the obligation of the surveyor to show ALL trespasses and encroachments implies that all lines are calculated at least in order to determine if there are encroachments. The fundamental canons of surveying prepared by the board of registration also shows the obligation to the public, which would imply setting all corners ??for the greater good??.
I am in a position where I review and approve land development (divisions or adjustments of parcel lines), and if a LS sends me a document without all corners set, I want to see a note on the face of the survey explaining why. Often the reasoning is sound, as it is farmed fields where the client requested no corners to be set, or a loose scree field that presented both a safety hazard as well as a high likelyhood that the corners would not remain in place.
Be aware that answers from fellow professionals on here are bound to be skewed towards a higher standard of practice that the average. If you are part of a global group of professionals, discussing and debating elements of the profession, you are also more likely to participate in regional professional groups, and the combination of self education and commitment to the profession would certainly imply that you are more likely to have a little bit higher standard of practice than the mean.
what are your general thoughts about this when you come across a map of a boundary survey with the notes "line not surveyed"
I don't think I've seen anything like that on a survey yet, in fact, I'm curious what exactly it means.?ÿ Are they saying they didn't bother to look for monuments on that line??ÿ Or that they didn't set monuments on that line??ÿ Or that the line didn't factor into their boundary resolution??ÿ The statement is so ambiguous I'm having a hard time picturing the purpose of it.
We have surveyors who will state on the survey drawing that they did not "recover" various controlling monuments, which suggests they are running with SPC coordinates from some prior visit, so clearly they did not run that line.
I never saw that on a map between 1997 and 2010 in NC. Common practice varies not only between states but also within the state. ?ÿSurveying has historically relied on mentoring and has been discussed many times not all mentors emphasize the same standards of care.
what are your general thoughts about this when you come across a map of a boundary survey with the notes "line not surveyed" or a line type in the legend that denotes such? I've stumbled across quite a few maps over the years where a surveyor has used the deed or map recorded for an adjoining parcel, some that agree with the field work nicely enough and some that are pretty far off. It appears to be a somewhat common practice here in NC (from what I can tell) especially whenever the lines are difficult to survey (water involved or densely wooded) or where somebody else has done a recent survey on the adjoining parcels. I've also stumbled across several where error has appeared to have been played out at one or two of the adjoiners or at curves when involved (R/W usually). Just curious about what the rest of the group thinks here - especially considering how technology keeps making things easier and what is an acceptable level of care to others or where they've seen this backfire on the surveyor
And we ask ourselves why the public does not look at surveyors as professionals.?ÿ?ÿ
I've done it, when a boundary is a brook, but it's now a flooded swamp, almost impossible to find the original location.?ÿ I've scaled from old plans, tax maps, GE, etc
Occasionally I show a non-controlling line for context. I add a "Not Surveyed, shown for context only" linetype to the legend.
I don't care for the practice but I do appreciate the plat author putting me on notice about it.
I've shown subdivision lot lines on a few of my surveys where the lot lines were shown for context.?ÿ Those lot lines were not on the lot of my survey, but I was asked to show them none-the-less.?ÿ Those lines were labeled "Not Surveyed Lines. Lines plotted as part of XYZ Subdivision, recorded at Plat Book XX, Page XXX".
Just a scenario; you have a 10,000 acre ranch with 112 courses for the boundary. The ranch wants to know the boundary lines concerning a particular adjoiner that involves 4 courses of the ranch's boundary. It very well could be that these courses could be surveyed without surveying the totality of the ranch's boundary thus resulting in a plat showing the lines that were surveyed and noting the ones that weren't. I don't see anything unprofessional in this scenario. It would take something more than just a note of "these lines not surveyed" to indicate substandard or unprofessional practice.
PS Wendell how is it that a surveying forum has a spell checker that does not recognize the word "adjoiner" ?????ÿ
appreciate everyone's responses. I'm always curious how others handle situations like these when you go to retrace something that has been noted as such. I'm not saying it's always acceptable or that it's a bad practice. Usually once you get started with the retracement you can better tell why they did so and if there was good reason or just cutting "corners" ??? - get it?
Oh, if it's just referring to linework for context then I've seen that tons of times.?ÿ I don't believe I've seen it specifically labeled as "line not surveyed" though.?ÿ Around here they just have the linetype in the legend and no dimension on the lines.
I guess it's good enough for government work.
I'm looking at my plat right now, part of it is the south then east line of an existing subdivision, I show the lots and the configuration of the subdivision but I didn't survey the lots, if that's it, not a problem.?ÿ
In Tennessee, the surveyor is required to denote on the plat of a survey if lines were shown from a different surveyor's work.?ÿ And not merely to note that the line was shown per the work of another surveyor, but to make reference to the surveyor who did the survey.
@lurker?ÿ
Exactly.?ÿ If I'm surveying a 100 acre parcel in order to cut out a 5 acre lot for the land-owner's nephew, I'm not going to survey the entire parcel.?ÿ Just the new lot, frontage, lines running from the road, etc, will be surveyed and dimensioned.?ÿ?ÿ The rest will be either shown as just lines, maybe with +/- distances, maybe not.?ÿ Or I may just have a larger scale locus map to show the rest of the parcel.
Back in the day; if we didn't put a tape on the line, then it wasn't "surveyed"
Today; we walk up to the corner with our GNSS and hit the button...
We inverse between the coordinates, so it was "surveyed"
If a surveyor looks at a corner and says; Yep, it's original and undisturbed. Is it surveyed?
Record lines adjacent to the surveyed area are frequently shown here with a dashed line type, more for context and orientation purposes. I'd rather see those than have a plat showing none of the surrounding record lines in any shape or form where the surveyed area is an island. My personal pet peeve are surveys that fail to show what was recovered and used to control the surveyed lines that are shown and easements that don't mention if they are of record (no source) or dedicated on the plat.
We had a firm that had at one time or another surveyed almost every parcel in the county over two generations.?ÿ You learned to look closely at their plats and if a field book and page were noted in the title block, they actually surveyed the property.?ÿ Without that, It was generally more of a deed abstract.
