> I'm curious, just about every GIS I've seen has a click-through screen with the "The information here should not be relied on by anyone for any reason" type disclaimer. Is the county really representing this as 100% accurate?
>
> Other than that, your client needs to get a lawyer and run everyone involved through the ringer. As a surveyor, you should limit your discussion to surveying matters, i.e., where the properties lines, where the easement is, and why the GIS map does not accurately represent the boundary lines ... Let the lawyer handle badgering the engineers. The lawyer might want to file the complaint against the company himself, since having the BOR rule "incompetence" in the matter would make his case a slam dunk.
Mr. Ranger,
It appears you may have done what I often do. I read part of the thread without bothering with the entire thing.
Further along the discussion, Gordie reveals that he is not the surveyor. Rather, he is the landowner.
Very interesting discussion.
Larry P
I missed where he said that in his second post. But I always thought Major Gordie was Gordon Bell, from the old board, I might be wrong.
Major Gordie is Gordon Bell. But he didn't do any survey work on the tract. He is the owner.
Larry P
Actually Larry
I did do the survey work on the property...
I laid the subdivision out originally.... I think it was '94......
Actually Larry
Just take the earlier advice and get a competent attorney.
One of the first things he will do is sort out the players in the action according to negligence and liability. He will early on find out who is the insurer for the engineering company and, due to the subrogation clause in the insurance policy, just immediately bypass the engineering company and deal directly with the attorneys in the insurance company. As the negligence is palpable, the insurer is going to be very willing to settle all issues out of court. That's best for you.
As for the bureaucrats and politicians, just leave them to your attorney.
Carl....
Actually, I am thinking that I am going to meet with them on Saturday and see what they want to do.....
Let them explain why I shouldn't take all of them to the cleaners.......
Then i think I am going to set on it for a week or so and then make a decision.
Carl....
> Actually, I am thinking that I am going to meet with them on Saturday and see what they want to do.....
>
> Let them explain why I shouldn't take all of them to the cleaners.......
>
> Then i think I am going to set on it for a week or so and then make a decision.
Sounds like a good plan Gordon. Give them a chance to see the error of their ways. Give them a chance to be reasonable. Things might work out and you can always play rough later if necessary.
My brother is fond of saying .... once they've seen your backside, they know what it looks like.
Have a great week. Tell Dixie and Chelsea howdy for me.
Larry P
GIS disclaimer
"The information here should not be relied on by anyone for any reason" type disclaimer. Is the county really representing this as 100% accurate?
This exact question about GIS disclaimers was put before a judge this year and the judge held the disclaimer was worthless in that case. Again, a case of where GIS was put to uses that it should never have been and gross errors in the GIS caused harm to real people. And yes GIS "professionals" routinely misrepresent the software and its capabilities.
GIS disclaimer
I'd like to read that case - do you by any chance have a link to it?
GIS disclaimer
Newton, I can’t seem to conjure up a link to the court case.
The issue was the City of Sheridan, Wy declaring their GIS zoning official even though it does not match the documents that created the zoning. When a buyer purchased two lots that make up a Minor Subdivision he did so intending to develop them as R3 as the GIS map showed. The original documents that created the zoning had the south lot R3 and the north lot that is adjacent to existing homes R1. Which makes sense. There is a drainage between the two lots creating a nice transition between the two zoning parcels.
When the developer came in with a set of plans the city shut him down saying he had to meet R1 standards so he sued. The city tried to stand on the disclaimer but the judge said that since they passed an ordinance making the GIS official the ordinance overwrote any disclaimer.
Here is an address for an article about a city council meeting shortly after the court’s decision, but I can't seem to find the court document anymore.
http://www.sheridanmedia.com/news/city-council-addresses-homeowners-concerns16397
It’s not only the zoning on the map that has become “official”. The main glaring other messed up “official” part of the GIS is the FIRM data. The FIRM maps have been scanned into the data base and have also become “official”. This has caused all sorts of problems because they are not accurately placed into the GIS. There are even some areas where the flood plain does not even touch the creek. And no, the streams are still where they were when the FIRM maps were created because they are in a flood control project. I could go on all day about problems created with the misuse of this data.
GIS is great, it’s a nice catalog of information. But, it should never be put to some of the uses it has. This is really a case of an industry selling itself as something it's not.
