Those of you who have kept up on this development might share what you know with those of us who have been napping.?ÿ Thank you (in advance).
This is the first that I'm hearing this.?ÿ Are there significant changes?
https://www.nsps.us.com/page/2021ALTA
Red-lined version showing changes available along with new standard.
There has been a fair amount of red ink spilled, but the major change I see is putting the honus for utility records research on the client.?ÿ
If I ask what a "honus" is, am I a complete a...h....?
?ÿ
:)?ÿ?ÿ
?ÿ
Some important changes in the accuracy statement as well, at least from my view point. I prefer the clarity of the new version, which is how I think most of us interpreted the 2016 version.
This is a marketing opportunity, sending out a two-page notification and summary of the new standards to the title companies, attorneys, and key clients. Started working on it the moment I saw the post. Did the same thing when the 2016 standards came out, except this time there won't be any teaching to groups (I'm staying isolated).
?ÿ
Also, I think you used to have to tie in features withing 5ft of a boundary line.?ÿ This specifies that utility poles within 10ft need to be shown.?ÿ?ÿ
?ÿ
Otherwise like others said, there is alot of red ink, but not much material change.?ÿ I don't mind if they change 1 word, and then update the date, as I think they should be updated every 5 years, just to keep the standard current, and help with the perception that we are not working on some outdated standard.
One change is replacing shall with must because some judge somewhere decided shall doesn't mean must. So we musn't use shall when we mean must and we shan't use must when we mean whatever shall means. Got it??ÿ?ÿ
"Shall" and "may" are widely used in technical standards to differentiate between mandatory and suggested.?ÿ One judge should not be able to obfuscate that which has been clear.
If I ask what a "honus" is, am I a complete a...h....?
The word I was looking for is "onus"
Hit must be that Cockney accent we all ear when you speak.
The five feet thing is still there (Sec. 5.C.ii.) . Sec 5.E.iv specifies tying utilities, which includes utility poles, within 10 feet, while Sec. 5.E.iii has us, in essence, tying utilities everywhere within the subject property - with the possible exception of service tees.?ÿ ?ÿ?ÿ
@holy-cow I read the actual decision by the Supreme Court and it is interesting. I've always thought the word "shall" had a clear meaning, but legal decisions often revolve around obscure interpretations of what seems obvious to the rest of us. I passed the LSAT and took some law classes but it was quickly clear my mind doesn't work that way.
@linebender True, unless one shall do otherwise.
I can see standards writing and promulgating organizations from ISO on down to ANSI and smaller, but very specific organizations, needing to spend many hours going through the process of revising existing standards for no other reason than to change "shall" to "must" and "shall not" to "must not".?ÿ You start at the lowest subcommittee level, through the technical committee, to the division standards review committee to the organization's overall standards review committee then to ANSI and possibly on to ISO.?ÿ At the ISO level you "may" encounter potential different interpretations from certain countries.
Strangely, if you search for "honus" it appears that in about 5 years it might become an alternative spelling.
The overhead lines thing is the only major change I see. We've always show them between the poles, but it sounds like now they want the overhead lines shown out from the pole, when they are on a cross arm. I am not so sure I like this being a requirement. I know I have always shown it that way when it appears to be crossing a PL, but otherwise I have just shown them between poles and not on the cross arms. Seems like this is saying that you always have to show the overhead line out on the cross arm.?ÿ
@ppm I always show all of the lines, and sometimes those locations are critical so I use reflectorless to do it.?ÿ
The other major change is to drop the "wetlands staking" and for that I say good riddance. You can imagine how often we see wetlands on fully paved shopping centers in the desert.
thought I would tag on to this:?ÿ NSPS/ALTA survey requested by Client for apartments and housing on several parcels funded with tax exempt bonds; then comes one of the purchasers of the bonds with their own lender requirements in addition to NSPS/ALTA; and today comes another lender of an interim bridge loan with another set of requirements.
My take is that both NSPS and ALTA did not do a good job educating these rogue lenders and attorneys.?ÿ Maybe they should do what AIA does with their forms:?ÿ make proprietary.
?ÿ
