AI Assistant
Notifications
Clear all

Proposed Rule Change - Topos in Washington State

15 Posts
8 Users
0 Reactions
1,300 Views
Mark Mayer
(@mark-mayer)
Posts: 3371
Member
Topic starter
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

Proposed rule change for Washington State (WAC = Washington Administrative Code) to govern content of Topographic Mapping by registrants. I wondered if any of you had any comments? There are currently no rules in Washington governing content of topo surveys.

WAC 332-130-145 Topographic map requirements.
The following requirements shall apply to topographic mapping surveys performed by individuals licensed under chapters 18.43, 18.96, and 18.210 RCW. Such requirements should be considered minimum only. The professional conducting the work will determine what precision and accuracy are expected to be utilized for topographic mapping services necessitating various levels of accuracy. Negotiation, requests, and contractual requirements with clients, jurisdictions or other professionals will determine the specifics and quality of the vertical information provided.

The following elements shall be included on every survey map that has topographic information.

[INDENT](1) Graphic information:
[INDENT](a) North arrow;
(b) Scale bar;
(c) Legend of symbols used;
(d) Company and licensee contact information;
(e) Seal and signature of licensee.
[/INDENT]
(2) Statements of clarification of vertical information shown on mapping.
[INDENT](a) Vertical datum used;
(b) Purpose or intended use of topographic mapping (if relevant);
(c) Basis of elevations citing benchmark(s) used with elevation(s);
(d) Source of contours;
(e) Sufficient labeling to determine contour interval(s);
(f) Project bench marks established (if any);
(g) Statement of elevations and contour accuracy.
[/INDENT]
(3) Boundary information (if shown).
[INDENT](a) Source of the boundary information as required by WAC 196-23-020 (3)(c) if map is not prepared by a professional land surveyor;
(b) A record of survey prepared by a professional land surveyor is required if monuments are set per chapter 58.09 RCW;
(c) Survey map requirements as listed in WAC 332-130-050.
[/INDENT]
(4) Underground utilities information (if shown).
[INDENT](a) Source of surface markings (if any);
(b) Statement of accuracy of utility line depiction;
(c) Notification if utility line not exposed or marked for location purposes;
(d) Statement of underground utility depiction purpose and limitations of use.[/INDENT][/INDENT]


 
Posted : August 30, 2017 10:43 am
daniel-ralph
(@daniel-ralph)
Posts: 913
Member
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

I find it a sad state of affairs that there is a need to legislate what is shown on a map. These elements may be focused for engineers and drain field designers who are now licensed to do this work but perhaps we need help too.

This morning I took a quick look at plans for two public works projects in my neighborhood. One has no benchmark, datum or basis of bearings and the other project is not tied to any of the monuments shown or lot corners set. (There is no record of survey) I find that the crap that is accepted by those of us who sign off on these drawings probably necessitates these guidelines. But will we use them? Who will enforce them?

I am doing battle with a PE who wants to add a one-foot riser to a case where the monument is already down a foot. How long is your arm?


 
Posted : August 30, 2017 11:58 am
Mark Mayer
(@mark-mayer)
Posts: 3371
Member
Topic starter
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

Daniel Ralph, post: 444106, member: 8817 wrote: I find it a sad state of affairs that there is a need to legislate what is shown on a map.

This isn't legislation. It's regulation. But that's splitting hairs.

A lot of states have such minimum standards written into their regulations. Oklahoma does, for example. Neither Washington nor Oregon do.


 
Posted : August 30, 2017 12:19 pm
Mark Mayer
(@mark-mayer)
Posts: 3371
Member
Topic starter
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

Mark Mayer, post: 444089, member: 424 wrote: (4) Underground utilities information (if shown).
(a) Source of surface markings (if any);
(b) Statement of accuracy of utility line depiction;
(c) Notification if utility line not exposed or marked for location purposes;
(d) Statement of underground utility depiction purpose and limitations of use.

This is the weakest of the 4 IMO. Statement of accuracy of utility line depiction? If you want me to quote the ASCE Standard 38-02 Quality Level designation then lets say that. Statement of underground utility depiction purpose and limitations of use? I'm not sure I understand what that is supposed to mean. (I do topo's and construction for the money and boundaries for the love. There is no money in boundaries).


 
Posted : August 30, 2017 12:28 pm
thebionicman
(@thebionicman)
Posts: 4524
Member
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

My biggest gripe is specifying it only applies to licensees. Everyone has gone chicken $hit since North Carolina.


 
Posted : August 30, 2017 1:15 pm

FrozenNorth
(@frozennorth)
Posts: 711
Member
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

thebionicman, post: 444121, member: 8136 wrote: My biggest gripe is specifying it only applies to licensees. Everyone has gone chicken $hit since North Carolina.

What happened in North Carolina? Curious.


 
Posted : August 30, 2017 1:18 pm
scott-ellis
(@scott-ellis)
Posts: 1181
Member
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

that is close to being an ATLA level topo


 
Posted : August 30, 2017 1:19 pm
clearcut
(@clearcut)
Posts: 937
Member
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

Perhaps the regulations should address how electronic topos are to be accompanied by a stamped and sealed surveyor's report. The draft regulation appears to be more in line with addressing paper mapping.


 
Posted : August 30, 2017 1:22 pm
FrozenNorth
(@frozennorth)
Posts: 711
Member
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

clearcut, post: 444129, member: 297 wrote: Perhaps the regulations should address how electronic topos are to be accompanied by a stamped and sealed surveyor's report. The draft regulation appears to be more in line with addressing paper mapping.

Great point! Of thousands of acres of topo we do and contract every year, we almost never turn out a paper product.


 
Posted : August 30, 2017 1:25 pm
Mark Mayer
(@mark-mayer)
Posts: 3371
Member
Topic starter
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

Mark Mayer, post: 444089, member: 424 wrote: (3) Boundary information (if shown).
(a) Source of the boundary information as required by WAC 196-23-020 (3)(c) if map is not prepared by a professional land surveyor;
(b) A record of survey prepared by a professional land surveyor is required if monuments are set per chapter 58.09 RCW;
(c) Survey map requirements as listed in WAC 332-130-050.

Item (C) turns any topo that shows a boundary line into a Record of Survey. Which means, among other things, it has to be done on an 18" x 24" sheet. With a 2" margin on the left side. With a Surveyor's Certificate and an Auditor's Certificate, etc. etc. Seriously?


 
Posted : August 30, 2017 1:28 pm

thebionicman
(@thebionicman)
Posts: 4524
Member
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

FrozenNorth, post: 444124, member: 10219 wrote: What happened in North Carolina? Curious.

The NC Dentistry Board tried to regulate whitening teeth. They lacked statutory authority and had Board structure issues. They got slapped hard. Boards across the country are reacting to the (poorly worded) headlines and changing policies accordingly. Few (if any) of the changes are supported by the decision. The elected officials making them are either too lazy to or can't read.
That's the nutshell version...


 
Posted : August 30, 2017 1:39 pm
james-fleming
(@james-fleming)
Posts: 5732
Member
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

Mark Mayer, post: 444089, member: 424 wrote: (b) Purpose or intended use of topographic mapping (if relevant);

That requirement would bring out my inner smart-ass: "the purpose of this topographic survey is to depict the elevation, slope, and orientation of terrain features in a graphic and/or digital manner".


 
Posted : August 30, 2017 1:49 pm
clearcut
(@clearcut)
Posts: 937
Member
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

James Fleming, post: 444135, member: 136 wrote: That requirement would bring out my inner smart-ass: "the purpose of this topographic survey is to depict the elevation, slope, and orientation of terrain features in a graphic and/or digital manner".

My inner smart-ass would be more along the lines of:
"Purpose is to provide accurate detailed mapping for use by some pimple-faced engineer to create an unusable and highly incompetent set of improvement plans in need of being re-designed by the poor soul chosen to be the construction staking field surveyor."


 
Posted : August 30, 2017 2:42 pm
Mark Mayer
(@mark-mayer)
Posts: 3371
Member
Topic starter
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

Mark Mayer, post: 444089, member: 424 wrote: (b) Purpose or intended use of topographic mapping (if relevant);

More seriously, the "if relevant" bit renders the clause meaningless.


 
Posted : August 30, 2017 2:48 pm
Howard Surveyor
(@howard-surveyor)
Posts: 163
Member
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

Mark Mayer, post: 444132, member: 424 wrote: Item (C) turns any topo that shows a boundary line into a Record of Survey. Which means, among other things, it has to be done on an 18" x 24" sheet. With a 2" margin on the left side. With a Surveyor's Certificate and an Auditor's Certificate, etc. etc. Seriously?

Not if it is Preliminary in nature, so state that on the plans


 
Posted : August 30, 2017 3:23 pm