Question?

Finding corners would constitute "doing a survey" in my opinion. Finding monuments would be uncovering physical monumentation and evidence.

Finding monuments would be a function of doing a survey but only one part.

There is no difference in my opinion. It is all professional surveying. Sometimes the client will ask for one and need the other, but sometimes he knows what he wants and deserves to get it. I think it is a disservice to the public to think that you have to perform a full fledged survey on every job.

The problem is that we can certainly see a difference, but the average layperson does not. Therefore, when for some reason (and there will be) that corner I found turns out to be wrong, the layperson will go back to the surveyor who "surveyed it" and place the responsibility on him. If we have no certified drawing that represents our work, then it would be hard to defend ourselves.

I do not know of any real problems caused by the surveyors doing this around here, other than we seem to be teaching some that you can get a 2bit survey done by Joe surveyor.

ww CO PLS

- Have a nice day! Or, may your monument prevail over some guy's touchscreen.

One is a whoop dere tis?;-) Other is a boundary survey. Difference depends on the surveyor and his limited or infinite wisdom.:-)

Pablo B-)

> In a post below there was some discussion about just "finding corners" and "doing a survey". Assuming the person is licensed, what exactly is the difference?

Based only on your post above, I would say just about anyone can "find corners" (land owners, geo caching..). It takes a surveyor to evaluate what they mean and if they represent the original lines.

I would suppose a definitive answer would probably vary state to state.

In Oklahoma a "Plat of Survey" (five dollar words for a drawing & cert) isn't necessarily required unless there are significant differences in the record and field.

If I trot out with a pin-finder and zing up the four corners I've surveyed the lot.

Now how I determine whether or not there is a "significant" difference between record and field is up to me as the professional. If I want to use a rag tape, I can. If I want to pace, I can.

My opinion is that just hopping out of the truck, digging up and flagging four corners is a disservice to the public. The existing pins may very well indeed be the boundary (what the client wanted anyway), but the condition of the record to measured needs to be qualified.

If I found the four corners for someone whose lot was 2' short and didn't notice or report it on a record drawing; the client is not receiving professional care according to our Minimum Standards. And if someone claims it's possible to find a 2' discrepancy by pacing they're full of crap. :clap:

It is a little bit more than "Whoop 'der it is". You find them, tape between them and at that point a professional surveyor has a gut feeling they are the corners or not.

That is when you have the conversation with the client. Either Yes I believe those are the corners or I think you need a complete survey because I didn't find what was expected or they don't work with each other. Then the client authorizes a full survey or pays you for your time. Then a memo to the file, with cc to the owner (survey report in my opinion) should suffice to keep you off the boards radar.

Why get all worked up about giving the client what he/she wants. It is part of the professionals duty along with pointing out that what they want may not be what they need. If you give them what you think they need they are 1. not going to want to pay for it. and 2. think less of the profession in whole.

I see some good and thoughtful stuff here, but a closer look at the response from Mr. Adams is in order. Read it with 'corner' v 'monument' in mind..

Brian

I practice in the same general area as the original poster. I think his concern falls in line with this scenario for "finding corners" ---

Realtors calls ABC surveying "I need the corners found and flagged for a closing."

ABC surveying sends out crew. They pace around swinging metal detector and finds metal objects - maybe they are even in the general vicinity of the corner location. Flags them up and places a wooden witness stake by the metal objects. No serious verification takes place.

In this scenario, the realtor is the client - so they should be able to request what they need. Except that as a professional, the surveyor knows that the potential buyer will rely on his flagging as indicating a full survey of the property.

Also, in reading definitions and requirements in the Kentucky standards: indicating that the found piece of metal is the corner is by definition a boundary survey. If it is boundary survey, a certain set of steps and criteria are required to be met (research, field, reporting).

So either ABC surveying is conducting a boundary survey by showing someone where their boundary is located. Or ABC surveying is finding bits of metal and taking no responsibility for their work - knowing that the buyer will rely on it.

The issue turns on professional understanding

As far as I am concerned the issue turns on the professional's understanding of fiduciary duty.

The issue turns on professional understanding

Yepper.

Isn't it just as simple as "finding the corners" is the end result (purpose) of "doing a survey"? Isn't that why we are licensed? Isn't most everything else merely technical procedures of how we get to the result and/or report the result and are (or should be) open to the professional judgment of the professional?

It seems that far to often we are defining ourselves, our responsibilities, and our profession by the technical tools and procedures we use.

I think the issue not being addressed, is whether you are agreeing to finding corners, or just recovering whatever monuments you might be able to dig up. That would not be boundary work but just utilizing your equipment to help the land owner recover the field evidence. If you dig up a monument using a shoenstedt, that does not mean you have sanctioned it to be the original monument in the original position. To establish it as "the corner" would take boundary surveying and evaluation. To uncover the evidence, would constitute finding monuments in the field (that were most likely put there for a reason.)

My buddy Charlie says "hey tom, I can't find them property corners another surveyor set. You got one of those metal-detector things, can you help me find them?"

I say, sure Charlie, we can see what's hiding underground there. You need to know, of course, that I can't tell you whether those are the original corners, or if they are in the same place that surveyor said they were without doing more work. But we can sure take a look and see what might be lurking there. Let me write that down for you.

Just what did I do wrong? He later has a problem, with the neighbor and says "that there is where my buddy Tom-the-Surveyor told me where my corners were. He's a professional." I come in and say, that "no, I didn't do a survey. Here...look what we bot signed. I can do an actual survey and help you guys clear this up if you like."

I think the issue is more with the communication and the "meeting of the minds" as to exactly what you are doing for the client, and what they should expect. I would think that is more up to the conditions of the contract than whether digging up a monument constitutes a boundary survey.

You might clarify what you meant by "finding the corners" vs. recovering monuments. (was that a trick question?) I would think the the fiduciary responsibility would be in play; but what does that mean. I would think it means that the client comes to full and clear understanding as to what service he is getting for the price he is paying. Let him know the difference between uncovering monuments and a boundary survey (and the price of each)

The issue turns on professional understanding

I think there should be a common understanding of what the technical minimums are.

I don't know why we would bother to define an endeavor as a profession if it's just complete anarchy.

Using a rigorous standard supported by authorities such as technical minimums and common law is a good way for the profession to produce consistent and good results. Using the term best practice is another way to put it.

The issue turns on professional understanding

> I think there should be a common understanding of what the technical minimums are.
>
> I don't know why we would bother to define an endeavor as a profession if it's just complete anarchy.
>
> Using a rigorous standard supported by authorities such as technical minimums and common law is a good way for the profession to produce consistent and good results. Using the term best practice is another way to put it.

No one I know of is advocating "complete anarchy", let's not go there.
However, maybe we ought to discuss "technical minimums" and standards of practice. It would seem one would apply better to a true profession and one would better apply to a technical field. This seems to be the problem. In a profession, there is usually no list of cookbook solutions that fits every problem or need of the client. This is where professional judgment enters the equation - here is where standards of practice and standards of care fit far better into the practice of a true profession vs a technical trade.
Imagine your doctor limited by a strict list of technical practices that he MUST follow to the letter for each and every patient and each and every claimed malady that they may have. Or an attorney that must present cases, following a strict list of arguments and theories of law for every client and type of case. No one would suggest such a thing, but in the profession of surveying, even surveyors are wanting the strict magical list for every possible boundary situation encountered. Why is that? Are we that afraid of using our professional judgment to come up with solutions for our clients?

The issue turns on professional understanding

I think Surgeons, for example, have procedures which are developed in order to ensure best practices are followed. Obviously it isn't an exact recipe to follow, say for removing the appendix but there are generally accepted rules such as hand washing that every surgeon should follow. Those are somewhat technical in nature.

As a professional how do I know what my opinion should be? To some degree the list of things I should consider are not completely isolated in my own mind, a lot of it is dictated by what other prudent surveyors would do such as measuring the positions of monuments and evidence, searching for monuments, doing adequate research and so on. I may think that the probability of finding something in an old deed is low but local standards of practice may include searching the chain of title for surveys.

The issue turns on professional understanding

> I think Surgeons, for example, have procedures which are developed in order to ensure best practices are followed. Obviously it isn't an exact recipe to follow, say for removing the appendix but there are generally accepted rules such as hand washing that every surgeon should follow. Those are somewhat technical in nature.
>

Are the "procedures which are developed in order to ensure best practices are followed" for doctors laid out specifically in state statute or administrative rules?

> As a professional how do I know what my opinion should be? To some degree the list of things I should consider are not completely isolated in my own mind, a lot of it is dictated by what other prudent surveyors would do such as measuring the positions of monuments and evidence, searching for monuments, doing adequate research and so on. I may think that the probability of finding something in an old deed is low but local standards of practice may include searching the chain of title for surveys.

Now we are talking 😉 Standards of practice and the standard of care, not technical minimums. "list of things I should consider" is a standard of practice. A list telling you what you MUST consider or do in each and every circumstance is a technical standard. There is a major difference - shall/must vs should. "Should" allows for professional judgment which, if it needs to be judged, is judged by the reasonable and prudent standard, not a checklist.

A surgeon being required to wash his hands is probably not found in a state statute or administrative rule created by non-licensed individuals, let alone there being a long laundry list of which soap he SHALL use, the exact temp of the water, nor the length of time of washing listed in a table to the nearest second. It is a professional standard, in which professional care and judgment are used. It definitely is not a "technical minimum" laid out in detail by his licensing board.

The issue turns on professional understanding

http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/pages/rules/oars_800/oar_847/847_tofc.html

One of many 'rules' to be followed by licensees in the medical field.

I expect that there is no profession which is given a license and told - "Do whatever you want to, the licensing board will provide no guidelines for you."

The issue turns on professional understanding

> One of many 'rules' to be followed by licensees in the medical field.
>

Are those technical minimums or are they standards of practice that leave the details up to the professional judgment of the practicing professional?
847-017-0008 Standard of Practice

It would be interesting to compare those rules with those laid out for surveying. I think you would find a marked difference in approach, content, detail, etc. as it relates to the subject at hand.

> I expect that there is no profession which is given a license and told - "Do whatever you want to, the licensing board will provide no guidelines for you."

Just in case you missed my April 23, 2014, 17:54 post in this thread:

"No one I know of is advocating "complete anarchy", let's not go there."

Who has ever advocated "Do whatever you want to, the licensing board will provide no guidelines for you" or even suggested that for any true profession? Certainly NOT me.

Please do not put words in my mouth, or intentionally misrepresent my positions. I don't appreciate it, as I'm certain you wouldn't either.

The issue turns on professional understanding

> Are those technical minimums or are they standards of practice that leave the details up to the professional judgment of the practicing professional?

In reading a couple of the items from the linked rules for medical practitioners, there were some very clear you will do this or not do that rules. If they are called technical minimums, standards of practice, or standards of care, it really doesn't matter if the end result is a rule that says you shall do this or shall not do that. The shall makes it a requirement, not a judgement.

In Kentucky we have "Standards of Practice", but they are still rules to be followed. Many of the items in the standards are technical in nature. Big deal. If I didn't want to follow them, I should not have applied for licensure.

The old surveying whipping boy discussed often - continued professional development hours. Guess what - many state licensing boards for medicine require continuing medical education. No professional judgement to choose in the matter.

Anecdotally - My uncle was a heart specialist for his entire medical career. He has been retired for years. At a recent family reunion, he was speaking with a cousin of mine who was considering the medical field. My uncle said if he were a young man, he would probably not choose medicine because the regulations were continually growing and interfering more and more with the practice of medicine.

> It would be interesting to compare those rules with those laid out for surveying. I think you would find a marked difference in approach, content, detail, etc. as it relates to the subject at hand.

There is also a marked difference in all of that content in the rules for surveyors in different states. As evidenced by going back to the discussion thread that brought this about - "flagging corners". There was a wide variety of responses. Each based on the requirements for the state the respondent practices in.

The rules, regulations, standards, MTS, or whatever they may be called in each state were substantially in place when a licensee got their license. They will change a little as time goes on. A surveyor can either abide by them, turn in their license because they feel degraded for having to follow the requirements, work on changing the requirements to what they prefer, or practice outside of the requirements as long as they aren't caught.

> Please do not put words in my mouth, or intentionally misrepresent my positions. I don't appreciate it, as I'm certain you wouldn't either.

I do not believe that I placed any form of citation suggesting that was what you claimed or believed. It is called discussion. I provided an example of rules covering medical professionals. The statement you took offense to was a means of pointing out that pretty much any profession has some form of requirements that require or prohibit the professional from doing certain items. It took all of 30 seconds to find a model law (adopted by many states) for lawyers. Unsurprisingly, there are a number of points in that model law which contain the phrases "a lawyer shall" and "a lawyer shall not". Shall being the operative word - meaning no professional judgement in the matter. Does it then really matter if we call that model law a code of conduct, standard of practice, technical standard, suggested guidelines, or any thing else.