Lewis
"California has very specific requirements for Records of Survey, so preparing a ROS here is rarely a matter of simply changing the title block on the client deliverable. On the contrary, there's typically a significant amount of additional work involved in preparing a ROS. In my experience, even a simple one takes a couple of hours to draft, and more involved situations can take several days. I'd say my average is somewhere around 4 hours just to get check prints ready to submit, plus an hour or two to address review comments prior to plotting a final mylar."
I don't understand - what exactly do you have to add to a "ROS" that you don't have on the drawing you give to your client? Is the drawing provided to the client a sketch on a napkin?
As far as drawing preparation time goes, is I didn't spend at least 4 hours preparing one I would not feel I had done a thorough job, or given my client a proper product.
Lewis
> I don't understand - what exactly do you have to add to a "ROS" that you don't have on the drawing you give to your client?
Sometimes a boundary survey is all the client wants, in which case the ROS, with little or no modification, becomes the paper deliverable. But for most of my clients, the primary deliverable is an ALTA and/or topo, and they rarely want it on an 18"x26" sheet (most of my commercial and institutional clients have standardized on 24"x36"). The ROS drawing scale usually ends up being different, and the text would have to be rescaled anyway because for ALTA/topo I use text sizes that are too small to meet county guidelines in order to get all the information on the sheet. Even when the scale can remain the same, simply removing the ALTA and/or topo data would result in a drawing far too awkward-looking for me to let out of the office under my name.
The "what do you have to add" question reminds me of one we used to get from engineers and architects all the time in the early days of CAD: "We need you to change the scale from 40 to 20. It's a CAD drawing, can't you just blow it up?" We would patiently explain why that wouldn't produce an acceptable result, and always managed to convince the client, with one exception. That client just wasn't buying the idea that we couldn't "just blow up" the drawing from 40-scale to 20-scale (it might have been from 100 to 50, I forget, but it was a factor of 2), so we ended up doing exactly what he wanted, printed it and shipped it off. It was a remarkably ugly drawing, with ridiculously large text, leaders and symbols.
> I’m not sure that you have really thought this out.
Lewis,
I think at this point it is just simply better to agree to disagree. I for one am quite sure Ric of all people has given this thorough thought. As you may note many other peers including myself have the same train of thought. We have expressed our opinions as you requested and just as you are a firm believer in yours, I and others are firm believers in ours. Cheers
>the actions of the market would tend to favor the former over the latter as the horror stories of inept surveys and the resulting costs to clients spread by word of mouth and its technological equivalents, and the market would thus determine the fair value of a survey by endorsing the reputations of those who provide good value.
I am also doubtful. The theory would work fine IF there were lots of surveys and everybody compared and talked about the cost and results. This may work in some product or service markets, but I don't think there are enough surveys done and people talking about them to work for homeowner surveys, and perhaps not for ALTAs.
> Your distinction is entire specious.
spe·cious [spee-shuhs] adjective
1. apparently good or right though lacking real merit; superficially pleasing or plausible: specious arguments.
2. pleasing to the eye but deceptive.
3. Obsolete . pleasing to the eye; fair.
I have an opinion pertaining to the County Surveyor's responsibility just like you and many others. However, I could argue that the research and experiences gained does provide me with some level of merit and certainly not lacking. I may have a different point of view on the subject and one that is not favored by some others, but it does have merit. How much of your opinion on the subject is based solely on your experiences with your local County Surveyor and how much of your opinion is based on a detailed study of the law related to this subject?
> The ability to review the logic shown on the map is the ability to review the survey. I am aware of County Surveyors in California taking the position that they can not sign the map, without placing a negative comment on it, unless the surveyor changes his methodology to suit their interpretation of boundary law.
I would submit to you that action would be a violation of the Professional Land Surveyor's Act and a complaint filed with the Board on those County Surveyors. Try it some time rather than simply acquiescing to the way you've always done it.
> Of course, the negative comment will diminish the value of the map to the client. So, in the interests of his client, the surveyor may be forced to ‘cave’.
I don't necessarily agree with you that all comments added by a County Surveyor are negative, some are actually very helpful, but in the interest of staying within the context of your statement, the Record of Survey is the land surveyor's responsibility and not the clients. If the land surveyor is "forced to cave" into an alternative solution it is my experience that generally it is because 1) the land surveyor did not consider all appropriate evidence or employ the proper standard of care in the first place or 2) the County Surveyor misunderstands his / her authority and is overstepping. Either way, the County Surveyor would be overstepping statutory authority. The County Surveyor has absolutely no authority to make the land surveyor change the survey. The County Surveyor does have the responsibility to point out alternate methods, solutions, evidence, and suggest that the land surveyor consider those, but it is ultimately the land surveyor's decision. The County Surveyor does have the authority and responsibility to enforce compliance with specific sections of the PLS Act that pertain to the review process and if the land surveyor insists on filing a map that demonstrates negligence or incompetence, the County Surveyor always has the option of sending the map to the Board for consideration.
Lewis
Lewis
I think all your input is well thought out. I for one appreciate it. That being said, please don't respond here with unkind personal comments. I know others want to shoot arrows at each other from time to time. We all need to resist the temptation to shoot back, and maintain our professionalism.
> You treated us to a meandering view of your philosophy of surveying, but you never responded to what I have called my ‘central thesis’. I can accept everything that you said, and still not be moved from the main idea that I have put forward here regarding fairness to the public. Still, I would like to make a few comments on your numbered points:
>
> 1. What is the point of your reconstruction of the attitude of people in 1891? That was more than a few years ago, and, guess what, things just may have changed.
This was pointed directly at your original question (below) which explains why the provision was originally entered into law. You're correct, things change, and the law changes with it. That is primarily why, for the most part, the provision remains in place to this day. Not because it is considered a "tax" on the public. Study the law.
From your original post:
> In California we have a Record of Survey requirement that gets triggered by a fair number of surveys. I assume that many other states have similar laws and/or professional requirements. Does anyone know the rational/justification for this sort of requirement?
>
> 2. Thanks (I guess) for the clarification on how we don’t survey parcels. I guess in the same way that I don’t drive a car, but an automobile, and don’t watch TV, but television. So, all of those legal descriptions that start with something like ‘A Parcel of Land…’ are wrong?
My statement was very basic in context and your response to this is troublesome which can explain the rational behind several other responses on this thread.
>
> 3. Sort of a platitude. I’m not sure that you have really thought this out. Still, it is not pertinent to this thread.
Interesting choice of words. I would not be so presumptuous to use that word to describe any remark offered by anyone responding to your inquiry.
>
> 4. Another platitude. I’m not sure what you mean by ‘serve a purpose to the public’. Contractually, by law, professionally, coincidentally???? I think that this would make more sense if you replace the words ‘serve a purpose’ with ‘impact’. So the impact could be beneficial or detrimental.
Yeah, I can see your point with the use of "impact" here, makes sense. Actually to me, I can still see the way I worded it also.
>
> 5. Another platitude. Again, I’m not sure that you have really thought this out. Still, it is not pertinent to this thread.
I disagree with you here and believe very strongly that I have though this one through. You constantly refer to the additional cost associated with having to file a Record of Survey vs. just simply performing a boundary survey. And yes, I know you have stated it is not related to the County fees - so don't go there again. It has been my experience reviewing quite a few surveys throughout California that when statements such as you have made in this context are expressed, it is usually because the land surveyor is not approaching each boundary survey in the appropriate manner regardless of filing requirements. And the primary complaint centers around the need to go out to the field again and REALLY do your due diligence simply because it is required to reviewed by someone else when you should have performed the survey in that manner in the first place. THIS IS VERY PERTINENT TO THIS THREAD and to your postings.
>
> 6. Your distinction is entirely metaphysical, and does not hold up under scrutiny. I have addressed this elsewhere in this thread.
And I have responded to where you have "addressed this elsewhere" in this thread and I encourage you to consider that my distinction may be actual and not metaphysical. I believe it is standing up to a great deal of scrutiny at this time.
>
> At the end you write the following, with my comments in parenthesis:
> While I certainly understand the concerns that you have expressed relative to the manner in which "some" County Surveyors perform their responsibilities or some of the fees being charged by the County to perform these services (I have never objected to checking fees. In fact, they seem to be modest in the parts of California where I work), I cannot support or condone an alternative to this process which would result in many unfiled surveys held in private surveyors hands (I never advocated this) simply for the purpose of creating a profitable business empire (I never advocated this) or for the purposes of withholding the knowledge of these surveys from adjacent land owners (I never advocated this either. It would be helpful if you read what I wrote before implicitly characterizing my ideas).
My simple response to this last paragraph is that in several posts throughout this thread it very much appears like you have advocated for those topics.
Lewis, you are simply becoming very defensive to the remarks and responses offered in reply to your inquiry. I would suggest that you take a deep breath, pull back, and consider these responses. They are not offered with the intention to make you look stupid. They are offered in response to your statements. Nothing more. Have the discussion. Learn from it like everyone else does and think about how this will affect the manner in which you practice. Some on here have offered very good advice.
:good:
> Your distinction is entire specious. The ability to review the logic shown on the map is the ability to review the survey. I am aware of County Surveyors in California taking the position that they can not sign the map, without placing a negative comment on it, unless the surveyor changes his methodology to suit their interpretation of boundary law. Of course, the negative comment will diminish the value of the map to the client. So, in the interests of his client, the surveyor may be forced to ‘cave’.
That actually happens very seldom.
the proper answer to the CS that is going beyond his authority is "please note your objections on the map and file it NOW" (Pound Salt)
have you seen may maps with SC notes? I have not. but I seldom worked in LA
PS: I would LOVE to see some examples! They would probably tell us a Lot!
By the way, I have complained to Beerleg
> If this passes for wit on this site, the bar is set very low. How sad.
:-/
Please continue to post and use this site as a great tool and message board that it is :bye: but barbs against site are a bit low and reflect poorly. We are all here to share and discuss.
Great post, -new ideas and some interesting points. First, your Palos Verdes argument. I picked Palos Verdes as my imagined city because I am familiar with it. I’m pretty sure that there are places where poorer people live where filing requirements would be triggered as well. Also, it is not the function of surveyors to effect ‘social justice’ or concern ourselves with redistribution issues. Additionally, not everyone is Palos Verdes has large amounts of disposable cash, or even equity in their property.
Your tax idea, though is, I think a serious argument. The issue of professional practice and the way that it sort of a state imposed monopoly, producing higher cost for consumers, is one that has received quite a bit of attention in economics and political science. I will only mention Mancur Olson, Jonah Goldberg, Milton Friedman, and George Stigler (‘regulatory capture’) in this context. In an era when even florists are required in many jurisdictions to go through a licensing process, this is an important public policy issue.
Luckily, though this does not bear on the discussion in this thread. For something to function as a tax it has to be justified based on an imputed benefit to the ‘public good’. The restrictions and added cost that follow on professional licensing requirements generally are justified based on the supposed benefit to the person (the consumer) who uses the service. For example, if I consult a CPA to set up some sort of trust, under the licensing theory I am the one benefited by his professionalism. So, on the level of equity, or fairness, we recognize (or at least the argument goes) that I will have to pay more for the CPA, but that I get an extra benefit in his professionalism.
Most filing requirements that impact surveyors, such as the Record of Survey law in California, are justified on the basis of a benefit to the public good. So, to take money from one specific group of citizens to benefit everyone (1) can involve a lot of money (2) functions as a tax and (3) has an element of unfairness. I am not advocating, as some seem to think, that the consequence of this is that we should eliminate all filing requirements. Also, I think it is impractical and politically impossible to have government supplant private surveyors here. So I think that 1-3 above strengthens the case for a more minimalist role for the County Surveyor, in order to keep these costs, which we pass on to the people who hire us, as low as possible. By the way, this paragraph pretty much summarizes my position. I have never heard this view expressed by any other surveyor, and, at least to me, it seems reasonable, or at least within the realm of professional discussion.
As a side note, I have received quite a bit of negative input on this thread lately that things are repetitive and that I am just being defensive, or maybe have some more serious psychological malady. Yet in your post, and I hope in my response, new ideas have come up and we are actually sorting things out. If people feel that these exchanges are an entire waste of time, the great thing about sites like this is that you don’t have to participate.
In my post above I comment that:
“the person who had a survey done in 2005 got no benefit from this program”. I am talking about the program of conforming to the coordinate requirement imposed by the government, based on Seb’s post. That is what I think they got no (or, to speak more precisely, very little) benefit from. Of course it is obvious that they probably got a benefit from the survey itself, or they wouldn't have had it done.
By the way, I have complained to Beerleg
Thanks for the lecture, but isn’t it totally obvious that my barb here is directed at Don, not the site?
Also, I admire your concern for proper conduct, where was it when I was accused of being some sort of sniveling jackleg who was just flapping his gums? I guess for you that was just in the spirit of “share and discuss”.
Jim
Jim - comprende, had that same issue here in AZ for a while. Used to be a bit of a problem until the Recorder refused to record the "wrong size" drawing and I walked out leaving it and the recording fee there. They recorded it the next day and its never been an issue since...
"Annotation Scale" in AutoCAD goes a long way toward resolving this issue.
By the way, I have complained to Beerleg
> Thanks for the lecture, but isn’t it totally obvious that my barb here is directed at Don, not the site?
>
> Also, I admire your concern for proper conduct, where was it when I was accused of being some sort of sniveling jackleg who was just flapping his gums? I guess for you that was just in the spirit of “share and discuss”.
Lewis,
Each members comments reflects upon themselves. No more, no less. The admins are tending to a death in the family and don't really need to step in here anyways. We are all surveyors, burned, poked and prodded over time to allow us a bit of thicker skin than most. Yes, people cross the line and posts may disappear or not, it happens and we move on. There are members that will agree on many post and be to the death fighting enemy's on others. Thats the beauty of surveying and the beauty of this site to which most of us regular posters cherish to all high heaven. My love for this site is probably what gives me a bit thinner skin for any reference to it.
Barb away and feel free to express your opinions as the site always needs the give and take of any discussion just understand as Im sure you will that the opinions will flow both ways.
By the way, I have complained to Beerleg
:good: :beer:
Lewis
Lewis,
Kudos to you for this thread and I applaud your responses to the posters that have so little respect for others. It isn’t hard to figure out the professional level of some of the individuals that responded to you.
I agree with some of what you say and disagree with some, I have run into authoritarian reviewers that overstep their role on occasion and the common thread about all the situations is that to fight them makes my life as a surveyor much more difficult, costs me time and frustration and my clients money.
It has always amazed me how surveyors are micro regulated (many times by people that know nothing of surveying) down to the type of monument they must set, and size of lettering they must use on the plat and engineers and other comparable professionals have virtually no regulations imposed other than professional standards.
I think a record of survey is a wonderful thing in a lot of situations and also totally unnecessary in others, unfortunately the regulators have the power to decide and not the professionals. In my area my competition believes in the “less public information the better” approach to business, as much info as possible is left off plats and design drawings and former employees of the company have told me of several crazy things that is SOP, one was to not put flagging on recovered mons and re-bury them because otherwise it made it easier for other surveyors. I have seen him make money due to this attitude and it troubles me sometimes. I operate under the advice a mentor told me many years ago – give as much info to other surveyors as reasonable, after all it is much better to have everyone on the same page and agreeing instead of going off on their own and coming to different results.
I would hope the accusatory and arrogant posters could please consider that there are other markets and standards of practice depending on local situations and when someone asks a questions or gives their opinion different from theirs they are asking for feedback to help them through the problem. If all you have to offer are snide comments then consider that maybe karma will enable you to be treated the same sometime in the future.
Government Regulation
Bear Bait,
Thanks. You have emphasized the regulatory aspect of this problem, as has ‘Bhiker19’. I have been concerned with the ‘fairness to the client public’ aspect of this. Both are, I think, important issues.
Interestingly, a general assumption of these posts on Records of Survey has been that governmental regulation, or oversight, will produce better work. I think that there is a good reason to question this assumption, at least for difficult surveys. The point here is a bit complex, and at this time, with about 100 posts, people may be exhausted with this general issue. So if anyone wants me to lay it out, please ask.
We are working slowly towards a coordinated cadastre here and the coordination of new surveys is a major part of this.
I have seen many complaints here about GIS people assuming that the line on the screen is accurate and giving dodgy advice because of this. Here we are working towards a situation where the line on the screen IS accurate. People will still always need surveyors to mark corners on the ground but in more and more cases it is becoming easier and easier because of the wealth of information that is now coordinated.
I appreciate what you say about the initial people in 2005 having to pay a little more to have their survey coordinated but with today's GNSS technology I do not believe there should be any reason why coordination can't be the rule rather than the exception.
At the base level, single frequency receivers that can be post processed to OPUS (or our AUSPOS) are very cheap in the scheme of things, especially considering they will be used for 10+ years if looked after. (As an aside, we lent our RTK GNSS gear to another local surveyor for a day last week and he came back very enthused. He had never used a RTK unit that was GNSS, his experience was GPS only. On the other hand I have not used a GPS only unit since 2007. His old employer was using an antique backpack Trimble.) Whilst we don't HAVE to be cutting edge all of the time, keeping up with technology brings bonuses and work advantages beyond what anyone using old equipment can usually imagine.
Part of our professionalism is being able to use the best equipment available to provide the best result possible for our client. Part of the coordination bonus for a client is that you know that any other surveyor can walk onto the property (or an adjoining neighbour) and quickly and easily find the boundary that you have established. Excepting for a dodgy surveyor (and we all have to deal with them in some way or another), the client's boundary will be set with ease for many many years to come.
If for some reason you cannot/will not/do not coordinate or provide a record of your survey to the public authorities for other surveyors to use, no wonder the cadastre gets buggered up in parts. Our first responsibility is to the boundaries and the cadastre not to our client or our back pocket. If you look after your clients and their boundaries properly generally your back pocket will get looked after as a consequence of that.
Record of Survey - right index finger ?
Ok, maybe time to end this worthwhile and lengthy discussion.
Sometimes I wonder about weird stuff: for ex.,what scientists, archeologists digging hundreds or thousands of years from now will observe about our remains ?
They could ask; why do these skeletons have worn out, arthritic right index fingers ? They must have had some kind of technology or activity that did this.
