Long before it became the standard most surveyors in our neighborhood filed nearly all of their work for the rest of the world to see. It was simply the right thing to do.
Then the push came for reviewing plats. Suddenly nearly all plats submitted were for new tracts only. Few for existing tracts that may or may not have ever actually been surveyed before. Selective filing, if you will. The problem is that we went for decades being able to count on knowing whether or not something had already been surveyed that now we still tend to assume that nothing has been done unless something is on file. This leads to tremendous opportunity for pincushions unless you search everywhere something may have been set that could possibly influence your analysis. That is a huge pain in the rear in the old subdivisions forming most of our cities. Searching every lot corner and record split in multiple blocks is normally a waste of time, but, when you start finding good stuff it reminds you to keep searching anyway.
Not filing is a load of %$%$# in my opinion and should be outlawed everywhere.
Holy Cow, post: 382583, member: 50 wrote: .
Not filing is a load of %$%$# in my opinion and should be outlawed everywhere.
Well...since there has never been mandatory recording here*, I guess surveyors here have excelled at establishing boundaries against the odds. Been surveying here for over three decades in cities ranging from populations of 10k to 500k with subdivisions that were created back to 1812 and not having mandatory recording hasn't obstructed the process. Probably made one search more diligently in the field and courthouse and pay attention to detail. Plus, there are certain rules of thumb used to resurveyed that one must comprehend. Maybe some from elsewhere or nowhere USA couldn't survey here. I know that I wouldn't be comfortable surveying elsewhere USA too.
I have held license in 3 states.
* new s/d, lot resubs, tract subdivisions, right of way and servitude surveys do go through a local review and recording procedure.
One of the great things about a site like this is that it wakes everyone up to the differences across this great land and around the world. Too much of formal education is based on there being one way to do things.
Secrecy in the presumed name of greater profits encourages disorder. Openness encourages order. Order is what surveying is all about. The very idea of supposedly doing surveys yet leaving no monuments behind nor a plat containing both the visual presentation and description is a travesty.
Holy Cow, post: 382606, member: 50 wrote:
Secrecy in the presumed name of greater profits encourages disorder. Openness encourages order. Order is what surveying is all about. The very idea of supposedly doing surveys yet leaving no monuments behind nor a plat containing both the visual presentation and description is a travesty.
Secrecy and profits is not a factor in non-recording states. Your inference that such is so, must be based on misinformation or developed by a scatological thought process. Of course, if one is a plat reviewer that profits from the act of recording by appointed of some panel then your POV is understood.
Each states has a standard of practice and professionalism that is the law on the establishment boundary surveys.
Robert Hill, post: 382633, member: 378 wrote: Secrecy and profits is not a factor in non-recording states. Your inference that such is so, must be based on misinformation or developed by a scatological thought process. Of course, if one is a plat reviewer that profits from the act of recording by appointed of some panel then your POV is understood.
Each states has a standard of practice and professionalism that is the law on the establishment boundary surveys.
Forgive them. The cookbook states surveyors always seem to devolve into the secrecy/profits argument. I think they are more married to numbers out there. Many states require a professional opinion, which by its nature is specific to a particular client. But it's interesting that most of the pincushion complaints come from the so called recording states as well. I recommend recording on a regular basis, but if the client doesn't want to it's okay with me. I try not to be secret and not to make a profit (heck, I'm a surveyor after all) but sometimes I can't avoid it.
The secrecy and profits argument doesn't always hold up, I've gotten many jobs because people go to the County and see that I've done a job nearby, then I get this work.
With required recordation there does seem to have developed an approach in certain areas that if monuments are found, but not of record, they should be discredited, so they get called off all over the place.
Murphy, post: 381475, member: 9787 wrote: "What are the problems that requiring recording would create?"
It creates the means for municipalities to dictate the elements displayed on a plat. This turns us into the lap dog of planners who quickly discover that their jobs are made easier when surveyors locate details such as "all structures within 200' of the subject parcel" as is required in one town within a recording state that I worked in.
Other than reviewing subdivision plats, why would the city have anything to do with recording surveys. In Alabama that is done at the county courthouse.
The secrecy/profit concept has come completely from posters here in areas with no recording law. The frequent excuse is that then their private files wouldn't have a large value someday when they want to retire. Another excuse is that by keeping the surveys secret they can then take on jobs at great profit when they happen to come along near where they have existing data in their files but, apparently, the competition has no such existing information on which to base their estimate. I'm not the one dreaming of fantasies. Merely responding to numerous reports of how things are done elsewhere.
Manhattan, NY and Washington, D.C. question. Of the thousands of licensed land surveyors who could theoretically be able to do boundary surveys within those two distinct areas what percent actually are the firm owners who profit from doing those surveys. Why don't the majority take on those high-dollar projects?
Holy Cow, post: 382688, member: 50 wrote: The secrecy/profit concept has come completely from posters here in areas with no recording law. The frequent excuse is that then their private files wouldn't have a large value someday when they want to retire. Another excuse is that by keeping the surveys secret they can then take on jobs at great profit when they happen to come along near where they have existing data in their files but, apparently, the competition has no such existing information on which to base their estimate. I'm not the one dreaming of fantasies. Merely responding to numerous reports of how things are done elsewhere.
Manhattan, NY and Washington, D.C. question. Of the thousands of licensed land surveyors who could theoretically be able to do boundary surveys within those two distinct areas what percent actually are the firm owners who profit from doing those surveys. Why don't the majority take on those high-dollar projects?
San Francisco is unique too.
Jim in AZ, post: 381246, member: 249 wrote: Someone posted here fairly recently that deeds weren't necessarily recorded in their state. I can't believe it but this person insisted. That would seem to be a violation of the Statute of Frauds but maybe some States don't have it. Seems really stupid to me...
The Statute of Frauds does not require recording, it only requires a written memorandum for certain contracts. Recording is optional in most States, maybe all. It is important to understand the writing is not the contract and in certain circumstances the Courts have refused to enforce the Statute of Frauds, an example is where enforcing the Statute would in effect work a fraud which is contrary to the purpose of the Statute.
See, for example, Grant v. Long, 33 Cal.App.2d 725 (1939) where U.S. Grant, Jr.s widow, America Grant, claimed and won an unwritten right to a 4-room suite and food and refreshments in the U.S Grant Hotel in San Diego.
"Other than reviewing subdivision plats, why would the city have anything to do with recording surveys. In Alabama that is done at the county courthouse."
Some states are more town centric than others. Mandatory recording allows an easy means for municipalities to extort valuable data from individuals who purchase a survey. For me, the pros of being in a non-recording state have nothing to do with my ability to add value to private records. It is about my ability to offer a service without the oversight of planners and others who have unlimited power to dictate the terms of their review. If you live in the conservative South and believe the parasitic actions of municipalities in the North will not follow the money down to you, then you are naive.
Holy Cow, post: 382606, member: 50 wrote: Too much of formal education is based on there being one way to do things.
And for my $0.02, not enough of today's surveying education is practical, hands on, the art of surveying. All the emphasis on mathematics and mechanics, no mentoring of the nuances of skills of finding old survey lines, how to research, etc.