I love this place. Polite disagreement helps us all to re-evaluate our way of thinking on things. It is not essential that we all agree on everything. We all know that would be a first in the history of surveying.
thebionicman, post: 422595, member: 8136 wrote: When we allow reviewers to force unnecessary revisions at the expense of our clients they have been harmed.
I'm not talking about substantive matters that affect a parcel boundary; I'm referring to things like the logo dispute, which is more a matter of pissing contest than anything. That's where my "pick your battles" comment comes in.
Lest anyone think I'm easily rolled by map reviewers, consider the verbatim email exchange below between the County Surveyor (a contracted position in this case, a situation about which I have "issues") and me concerning a Corner Record I submitted for filing in February:
CS:
I wanted additional information under the one area on the front sheet to allow you to set corners with a corner record for your benefit, and to cover me for signing it off. My comments were minor. It is a fine line whether you can set corners where dimension points were shown before. By using my language I am comfortable with it.
My job is not to just sign anything that is sent to me, and for me to sign I have to be comfortable with signing my name. Please make the changes to the redlines, so I can be comfortable with signing it. I didnÛªt change your exhibit at all, as it was fine. I just want to change some wording on the cover sheet. With these very minor changes I will sign it.
Thank you for understanding.
JF:
If I'm interpreting your remarks correctly, your concern is with a "fine line" that I'm not seeing. å¤8765(d) provides an exemption from the Record of Survey requirement when the survey is a retracement of a Record of Survey that encounters no material discrepancies and is based upon found monumentation, provided a CR is filed for any monuments that are set. I believe this describes the situation at hand, and that dimension points don't enter into the equation.
The effect of this CR is essentially the same as would pertain had I shown those corner monuments on the Record of Survey.
My issue is that the CR is fundamentally my work product, not that of the County Surveyor. The suggested wording appears to be coming from me, when in fact I find it wholly redundant and -- particularly with respect to the use of the word "precise" -- a needless assumption of liability that might invalidate my insurance coverage.
I appreciate your desire to diligently discharge the duties of your CS role, and I invite you to prepare draft wording for insertion into the County Surveyor's Comment section of the form in accordance with å¤8773.2(c) for my review so we can move this forward. I take no offense at the fact that we have different perspectives on the matter, and I don't mind having a note on the CR.
Thanks!
CS:
not signing as is form not filed out correctly.
i find on not Technically correct.
i will not put my name on it.
JF:
If you don't intend to sign per å¤8773.2(c), to whom should I address my concerns in order to move this forward?
CS:
For some reason you think my job is to just sign anything sent to me. Let me inform you this is not the case.
I have been a Land surveyor all my life 45 years+, and have learned that it is best to work with the county surveyors. Try to understand we are all trying our best to do a good job. On many occasions I have not totally agreed with the county surveyor, but I realize they are doing their best and I try to accept that. zIt is not an easy job, and I really do not enjoy having to deal with things like this.
I respect you and your work. Please do the same for me.
I changed the wording of the comment (again) on the front of the CR to reflect my sense of the situation in a way that I thought addressed his concern, and resubmitted. The CS accepted the revision and filed the document without further ado.
Was this a silly battle to pick? Maybe. But the thought of a poorly-worded statement appearing to come from me and painting me in the public record as someone who can't put together a coherent sentence rankled enough that I opted to fight it. Others might have shrugged it off in the interest of expedience, and I get that. It just wasn't where I wanted to go.
Jim Frame, post: 422601, member: 10 wrote: I'm not talking about substantive matters that affect a parcel boundary; I'm referring to things like the logo dispute, which is more a matter of pissing contest than anything. That's where my "pick your battles" comment comes in.
Lest anyone think I'm easily rolled by map reviewers, consider the verbatim email exchange below between the County Surveyor (a contracted position in this case, a situation about which I have "issues") and me concerning a Corner Record I submitted for filing in February:
CS:
JF:
CS:
JF:
CS:
I changed the wording of the comment (again) on the front of the CR to reflect my sense of the situation in a way that I thought addressed his concern, and resubmitted. The CS accepted the revision and filed the document without further ado.
Was this a silly battle to pick? Maybe. But the thought of a poorly-worded statement appearing to come from me and painting me in the public record as someone who can't put together a coherent sentence rankled enough that I opted to fight it. Others might have shrugged it off in the interest of expedience, and I get that. It just wasn't where I wanted to go.
At the end of the day we are likely less than three hairs apart in the issue. That slight difference is probably flavored by our experiences. Not a lot different than our office. The boss and i approach things very differently, but we always end up putting the pins in the same spot..
Just as you take liability for the plats you sign, you should also be able to take credit. What other product can one fine that does not have their logo on it.
county planners are educated professionals, and surveyors are woefully uneducated about preparation of public documents. In Colorado, and I'm sure almost everywhere, the reason we put corporate names on our documents is partly due to liability. Is the corporation liable for the professional accuracy of the new lots being created? Surveyor's definitely do not want to assume that liability personally. Maybe they will consider this as an explanation.
My logo is built into and a part of my north arrow. I got tired of others copying my work without my title block.
I am a corporation and hence must include our corporate seal along with the PLS seal on all documents, recorded or not. This gives a reader avenues to research further who I am, where I work and how I am governed.
Years ago, I ran into a reviewer who didn't like the logo idea because there was lettering that did not meet standard or had shading. Both of which are problematic for scanning and archiving. OK, so I changed my logo to accommodate and got said reviewer to eliminate the need for vicinity maps for the same reasons. Win-win.
Daniel Ralph, post: 422732, member: 8817 wrote: didn't like the logo idea because there was lettering that did not meet standard or had shading.
Did you ask them if the lettering on the standard seal met the requirement?
Approved design
The approved designs for land surveyor stamps and seals is shown above. You may use it in any size, as long as the stamp or seal is fully legible.
I don't think I've seen one that meets the 8 point font requirement...
thebionicman, post: 422618, member: 8136 wrote: The boss and i approach things very differently, but we always end up putting the pins in the same spot..
That's a good thing...pincushions from the same company are the worst! 🙂
RADAR, post: 422750, member: 413 wrote: Did you ask them if the lettering on the standard seal met the requirement?
Approved design
The approved designs for land surveyor stamps and seals is shown above. You may use it in any size, as long as the stamp or seal is fully legible.I don't think I've seen one that meets the 8 point font requirement...
WAC 332-130-050(d)(iii) exempts seals and vicinity maps from the size requirement. However, RCW 58.09.050(1)(b)(iii) allows the Auditor to reject anything that they deem unsuitable for reproduction.
Our PLSO is starting to reject surveys that possibly have made it through the recording process that don't meet their legibility standards or for indexing errors. They will require refiling the map. I don't know how this is going to work with documents that have more than the surveyor's signature.
