Is there anything wrong with showing more than is necessary to resolve a boundary? How about if you are accustomed with measurements on a geodetic reference system and provide that information on a simple lot survey? I would agree with most people that providing state plane coordinates on a "lot survey" is overkill, but is it a value to the public? I believe it is, although not necessary for the every day client. If the cost for my services are competitive and the derived data exists, why not provide it?
> Is there anything wrong with showing more than is necessary to resolve a boundary?
You'll notice they are always called the "Minimum Standards of Practice".
By all means go beyond those minimum standards every day and on every job.
>If the cost for my services are competitive and the derived data exists, why not provide it?
Ah.... there is the question.
First, you never ever compete with a fellow professional based on price alone.
Second, who cares about your costs? I can tell you your clients do not. They care about themselves. The trick is to find a way to provide exceptional value and then base your charges on that value provided. Notice that client value and your cost have nothing to do with one another.
Larry P
GO GO GO
You want to show the geodetic coordinates: Go for it! I hope they are on SPCS because the average lazidiot does not know how to get their handheld gps out of Lat/Long, but that's another issue altogether.
I applaud your efforts to add more information.
> How about if you are accustomed with measurements on a geodetic reference system and provide that information on a simple lot survey?
More info is generally better, but in California you need to be sure not to run afoul of §8313 et seq of the Public Resources Code. These sections specify the requirements associated with the publication of state plane coordinates on maps and other documents.
Jim- I think you meant PRC 8813...?
Anyway, I know what you mean.
Let me just caution you. The more you show, the more liability you take on. Lets say you show an easement off of your property that abuts it, but you show it incorrectly. The neighbor uses your survey to build a fence which is in the easement. Now you are party to the lawsuit (whether or not you win or lose) Just an example. I am not saying to not show extra information, just that there is added liability involved, so be sure and charge accordingly.
I disagree slightly. Of course you don't want to show wrong information, but if you do, someone else will more likely be able to find it or notify you that something's wrong. If you don't, there is more likelihood that someone could not be aware and your potential liability will increase
The Texas Board of Professional Surveying promulgates that you shall show all controlling factors that were necessary in the boundary resolution. That means if you liked it or not, show it. It also states that the basis of bearings be tied to a monumtented line or accepted reference datum. That means if you tie it to the grid, you better give all the meta-data like zone, realization of the datum, convergence, scale factor, etc. Grid bearings don't always mean that you have grid distances, so, you have to address that fact as well.
I use a "best practices" approach for describing my BOB for grid that I picked up from several users on the old board. Regardless of whether I'm doing 1 acre or 1000 acres, if it's on the grid, it gets the same attention. Something like this.
Bearings are based on the Texas Coordinate System of 1983, Texas Central Zone per GPS observations and to get geodetic bearings, rotate the bearings recited/shown hereon, clockwise, 02°15'13". All coordinates are U.S. Survey Feet, NAD83 (CORS96) Epoch 2002.0 per static gps data gathered on a particular day and processed through the OPUS utility via the NGS web-site. All distance are grid and to get surface distances, divide the distances recited/shown hereon by 0.99993869.
I disagree. If you did it and don't show it, it can only be assumed that you didn't do it, thereby increasing your liability. If you're worried about liability, then write the narrative at the end explaining everything that your description and plat can't.
> Jim- I think you meant PRC 8813...?
Not only did I screw up the link text, I screwed up the link as well. Yes, §8813 is what I meant. And I'm going to take another stab at the link.
“The more you show, the more liability you take on.”
You are 110% correct. Unfortunately many surveyors do not realize this, and can end up with their ass in a sling. Eventually experience will serve as a guide as to how much info to show.
Have a great week!
:good: :good:
Absolutely correct! Its too bad, but this is the situation that the legal system has created.
of course, you are always responsible to show the information required in your state and to meet any other local requirements, we are talking about extras such as showing coordinates when they are not required or showing extra ties above those required. One time, I remember an owner coming into my former employer's office and threatening to sue him because the tie was incorrect on his survey. The survey was actually for the neigboring parcel and the house tie was shown to perpetuate the location of the line. The tie was shown to the neighbor's house because his house was closer to the line. It took a field trip and much discussion to calm the guy and settle the issue. Now imagine if the tie was actually wrong. So my policy is that I do not show this information, but maintain it in my records.
> The more you show, the more liability you take on.
That's only true for information shown that is incorrect and if someone acts in reliance on the incorrect info and also suffers loss because of that reliance. The more you show, the higher the chances that you will show something incorrectly, but if you exercise care in your mapping, those chances are still relatively slight.
Conversely, the more relavent evidence you show, notes and discussion of methods and reasoning you include on your drawing, the less liability you take on because you are providing a clear and complete basis and explanation for your results.
I would consider SPCs as useful although rarely vital information. As long as you are confident in your calcs and employ proper QA/QC methods to your drawings before issuing them, I don't see that showing those coordinates exposes you to anymore liability than does showing dimensions along the boundary.
If someone is telling you that you are violating a Standard of Care by showing coordinates, they are wrong, unless they know of something you are doing incorrectly in deriving those coordinates and that is what their comment is toward.
> Conversely, the more relavent evidence you show, notes and discussion of methods and reasoning you include on your drawing, the less liability you take on because you are providing a clear and complete basis and explanation for your results.
:good:
