> I don't pass out CAD drawing files of boundary survey maps, but don't mind giving a paper copy or a pdf in most cases.
Don't forget that a PDF can be converted to CAD by anyone willing to go to the trouble, even if the PDF is password-protected.
> I'm with Kent here. This isn't about colleague v competition. It's all about liability. After nine years there's no telling what's changed on that site. And the owners are both attorneys. Red flags a-flyin'! Let the new guy take Kent's public record survey and then do his own work.
That is exactly right. I was asked to submit a "bid" on that work and declined. I don't work for home builders. They are way more trouble than they are worth. Any other firm is welcome to the work, but I'm not buying a ticket on the train wreck that that project looks to me as if it is headed for.
The description that I prepared for the public record is very detailed and explanatory. It gives the State Plane Coordinates of most of the boundary monuments and provides enough information to easily calculate the rest.
It completely depends upon the surveyor with me. I think the same is true with Kent also. In the situation Kent posted, then no I would not share my CAD file. The company is trying to cut the amount of work they have to do in order to provide the service that they were hired to do. In the one instance where I have requested a CAD drawing from Kent, (And he provided it) I was surveying a tract in downtown Austin that had an underground storm tunnel that did not show up in the title commitment. When it was discovered, the client needed to have a rough idea where it was in order to decide whether to try and reroute the tunnel down the street or design around it. After explaining why my client wanted it, Kent was willing to release it, conditional upon me agreeing to make sure that the client was aware of the limitations that he placed on the work. I ghosted the tunnel in, noted who surveyed it and when, noted that the control for the two projects had not been physically tied together and that if accurate location and dimensions were needed then further survey work would need to be performed. The client was happy, I was happy that I could make the client happy, and Kent might be happy in the future since I informed the client where the information came from and the client might decide to use him to do the survey whenever the project goes forward. This is an example of proper sharing. An example of negative sharing is the file we got from the engineer a few years ago to do some construction staking. They sent the other surveyors design files, and we quickly noticed that the improvements on the interior of the site did not match up with the exterior completely. When I turned on the layers the reason why jumped out. The improvements were on two different layers. All of the exterior improvements were on a layer with a CH- prefix that our company used to denote the plottable layers. The interior topo had been done by the other surveyor, but he just used our exterior work, without even taking the time to connect the lines or change the layer name.
James Redmon
> Don't forget that a PDF can be converted to CAD by anyone willing to go to the trouble, even if the PDF is password-protected.
Well, I'll send you a pdf that is a scan of the hardcopy map and let you try to convert it to CAD. :> That's the only form of pdf I'd release.
>..... don't mind giving a paper copy or a pdf in most cases.
>
> I got a call today from a local surveyor who wanted to have the CAD file of a map I'd made about nine years ago ....
Offer him the pdf for free, tell him there will be a bill for a hour of your time, paid on delivery, to find and transmit the 9 year old CAD file. I bet you dollars to donuts he will accept the free pdf file and forget about the CAD.
FWIW, CAD files shouldn't be given out unless there is a contractual arrangement.
Turn this around.
I hate getting other people's CAD files, weird layers, too many layers, I don't what is good and what isn't.
In a California case let us say we have a filed Record of Survey from 9 years ago. I would NOT call the Surveyor and ask for the CAD file. I would rather plot and calc up the R/S myself so I can make sure I have it right and possibly uncover any little math mistakes. When I stake a building, I calc up the building myself off of the paper plan. I don't automatically trust the CAD file (which we have on our servers).
Calling a competitor asking for CAD files is just cheap.
I staked a house. At first the contractor was unhappy with my price because in my opinion it required a boundary survey and R/S before I could set the first stake. So I said to the owner, "You are building an 800 thousand dollar house. I need to make sure that it is right." He said you are right, go ahead.
Wasn't this settled in the 90's
> I think somewhere along the way you missed why you were hired to to begin with. The client hired you to produce a product that he could use to improve his property.
Actually, you are using mental telepathy there. My survey was made in connection with the purchase of the property nine years ago. Since then, the owners have had multiple opportunities to have a topographic survey made of their parcel with a detailed mapping of improvements. Now, I learn that an architect has prepared detailed plans without any topographic mapping and a contractor is looking for various services in connection with building from those plans. That sounds like a train wreck.
>Any and all materials used to put this product together he paid for.
Yes, and the owners received them nine years ago. They don't own my files with the intermediate data that was generated in preparing the products that were delivered.
> Why wouldn't you give another professional the CAD file?
Because there is no good reason why a surveyor would need or want it if the coordinates of the boundary corners are already in the public record.
In almost all cases I would give the surveyor, engineer, architect the CAD file. I suppose there would be some instances were I wouldn't.
I don't know the whole history of what Kent did on the project. Based on what he posted I would give them the CAD file. I just feel thats the professional thing to do.
I do not give the CAD file to city's/towns, because seldom do they have a porfessional overseeing its use.
Thats your opinion Kent, and of course, its your decision to make. Its your CAD file.
On the other hand, around here it is pretty much standard operating procedure to share CAD files but that is when you have a group of different professionals working on the same project. So if the Surveyor does an ALTA/Topo on a commercial site that will be shared with the CE so the plans can be drawn up. If the staking is done by another surveyor then he will get the CAD files with the topo and design in it. This is when you get to wade through a CAD file with 6000 layers in it; lots of fun!
But 9 years later? no way.
> I don't know the whole history of what Kent did on the project. Based on what he posted I would give them the CAD file. I just feel thats the professional thing to do.
Okay, I'll bite, what is "professional" about providing CAD files? What is professional about unthinking reliance upon digital data? When the boundary of a parcel is well marked and described in the public records entirely adequately, with State Plane Coordinates on most of the monuments, why would a "professional" need a CAD file of that boundary if they have a hardcopy map?
> FWIW, CAD files shouldn't be given out unless there is a contractual arrangement.
Exactly right.
No you didn't miss anything. I'd tell them to go to the court house and get a copy of the recorded plat(if there is one). Otherwise ask them paper or mylar:-)
I would not give out a 9 year old cad file . I would be glad to update the survey and then give the client all the data he wanted with a current date . If it is in the public record than he can go get it and then check your work in the field .
This is a businees, we make money surveying not giving away the work we did 9 years ago. Our data is worth money .
I did a Topo/Boundary survey in 07 , the project is getting built now . The adjoiner lot made a bunch of changes to the utilities in the road when he upfitted his site , our project has had big problems due to those changes . Engineer went off on me until he relized the adjoiner made those changes after our survey .
Also while rechecking the boundary I found a pin cushion set next to the existing iron that marked one of the corners of the site , set around half a foot away.
> > I don't know the whole history of what Kent did on the project. Based on what he posted I would give them the CAD file. I just feel thats the professional thing to do.
>
> Okay, I'll bite, what is "professional" about providing CAD files? What is professional about unthinking reliance upon digital data? When the boundary of a parcel is well marked and described in the public records entirely adequately, with State Plane Coordinates on most of the monuments, why would a "professional" need a CAD file of that boundary if they have a hardcopy map?
That's a good point Ken. Although I have shared with known colleagues, I think it is a valid question. With the document on record with essentially everything they would need to rebuild the 'footsteps' of a previous surveyor, Why does he need the digital file? I think it opens up a lot of liability for both parties involved if the digital file is shared and taken for face value, without the proper scrutiny needed to establish property corners on-site. I'm with Ken on this one.
Granted, pdf's can be converted to cad, but that requires an acceptance of "conversion error". Electronic cad files can be inserted and used "verbatim". Also, if Kent's paper copy is correct, but a line in the cad drawing is incorrect, WE all know the paper copy trumps the electronic, but do the attorneys and builder know that? Why would Kent want to expose himself to problems over a file 9 years old?
I'm all for sharing information with fellow surveyors, but I would draw the line at a 9 year old cad file.
I once prepared a plat of a residential lot for a builder. The record plat showed a 45' front setback which I drew and annotated as such. After the existing house was removed, plans were issued for the new, 7 figure $ house...with a 35' front setback per the zoning regulation. The setback was moved and re-annotated ON MY DRAWING by the Architect and was included with his plans. I refused to stake the house per the plans and after much gnashing of teeth and the like, the 45' setback was found to be enforceable and the Architect, due to the fact that the building envelope was pinched by an easement across the rear of the lot, was forced to prepared new plans at no small cost to someone.
Needless to say, I was livid.
Questions:
1)How do you protect yourself from stuff like that?
2)What would you have done after you found out an Architect had changed your plat to his convenience?
3)Where would the liability drop if you had staked the house per his plans?
> Nine years ago?
> Are you SURE you didn't HAND DRAW that map? After all, that was a long time ago.
We recently heard from a client about a survey we did for them in the 70's. Could they please have the CAD file? No, it's most unlikely that we used CAD then. Yes, it's a CAD drawing...
(Sorry for merely adding light entertainment to the debate, BTW.)
Sometimes words get used so much, they lose their original meaning. CAD drawing = technical drawing
You bring a suit against him, contact the regulatory board in that state about the FRAUDULENT use of someone else's information. I'm not sure that there is a sure fire way to prevent all scenarios. Not sending you DWG is definitely one way of protection.