Okay, FINALLY, got the C.E. to, at the least, actually put in writing everything he's requiring ... down to acceptable abbreviations, pin/monument designations ... virtually everything that is already far and above the state laws and even far and above the official county regulations.
So ...
now my drawing gets flagged because the black(of a black line), is not quite black enough(they printed the map. s maybe it's their software problem) ... now the maps are flagged because of the surveyor's number ... they no longer like "S"-xxx as the number and they want me to put "No.", xxxx. Problem is, "No.", is not one of the acceptable abbreviations from the C.E. The state boards number(on the internet), is P.S.XXX(with no space & no "No."), so I'll try that until they complain ...
Abbreviations that "were", allowable for maps two weeks ago, are now being flagged for those same abbreviations. where "DEED"xxx-xxx was acceptable back then, now they want "DV"xxx-xxx.
The arrows they said they didn't want(evidently they actually don't like arrows) ... well on the last map, NOW they want arrows(quite a few, where I don't think they're needed).
It appears that the state board in Ohio must not have worthy faith in their "state", regulations, since many, many counties in Ohio have been allowed to unrealistically, basstardizze the state regulations, habitually ignore the "practicing" laws that limit their abilities to do what they/how they want and have turned surveyors into some sort of gutter snipe to be kicked and beaten down until we(actually ... they), holler uncle and give up with their tails between their legs and their lips zipped tight.
Boy ... no wonder I got to hating surveying so much in the past five or so years ... cause, even though all I'm doing is drawing plats for a P.S., now , I'm beginning to hate it all the more now than before...
This sure sounds like a personal feud between someone in power and the surveyor whose work is submitted.
My personal best is the City of Tucson incompetent who, after I had signed and sealed the plat, put a heavy black line around the strip to be dedicated to the city and labeled it "Plat limits." Then the title block was erased. You know, the mandatory title block with the name of the plat. When I found out months later all I could do was prepare a scrivener's report and record it. The higher ups in the city refused to fire anyone. I was livid.
I think you're right ...
But with these type people, it's so easy to make them an enemy ... all one has to do is strongly disagree with them.
I used to somewhat "oversaw", the tax map department years ago(I worked for the C.E.), and they(the tax map people), were pretty tough to deal with at times.
After I left, the C.E. refused his lawfully mandated duty of direct supervision(in Ohio the C.E., "shall", be the county tax map draft person), and left all oversight to the county auditor, which, in and of itself is illegal(per Ohio laws a public official(county is a "statutory" government), and only allows for a public official to perform those duties specified by law), which the auditor is not specifically allowed to maintain the tax maps.
ANYWAY ... after I left, a whole new group of GIS'ers were hired and the GIS'ers became the supervisors of the previous tax map personnel.
For a while the tax map department worked for the county commissioners(also illegal), then the auditor. There was rumor that for a while they were their own entity and paid out of the general fund with no supervision from any department within the county.
Screwy, for sure.
But I will tell you that it appears very easy for a professional surveyor to rub these GIS gods the wrong way, and they (the GIS'ers), hold the power of the red pencil, and potentially, the economic future of a "complainer", or "problem-maker", in their hands and too often, they're almost giddy about the power.
Ah, the power of the red pencil.
AHHHHH THE BEAUTY OF GOVERNMENT
Start billing out your surveys with a line item for dealing with the county. Example survey 100.00, dealing with the county $900.00. When your liens complain, send them to the county. If someone beats the county into submission, eat the charges and remove the county surcharge and eat one survey to help with future problems.
Can't put the client up as the sacrificial lamb, and the added charges might actually become a cause of action by one's client.
Only if a willing, understanding and very rich client, who also dislikes the same entity and is willing to suffer the possible consequences, and willing to be billed for the extra time, could then, a client become(realistically), a tool for the surveyor to get action.
This is a problem, mostly for private practitioner surveyors(since they do more boundary surveys).
What I don't understand is why ... from what I've seen ... not a single state surveyor's organization has come to the defense of the boundary surveyors of their states.
In many instances, I'm willing to bet the GIS'ers are operating beyond their lawful limits.
Where's the discussion within the individual state organizations?
Or, is this a problem that really doesn't exist?
We generally don't have these issues in my neck of the woods. If one of our members had an issue similar to yours, I honestly believe that our organization would step up and try our best to help. We have in the past on other issues.
This is an excellent thought. This would compare to the extra expense California surveyors must add to their billings to cover county and city review charges and delays. Apparently, these can range from a few hundred to several thousand dollars on a specific project.