AI Assistant
Notifications
Clear all

TBPLS Rule Revisions

4 Posts
4 Users
0 Reactions
258 Views
Andy Nold
(@andy-nold)
Posts: 2022
Member
Topic starter
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

Proposed rule changes for the Texas Board of Professional Land Surveying:

Texas Register PDF - Page 37 thru 65


 
Posted : February 12, 2013 4:12 pm
robert-ellis
(@robert-ellis)
Posts: 465
Member
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

Not sure what they are saying about the changes in easements but I have always have a problem with staking both side of an easement especially if it was parallel to the property line on a two or three foot offset. To me setting iron rod there is just asking for a boundary dispute later on.


 
Posted : February 13, 2013 11:45 am
shawn-billings
(@shawn-billings)
Posts: 2691
Member
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

looks like they're dropping the precision requirements. I'm okay with that. Not really enforceable. Looks like they're taking another crack at the bearing relation requirement. Looks like a change for the better for those relating their work to some Geodetic based bearing relation. Looks like they canned the requirement to report material discrepancies. Fine with that - again, due to the subjective nature, kind of hard to enforce.

Not sure about all of the responsibilities to the public, unless they are referring to the public as a client regarding disclosure. We definitely work with the protection of the public in mind, but also with no obligation to reveal results to the public from a survey for a private client. A parenthetical says as much, but it still made me question why there was so much inclusion of "the public" in much of the revision.


 
Posted : February 13, 2013 11:56 am
rj-schneider
(@rj-schneider)
Posts: 2780
Member
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

I was wondering, Andy, other Texas RPLSs, wasn't there some discussion of requiring an RPLS to be present, full time, at every branch office of a firm offering land survey services?


 
Posted : February 16, 2013 8:38 am