Today's email submitted without comment:
Attached to this email are three screenshots, which show the coordinates (NAD 27 Lat/Long, NAD 83 Decimal Degrees, and NAD 83 Lat/Long) in each of the three GIS maps that we use. (RRC Internal and Public, GLO). The filenames state which coordinates are used and which system it is viewed in.
The GLO places the coordinates a little over 200 feet from where the plat shows, and both the RRC systems have it farther than that.
Normally when these types of situations occur, the GLO agrees with the plat and the surveyor, and we create a mapping report for our internal mapping department to investigate what may be the cause. However, in this situation, all three of the systems show the same thing, and that is that the coordinates are at least 215 feet off.
I understand your surveyor wanting to stand behind his/her work, however it seems that something is off.
The easiest way to resolve this problem would be to submit a revised plat which does not contain any coordinate information. It is not required to show the coordinates on the plat, however if they are shown, they need to be accurate. In this case, they are not accurate, exceeding our 100 foot tolerance by two fold.
Get out your 12" 6-sided metal engineers scale, walk into their office, ask them to show you their knuckles and their RPLS and/or LSLS license. If they can't produce their license, you get to shatter their mouse driving hand.
But, that's just my opinion.
Carl
" they need to be accurate. In this case, they are not accurate, exceeding our 100 foot tolerance by two fold."
You could turn this around on them and say that you have proof of your coordinates...where is theirs??
> Today's email submitted without comment:
Don't answer today. Tomorrow will be soon enough.
My current favorite GIS FUBAR is this piece of the Railroad Commission GIS showing a part of Dimmit County held together by oil wells in which the GIS shows a roughly 850 vara (0.45 mile) wide strip of land lying between the Carl Kirchner Survey No. 520, A-613 and the Henry Castro Survey No. 522 and Mathias Schmidt Survey No. 525.
The "A-?" noted on the GIS indicates that this would be a vacancy, no known private title.
I've mentioned this before in a thread about a year and a half ago, but there is no space at all between the three surveys. They were located by the same surveyor at the same time and are tied together by the calls of the field notes he returned. Likewise, his field book shows that he tied them together in the lines actually run.
> " they need to be accurate. In this case, they are not accurate, exceeding our 100 foot tolerance by two fold."
100 feet off is OK, but 200 isn't?
This is like the guy who asks a woman if she would sleep with him for $1,000,000. She says yes.
Then he asks if she would do it for $50. She retorts indignantly,"Do you think I'm some sort of prostitute?"
To which he replies, "We've already determined that. Now we are haggling over price."
The GIS was based upon this version of the Official GLO Dimmit County Map that had been so sloppily compiled that it completely omitted some valid patented surveys and left a vacant space where none belonged.
The records on file at the GLO if properly compiled would have produced this map:
Naturally, once the GIS was created, it only reinforced the idiotically mistaken GLO map it was derived from.
> The easiest way to resolve this problem would be to submit a revised plat which does not contain any coordinate information. It is not required to show the coordinates on the plat, however if they are shown, they need to be accurate. In this case, they are not accurate, exceeding our 100 foot tolerance by two fold.
If your client's perception of the problem is that someone will make bad things happen if they think that the well isn't really located where the location plat shows it to be, there has to be a procedure to correct that. It is just too common a problem that the GIS doesn't fit reality. Isn't the real "problem" solved by sending actual survey data to the Railroad Commission GIS folks?
I've got the guy's name but not sure if I can find him before end of business.
On an aside, I'm working with Laurel at the GLO on some correspondence files and she is showing me the digital microfilm reader. They said they've had it about a year now and McMillan broke it in for them.
It would be so tempting to set a receiver on one of the points with coordinates and send a file to OPUS. Email them the results and tell them they need to have the RRC and GLO contact NGS to resolve the issue.
Of course, I would also want to be a fly on the wall when this discussion is going on.
James
>I'm working with Laurel at the GLO on some correspondence files and she is showing me the digital microfilm reader. They said they've had it about a year now and McMillan broke it in for them.
Yes, Laurel is great. The digital microfilm reader isn't bad, either.
The GIS - GPS - Google & Automotive design
> It would be so tempting to set a receiver on one of the points with coordinates and send a file to OPUS. Email them the results and tell them they need to have the RRC and GLO contact NGS to resolve the issue.
>
> Of course, I would also want to be a fly on the wall when this discussion is going on.
>
> James
[sarcasm]That might result in a mechanical engineering solution "Dismantle the construction and rebuild it according to design spec. The paper design controls!!"
Just wait until we get GIS - GPS - Google & Automotive design telling us we are no longer qualified to drive. How are you going to get to the remote corners of the large farm/ranch if the survey chariot refuses to go there? Self-Driving Cars Here By 2025, Mandatory By ?[/sarcasm]
So basically you are giving them (on a silver platter) good coordinates for their GIS and they are bitching about it, great...............
Do what I do, with as much professional restraint as you can muster send them a letter asking them for the contact of the surveyor who gave them the numbers. Or if they like just give you the license number of the surveyor.
Until you can get with the professional surveyor who located the monuments to resolve the data issue you can't possibly change your numbers because state regulations require you to resolve issues like this with the other surveyor.....
Honestly, this is what I've been doing, since this happens often enough to make it necessary.
> So basically you are giving them (on a silver platter) good coordinates for their GIS and they are bitching about it, great.
I suspect that part of the problem is that various parties have relied upon the GIS as if it were a good enough representation of original land grant lines for many purposes. Then when the actual land grant lines are corrected in the GIS, oxes get gored.
GIS, at least as implemented in the Texas GLO and RR Commission has a huge inertia. People run screaming down hallways at the thought of correcting the GIS.
>
> GIS, at least as implemented in the Texas GLO and RR Commission has a huge inertia. People run screaming down hallways at the thought of correcting the GIS.
[sarcasm]It would help if you'd spruce up your north arrow a bit... marketing is half the battle... [/sarcasm] :-$ :snarky:
[sarcasm]No reference to Google Earth, what were they thinking?[/sarcasm]
I understand your surveyor wanting to stand behind his/her work, however it seems that something is off.
In this case, they are not accurate, exceeding our 100 foot tolerance by two fold.
"It would appear that you may have this problem turned around. I'm very sorry to be the one to inform you that your GIS has exceeded your own accuracy tolerance by two fold."
Just because I'm paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get me.
I know that this might seem crazy, but apparently your client can't do transformations on their own.
So do it for them.
Ask them what coordinate they want to hold at which point, and use it. Call the datum out as "per client".
I do essentially the same thing with municipalities that have their proprietary control that they call 83/91, but differs by a foot. I just say "83/91 City Datum"
Where are you at? Some of the RRC is worse than others...
> Ask them what coordinate they want to hold at which point, and use it. Call the datum out as "per client".
This is probably for reporting to the Texas Railroad Commission. Nobody in his right mind would want to assume liability of fudging a well location like that.