Here we go again with the designers blaming the surveyor.
We surveyed a 1960s-era house on a large lot. I located a pad that had old, rusted metal on it, that looked like something for accessing water in the past, which would have been the owner before the clients, who had just purchased the property. I had no idea if it was being used. It was separated from the structures. It seemed outdated and unused. Still, I did not ignore it. I labeled it at the time "old concrete pad - old water utility?" (I put the question mark on the survey. And yes the standard utility note was used on the survey as well).
What is funny is that after everyone designed how the new house (site being demo'd) is going to utilize its water system, everyone finds out later that this is an old well that has plenty of good water left.
I guess this is my fault? I love designers who never seem to step foot on a property.
Yes, obvious surveying mistake, Bryan
Yes, Bryan, that is as gross a surveying mistake as I've read about for at least two hours. The question mark clearly lulled the users of your map into wondering whether the feature that you had (questionably) located even existed. It would be best if you were to offer to pay to fix this enormous problem that you have created by neglecting to call back at weekly intervals to see how the house design was coming along. [/satire]
BTW was the rusty metal the old pump minus motor, bolted to the slab by a well casing?
Yes, obvious surveying mistake, Bryan
>
> BTW was the rusty metal the old pump minus motor, bolted to the slab by a well casing?
Last time I saw it was in 2008 during the topo, so until I check it out again I am not sure. That may be how you describe its look. It is very unusual to see a well used in this town, and I am surprised to hear it is usable.
It was weird talking to the architect, because there was a larger concrete slab nearby that had metal remains that looked like tanks, and I had put "concrete pads (old tank site?)". I had thought this was where the well was but it was where I actually said "water utility?".
I spoke to her on the phone and said "oh its there? I said 'water utility' It is pretty clear", and she said "well that does not mean it is a well so we never looked at that"
Yes, obvious surveying mistake, Bryan
> I spoke to her on the phone and said "oh its there? I said 'water utility' It is pretty clear", and she said "well that does not mean it is a well so we never looked at that"
Yes, the architect is, of course, absolutely right. You should have noted the feature as follows:
>NOTE TO ARCHITECT: THIS FEATURE THAT I THINK MAY HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH WATER SUPPLY MAY ACTUALLY BE SOMETHING USEFUL FOR OBTAINING WATER. BEFORE YOU SPEND THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS INVESTIGATING HAVING WATER PIPED IN FROM THE MOON OR THE SIERRAS, WHY NOT HAVE SOMEONE FAMILIAR WITH STUFF LIKE THIS TAKE A LOOK AT IT AND DECIDE?
Yes, obvious surveying mistake, Bryan
LOL exactly.
It is pretty clear from her tone this has nothing to do with designers. I should be drafting a letter explaining to the client why this happened.
I told her drafting a letter would be inappropriate at this time, and that if the client has questions, I would be glad to answer them, and afterwards if a letter helps clarify matters we discussed then I would do so.
I may be meeting with them next week to see what the deal is because apparently the designers for the water/irrigation system are redesigning everything now that they discovered something about the site they never set foot on.
Your Error Was In Using The Word ''Utility''
If appears to be a well, but you are not sure, "WELL?" might be appropriate.
"UTILITY" implies something in the nature of a water valve, water meter box or a nearby hydrant.
Less information might have been more prudent.
I worked for a firm that paid considerable money to construct a sanitary sewer in an incomplete street. Their survey showed a manhole here and a manhole there and the dry inverts indicated a standard pitch. Problem was the sewer line had never been built beyond the manhole exterior, but the client who purchased the lot assumed it was and acted in that manner.
Paul in PA
Yes, obvious surveying mistake, Bryan
Well, you can see the point of the "designer". You used the phrase "WATER UTILITY" and glued a "?" onto it as if you weren't sure whether it wasn't really a beer pipeline running from an older part of Milwaukee to the Bay Area. How in the world was the designer supposed to know that it was a WELL? It could have been anything - maybe a water meter or something like that. So obviously there is no way that she could have reasonably thought it might actually have something to do with making water come out of the pipes when the tap is turned on. I mean, really. [/satire]
Bryan
What's the standard utility note? I might need that some day. That's a tough one when you're surveying a property that nobody with any historical knowledge is around to point out what's what. What if you had gone out on a limb and labeled the slab(s) as a well and come to find out it was a dog kennel? Usually, architects want to know on a design topo where the water's coming in, the poop's going out and the dry utilities are available. Is that what the utility note is about, that you don't have any idea? If so, topo-user beware.
Bryan,...what is a "?"
Never admit you are at fault...
Seriously a disclaimer note on plan to double announce that the preceding ramble before the said "?" is but an extremely personal opinion based on no fact or evidence as it could be the said "?" did not transpose electronically because of a different CAD system.
RADU
Your Error Was In Using The Word ''Utility''
Paul I agree in hindsight I should say "well"? instead of "Water utility"? At the time I had considered this a more generic message, but at least if I had said "well"? it may make someone investigate further.
It is still odd not to investigate what I was referring to when it was next to the larger "tanksite"? structure.
Bryan,...what is a "?"
Radu, no did not get into faults, only to say I found it very odd a designer did not investigate how the property accessed its water. The architect had the map in .PDF and .DWG with the question mark, and it was plotted that way.
Think in reverse. Would we assume what some unlicensed person calls a "boundary marker?" to be an original iron pipe?
Your Error Was In Using The Word ''Utility''
> Paul I agree in hindsight I should say "well"?
Yes, you might think that, but how would the designer have known that you weren't wondering whether it was an oil well or perhaps a helium well?
Bryan
Steve the note is basically the standard "true locations of utilities have to be exposed to the surface" type. I do not think it would apply here anyway. This is more of an issue that people just went off the map, and did not go on site, which was what I was told on the phone.
Bryan
As I said it's a tough situation when people can't tell you or there aren't any records of utility hookups. Maybe a good note in cases like that would be "Source of domestic water unknown" or something real obvious like that so if they really want to know, which I'm sure they do, and don't want to check it out themselves, which I'm sure they don't, they will call and ask you to find out. Then, it's either in your contract or not to show that kind of stuff. If the contract says "visible evidence of utilities" and you have a note that says "unknown", you might possibly be covered contractually but that architect might not be your new BFF.
Your Error Was In Using The Word ''Utility''
> Paul I agree in hindsight I should say "well"? instead of "Water utility"?
Well, what? (Lame joke.)
A guy I worked with long ago told me of a topo he did on a large undeveloped rural parcel. Out in the middle of it he noticed a lone 3'x3' concrete footing, and noted it on the map. During the clearing and grubbing operation for the development that followed, the contractor discovered that the exposed concrete was just the tip of the iceberg, the foundation for an antenna or somesuch that took a D-9 dozer a day or so to remove. The owner tried to hold the surveyor liable, but he just pointed at the topo and shrugged his shoulders.
Bryan,...what is a "?"
Why not use "Concrete pad, use unknown"?
Bryan,...what is a "?"
> Why not use "Concrete pad, use unknown"?
In this case, from talking with the architect, that would be a worse note, since it did not even specify a water usage. The issue is I did not state it to be a definitive well.
In hindsight, I am fixing my general utility note to state designers must familiarize themselves with items that involve a question mark - something to this effect. I am not sure what else I can say.
Bryan
> As I said it's a tough situation when people can't tell you or there aren't any records of utility hookups. Maybe a good note in cases like that would be "Source of domestic water unknown" or something real obvious like that so if they really want to know, which I'm sure they do, and don't want to check it out themselves, which I'm sure they don't, they will call and ask you to find out. Then, it's either in your contract or not to show that kind of stuff. If the contract says "visible evidence of utilities" and you have a note that says "unknown", you might possibly be covered contractually but that architect might not be your new BFF.
It appears they have both a city hookup, since I had located a water meter on site, and this well site.
On a side note, it is interesting that this was not known to my clients. I find it hard to believe it was not mentioned as being a selling point.
Bryan,...what is a "?"
> In hindsight, I am fixing my general utility note to state designers must familiarize themselves with items that involve a question mark - something to this effect. I am not sure what else I can say.
Well, you could say that you've made an effort to identify the feature, but that you don't have the X-ray glasses that building designers are issued and so were unable to ascertain some conditions that they would be able to do at a glance were they to actually visit the actual site and to get out of their car or taxi cab and walk about in the process.
Use the Jim Frame® Note
> In hindsight, I am fixing my general utility note to state designers must familiarize themselves with items that involve a question mark - something to this effect. I am not sure what else I can say.
Many, many years ago Jim Frame caused a note to be published on the internet via the alt.sci.engr.surveying newsgroup that correctly delimited the problem. To paraphrase him (loosely), it would be adapted to your situation as follows:
>THE UNDERSIGNED SURVEYOR RECOGNIZES THAT ALL BUILDING DESIGNERS ARE PROFESSIONALS WHOSE WORK ENTAILS MOLDING THE UNRULY DETAILS OF THE WORLD TO THE ARTIST'S IMAGINATION THROUGH THE USE OF CREATIVELY GRADUATED SCALES AND WITHOUT A SLAVISH OBEISANCE TO THE FETTERS OF MUNDANE REALITY. WHERE A QUESTION MARK FOLLOWS THE DESCRIPTION OF A FEATURE, THE DESCRIPTION SHOULD BE UNDERSTOOD AS MERELY A PRELIMININARY VERSION OF REALITY SUBJECT TO THE DESIGNER'S APPROVAL AND DISCRETIONARY DESIGNATION.
