By the sound of it, you are well on your way to the more lucrative and less back-breaking lecture/expert witness circuit.
This afternoon I opened an envelope containing comments on a subdivision plat that I prepared only to see a red stained set of plans and several pages of type written comments. After ten minutes of wading through this morass, I determined that this was not actually too bad and that the input, while messy, was mostly helpful. Sometimes responding to criticism helps in understanding the background and intricacies of the situation. For both myself and I believe the reviewer we will be better off. The takeaway is that it is helpful to all when the reviewer is concise and respectful of the product.
I agree with Uncle Paden ([USER=20]@paden cash[/USER]) that all we can do is individually produce excellent work. This is how the profession is elevated - one practitioner at a time, doing the work he is supposed to do. There are quite a few bad surveyors out there. Here's a secret I'm discovering - they've always been out there. I'm working on a boundary retracement now and found some old records (1933) produced by Arthur Stiles along one of my boundaries. He's the guy that came up with the gradient boundary. He argued against the location of a boundary as determined by a very poor local surveyor. Stiles report was incredible and his conclusions inarguable. I'll share the document here soon. The poor local surveyor has a reputation of having produced very poor work for a very long time. Not much different from the contrast we see today. I'll put my head down and do my best, hoping to have a reputation when I'm gone that future surveyors admire instead of cursing, also hoping that the kind of clients that I'd really like to work for, find that they value (VALUE) quality work over low price, high volume competitors. I think that capitalism may be a remedy for some of this, regulatory control doesn't seem to be much help (some help, but not much).
I can only imagine how frustrating your job must be [USER=8089]@flyin solo[/USER]. It's tough to see people show disregard for something you hold sacred. Keep at it and don't let them bring you down. Surveying is a noble profession that is rewarding in countless ways to those who approach it with care and passion. It is strange though. I've always looked at ALTA/NSPS Land Title Surveys, TSPS Land Title Surveys and Veteran's Land Board Surveys as very serious. It's hard to imagine people out there doing them with such low regard.
[USER=378]@Robert Hill[/USER] and [USER=431]@David Livingstone[/USER], I'm not sure why it matters if [USER=8089]@flyin solo[/USER] posts anonymously or is registered. Does it somehow make violations of statute permissible? In Texas, we are required to state our basis of bearings. Land Title surveys (ALTA/NSPS or TSPS) require reporting on the exceptions to title in the provided Title Commitment. Flyin's status is irrelevant.
Don't let em pound you down. "Don't let em bring you down. " [USER=6521]@Shawn Billings[/USER]
I like that.
N
Nate The Surveyor, post: 403965, member: 291 wrote: Don't let em pound you down. "Don't let em bring you down. " [USER=6521]@Shawn Billings[/USER]
I like that.
N
'illegitimi non carborundum'
paden cash, post: 403966, member: 20 wrote: 'illegitimi non carborundum'
Definitely sounds more refined in Latin, but it feels better in English.
paden cash, post: 403966, member: 20 wrote: 'illegitimi non carborundum'
Ya made me look that one up.
My reply is going to be that I feel you see many of your problems because you are seeing the work of surveyors who never received good mentorship as part of their training. They went to college, learned the math, did their time as an SIT, then did their time in a responsible charge position, having someone check their work on occasion, but never really sitting down with them and showing them the hows and whys of the job. How this measurement was made, and why this part was important. The mechanics of surveying are there, but the art is gone.
Monte, post: 403977, member: 11913 wrote: My reply is going to be that I feel you see many of your problems because you are seeing the work of surveyors who never received good mentorship as part of their training. They went to college, learned the math, did their time as an SIT, then did their time in a responsible charge position, having someone check their work on occasion, but never really sitting down with them and showing them the hows and whys of the job. How this measurement was made, and why this part was important. The mechanics of surveying are there, but the art is gone.
well, that's certainly possible in some of the cases. but i happen to know that a few of these gems i've reviewed were done by second generation RPLS who've been surveying since they were in diapers.
was thinking about all of this last night (actually, have been thinking about all of it for a month now), but considered this part too: i don't know how reasonable the size of my stack of red flags is. like, there are certain things that if i spot on somebody else's survey or in their description, i immediately start doubting everything else related to it. counter-clockwise calls, for instance- those don't necessarily mean misclosure or bad boundary analysis, but you'd better believe i'm going to assume they probably do.
so one of these apples who fell from a surveying tree turned in an ALTA last week that had contours. also had the entire length of two lines of the survey rev clouded and labeled "dense brush could not access". these were standard barbed wire fence lines lined with hackberry, mustang grapes, and probably poison ivy (just based upon google earth). now i couldn't care less- as a function of my job- about the integrity of the topo. but that "could not access" statement (that's like a core point-of-pride violation), coupled with the fact that the areas were covered in spaghetti bowls of contours... let's just say i still would have found the couple dozen other errors and deficiencies, but it didn't even require conscious thought to smell a rat when i looked at that survey.
anyways- that'd be a fun segue. what, if any, red flags do any of y'all have when looking at somebody else's work?
Shawn Billings, post: 403964, member: 6521 wrote:
[USER=378]@Robert Hill[/USER] and [USER=431]@David Livingstone[/USER], I'm not sure why it matters if [USER=8089]@flyin solo[/USER] posts anonymously or is registered. Does it somehow make violations of statute permissible? In Texas, we are required to state our basis of bearings. Land Title surveys (ALTA/NSPS or TSPS) require reporting on the exceptions to title in the provided Title Commitment. Flyin's status is irrelevant.
[USER=6521]@Shawn Billings[/USER]
Shawn,
No not at all about the anonymity of the poster. I don't think that I questioned his Anon status. So I will stick by
my original post. I did click like for some of his subsequent posts.
What caught my attention was the coarse and insulting manner about his review subject.
I realize that he was venting about his situation but it was smelling a little unprofessional.
A professional should use some tact and courtesy and not lambast a surveyor. It is in the Louisiana ethics code. (Maybe TX has more of a swinging dick ethos in their code which is demonstrated here frequently)
I would also have some courtesy for a long time licensed surveyor that has practiced in a specific area. There are a lot of reasons to do so.
I'm am starting to see a bias from surveyors who are college graduates against "old school" surveyors.
It's a shame because of the opportunity for knowledge lost.
Can't we all just get along"
- Jim Combs PLS
Late Arkansas & Washington County surveyor and friend.
flyin solo, post: 403986, member: 8089 wrote: well, that's certainly possible in some of the cases. but i happen to know that a few of these gems i've reviewed were done by second generation RPLS who've been surveying since they were in diapers.
was thinking about all of this last night (actually, have been thinking about all of it for a month now), but considered this part too: i don't know how reasonable the size of my stack of red flags is. like, there are certain things that if i spot on somebody else's survey or in their description, i immediately start doubting everything else related to it. counter-clockwise calls, for instance- those don't necessarily mean misclosure or bad boundary analysis, but you'd better believe i'm going to assume they probably do.
so one of these apples who fell from a surveying tree turned in an ALTA last week that had contours. also had the entire length of two lines of the survey rev clouded and labeled "dense brush could not access". these were standard barbed wire fence lines lined with hackberry, mustang grapes, and probably poison ivy (just based upon google earth). now i couldn't care less- as a function of my job- about the integrity of the topo. but that "could not access" statement (that's like a core point-of-pride violation), coupled with the fact that the areas were covered in spaghetti bowls of contours... let's just say i still would have found the couple dozen other errors and deficiencies, but it didn't even require conscious thought to smell a rat when i looked at that survey.
anyways- that'd be a fun segue. what, if any, red flags do any of y'all have when looking at somebody else's work?
As a reviewer one of your main tenets must be objectivity. I have a few processes that help me with that.
First, frame your goal as positive as possible. If you start every day thinking about digging in poop, you won't last. You have a chance to make a positive impact on the Profession, and probably learn a lot of good technique. Few jobs come with that perk. Enjoy it.
Second, never assume the worst. If you see the calls run anti-clockwise, look at the manner title was created. If I take it on myself to 'fix' a description by reversing it I can easily screw up a perfectly good chain of title. Hold off labeling the survey as crap until you know it's crap.
Third, don't take it personal. Those stacks of surveys were not put there to confound you or make your life hard. Every one of them is someone trying to make a living, most of the time with a sincere effort. Take the opportunity to educate them, with the bonus of educating our partner Professions.
Bottom line, you have a sweet gig. Having fun with it is going to be a daily choice. Good luck, Tom
flyin solo, post: 403986, member: 8089 wrote: counter-clockwise calls, for instance- those don't necessarily mean misclosure or bad boundary analysis, but you'd better believe i'm going to assume they probably do.
Do you know the history of CC vs CCW?
Robert Hill, post: 403989, member: 378 wrote: [USER=6521]@Shawn Billings[/USER]
Shawn,
No not at all about the anonymity of the poster. I don't think that I questioned his Anon status. So I will stick by
my original post. I did click like for some of his subsequent posts.
What caught my attention was the coarse and insulting manner about his review subject.
I realize that he was venting about his situation but it was smelling a little unprofessional.
A professional should use some tact and courtesy and not lambast a surveyor. It is in the Louisiana ethics code. (Maybe TX has more of a swinging dick ethos in their code which is demonstrated here frequently)
I would also have some courtesy for a long time licensed surveyor that has practiced in a specific area. There are a lot of reasons to do so.
I'm am starting to see a bias from surveyors who are college graduates against "old school" surveyors.
It's a shame because of the opportunity for knowledge lost.Can't we all just get along"
- Jim Combs PLS
Late Arkansas & Washington County surveyor and friend.
i understood what you're getting at, and have been thinking about that too. would you suggest there is a steadfast rule of tact and courtesy that would protect a fellow surveyor if he or she is known for substandard work? i honestly don't know what, if any, reputation i have locally among my fellow surveyors- sort of one of those "how self-obsessed do i wish to be?" exercises. but there are more than a few RPLS in these parts who have outstanding reputations and are known to virtually everyone with a license (one of them is a regular poster here). there are others who are just as notorious in other ways. i've been to multiple conferences over the years where- i swear- one particular guy (who is now deceased) walked into the room and an audible groan emanated from the room. so what's the solution in that case? our association as professionals is only partly voluntary- we have certain standards and minimums we must meet. but the voluntary part is having the pride and consideration for your fellow practitioners to practice and apply both those minimums and other customary and perhaps unwritten habits. we all make mistakes, and i'd never exclude myself from that. but i certainly don't have a problem calling a habitual crappy surveyor a crappy surveyor. to his or her face or to you.
and as for any bias you may be seeing, please don't lump me into that. i have a college degree. in political science. i welded neon signs for 5 years after getting out of college. i started surveying for a buddy of mine 20 years ago using 30 year old (at the time) technology. i can bird-dog boundary and blazes and take a 150 year old deed and retrace it on the ground with anybody here. i've been bitten by pit bulls, horses, cut myself out of briar that'd block a breeze, pulled chain up and down hills where i had to tie myself off to trees, closed to hundredths on a week-long traverse, dug through files in dusty basements, dealt with some of the sweetest and crankiest old deed record clerks in the entire american south.
i reckon it depends on the definition of "professional." am i venting- of course. if that bothers you well, then, i am genuinely sorry. i think we're after the same thing. my extension of professional courtesy may just be shorter than yours.
I know the feeling one gets when you see something in the first 10 seconds that jumps off the page at you as not normal. Fortunately, that has been rare for me, but it does happen from time to time. One example: the description says 6.245 acres but the drawing shows 9.542 for a simple rectangle. Don't laugh................it happens. In another case the section corner labels (northeast corner, section 12-31-18) on the drawing didn't match the actual section specified in the description. As soon as you see such obvious blunders you can't help but question everything else.
Nate The Surveyor, post: 403993, member: 291 wrote: Do you know the history of CC vs CCW?
probably not to the point you're asking. so i will invite you to expound.
A fellows reputation doesn't guarantee the draftsman did his job correctly. I had to put in a call to one of the board members of our State BOR for a couple issues that were very significant on one of his plats for what might be the only job he has had in that county in 20 years. They would have been an issue everywhere, not just in that county. I'm sure it was a case of signing the plat quickly on the assumption the draftsman had correctly made whatever corrections the PLS had instructed him/her to make.
I'm guessing Nate's question is why would it make any difference if the description ran clockwise or counterclockwise so long as it closed. We write them in whichever direction seems to make the most sense for a specific survey. I remember reading on here that there are certain places where it is basically the law to run all of them clockwise (or counterclockwise, depending on the stated expectation).
flyin solo, post: 403997, member: 8089 wrote: i understood what you're getting at, and have been thinking about that too. would you suggest there is a steadfast rule of tact and courtesy that would protect a fellow surveyor if he or she is known for substandard work? i honestly don't know what, if any, reputation i have locally among my fellow surveyors- sort of one of those "how self-obsessed do i wish to be?" exercises. but there are more than a few RPLS in these parts who have outstanding reputations and are known to virtually everyone with a license (one of them is a regular poster here). there are others who are just as notorious in other ways. i've been to multiple conferences over the years where- i swear- one particular guy (who is now deceased) walked into the room and an audible groan emanated from the room. so what's the solution in that case? our association as professionals is only partly voluntary- we have certain standards and minimums we must meet. but the voluntary part is having the pride and consideration for your fellow practitioners to practice and apply both those minimums and other customary and perhaps unwritten habits. we all make mistakes, and i'd never exclude myself from that. but i certainly don't have a problem calling a habitual crappy surveyor a crappy surveyor. to his or her face or to you.
and as for any bias you may be seeing, please don't lump me into that. i have a college degree. in political science. i welded neon signs for 5 years after getting out of college. i started surveying for a buddy of mine 20 years ago using 30 year old (at the time) technology. i can bird-dog boundary and blazes and take a 150 year old deed and retrace it on the ground with anybody here. i've been bitten by pit bulls, horses, cut myself out of briar that'd block a breeze, pulled chain up and down hills where i had to tie myself off to trees, closed to hundredths on a week-long traverse, dug through files in dusty basements, dealt with some of the sweetest and crankiest old deed record clerks in the entire american south.
i reckon it depends on the definition of "professional." am i venting- of course. if that bothers you well, then, i am genuinely sorry. i think we're after the same thing. my extension of professional courtesy may just be shorter than yours.
Thanks for the reply.
Your venting isn't a problem. This is the place to do it.
It also appears that there are a few reviewers hanging out here lately.
I guess they gave time on their hands because of all the excellent surveys for their purview/review.
It would seem that repeat offenders would get the message from disciplinary action.
I would think that there are always are a few surveyors in any locale that cause concern.
That seems to be the common thread for maps that appear to have been sent out under a deadline. If the norm is to have it reviewed, then a basic framework is presented, and comments tend to be of the "flesh it out" variety. Often, it is a matter of showing graphically, or by note, the method of retracement in a manner that is more explanative than the preceding maps.
Warren Smith, post: 404007, member: 9900 wrote: That seems to be the common thread for maps that appear to have been sent out under a deadline. If the norm is to have it reviewed, then a basic framework is presented, and comments tend to be of the "flesh it out" variety. Often, it is a matter of showing graphically, or by note, the method of retracement in a manner that is more explanative than the preceding maps.
That can be fun on old Record of Survey maps. I see what you did but why did you do it? There tends to be not a lot of "why" on older Surveys. In some cases it was one of my predecessors so we have the files. Nelson will have stacks of calculations in there but not much documentation of why he did what he did, usually his work is acceptable, if for no other reason than the passage of 50 years but one line he had 10' too far west into the adjoiner. I found the calculation blunder in the files (all hand calced traverse sheets). So I put the line back where it was supposed to be. Conkright is much better about having supporting information in the files plus extensive notes on the maps so it's easier to figure out why he did it.
Well, CCW vs CW, as I heard it, (so this is not necessarily FULLY fact), A long time ago, there was an old HP program, that had to run CW, to give you correct acreage. It did weird thing, when run CCW. I don't remember what. It was before my time.
But, if that's true, then this custom is antiquated.
But, I thought you might know more than me about it.
Again, don't let em pound you down!
N
