Okay...so I had this conversation this morning with a fellow surveyor, concerning the ethics of “adopting” existing spatial data (coordinates and/or Bearings and Distances) at “face value” when preparing a [new] Record of Survey (ROS) on a given parcel.
Basically...Is it “okay” to look at several ROS documents in the public record, and simply USE those spatial relationships in YOUR ROS WITHOUT actually going out there and verifying those coordinates/measurements???
In other words (I think), what constitutes a “SURVEY?”
Lets say for the sake of argument, that there are several ROS(s) covering a particular Section. Both (or all) of these Surveys show bearings & distances (or coordinates) on all eight corners, that AGREE within a couple of hundredths of a foot, and several arc-seconds of angular relationship. Would it be “ethical” to “adopt” this data (or some average thereof), and run out there and subdivide this Section (say set the C¼) WITHOUT verifying ANY of that existent data in the field? One could easily do this (in the theoretical sense) if we are talking about State Plane Coordinates, AND there is a NGS/State/County Geodetic Station in the area, and NOT visit a Single Corner of the Section.
I think it's not only unethical, but down right NUTS myself!
Last time I checked, my license says “Land Surveyor,” NOT “Number Regurgitator.”
Any comments?
Loyal
"I think it's not only unethical, but down right NUTS myself!"
I'll second that.
Case and point
See my previous post on another topic. This is a classic example of what I was getting at. The GISers have lines they don't want us disputing by field verifying them. They're perfect! Why do we need to go to the field?
We surveyors are the binders between the several entities. Engineers, Road Contractors, Building Contractors, Architects, Government, Land owners, Title agents, GISers. We're the egg in the recipe. We keep them all honest. Some want to eliminate the check-and-balance we provide for society.
Loyal,
I agree with you, it would not be ethical. As to the "blind acceptance" of the 4 sec. cor's and 4 qtr cor's, I wouldn't do it, because I would be staking(no pun intended) my license and personal reputation solely on the "work" of others. I enjoy my career (and value the public's rights) too much to do that. (I have seen too many monkeys screw up sections)
As to subdividing the section, I wouldn't do it because just running out and setting the C1/4 at the calc'd position without looking for evidence of a previous survey/corner, is not only risky, but contrary to the standards we should be held up to. That said, however, I know of one state licensing board that not only insists that the calc'd position (see 3-87 & 3-89 of 1973 Manual) of any interior and exterior 16th corner is the ONLY place it can legally be, they will bring charges against any licensee who does otherwise.
>Would it be “ethical” to “adopt” this data (or some average thereof), and run out there and subdivide this Section (say set the C¼) WITHOUT verifying ANY of that existent data in the field?
Not in my book. I'd do it if the prior surveys were my own work, but I don't trust record coordinates enough to hang a boundary on them.
I think that it comes back to a survey being a "snapshot in time". When I conduct a survey, analyze the data, and set a monument, that is my opinion of the corner location at that time. Five minutes after I walk away from setting that monument I cannot guarantee that it is in the correct location. I, and perhaps most of you, have seen monuments disturbed by weather conditions, grading and malicious movement by others. I know of one individual (owned many parcels) who moved monuments on several occasions. Without a knowledgeable surveyor who will reset those in their correct location.
Andy
I agree Loyal
Whatever happened to "original monuments in the original location govern" with respect to property boundaries?
While we can give some weight to documentary evidence, how can we report the facts when we have not be in the field to discern them?
Until there was legislation that explicitly gave coordinates (and associated metadata) governing status over monumentation and there was a minimum standard for the coordinates (and associated metadata), a survey plan compiled from copied information isn't a survey in the legal sense.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
> Okay...so I had this conversation this morning with a fellow surveyor, concerning the ethics of “adopting” existing spatial data (coordinates and/or Bearings and Distances) at “face value” when preparing a [new] Record of Survey (ROS) on a given parcel.
>
> Basically...Is it “okay” to look at several ROS documents in the public record, and simply USE those spatial relationships in YOUR ROS WITHOUT actually going out there and verifying those coordinates/measurements???
>
> In other words (I think), what constitutes a “SURVEY?”
>
> Lets say for the sake of argument, that there are several ROS(s) covering a particular Section. Both (or all) of these Surveys show bearings & distances (or coordinates) on all eight corners, that AGREE within a couple of hundredths of a foot, and several arc-seconds of angular relationship. Would it be “ethical” to “adopt” this data (or some average thereof), and run out there and subdivide this Section (say set the C¼) WITHOUT verifying ANY of that existent data in the field? One could easily do this (in the theoretical sense) if we are talking about State Plane Coordinates, AND there is a NGS/State/County Geodetic Station in the area, and NOT visit a Single Corner of the Section.
>
> I think it's not only unethical, but down right NUTS myself!
>
> Last time I checked, my license says “Land Surveyor,” NOT “Number Regurgitator.”
>
> Any comments?
>
> Loyal
Unfortunate as it may seem, I believe that's the direction things are headed. The more people and agencies rely on this stuff, the harder it will become to challenge/dispute it.
Ralph
>.. Would it be “ethical” to “adopt” this data (or some average thereof), and run out there and subdivide this Section (say set the C¼) WITHOUT verifying ANY of that existent data in the field? One could easily do this (in the theoretical sense) if we are talking about State Plane Coordinates, AND there is a NGS/State/County Geodetic Station in the area, and NOT visit a Single Corner of the Section.
>
It depends.
At face value I'd agree, but if it was one of about a half a dozen surveyors I know personally, I might. Because I know the quality of their work.
That said, I couple of check shots sure wouldn't hurt.
:coffee:
Not doing any field work, stupid. Not comparing and contrasting your new field data to record data, also stupid.
Great thread topic. Thanks, Loyal, for starting it.
IN MY OPINON, a survey involves field work EVERY TIME.
No field work, no survey.
The prior data is helpful as a start to do your survey. Maybe you will agree precisely and maybe you will find errors or missteps. There are surely places in California and other earthquake-prone locations where the land has actually moved since the earlier survey work. Let your buddy chew on that thought a bit.
Is there a special cookie you get if you come up with a different answer?
My clients generally just want to see their true boundary lines in relation to their visible occupation. The bearing basis and coordinates generally only holds the attention of other surveyors.
Food for thought...
Although SPECIFIC to Official Mineral Surveys, the following blurb would (IMO) make a GOOD addition to many State Statutes concerning the practice of Land Surveying (or basis for a statute).
From the 1909 Manual of Instructions for the Survey of the Mineral Lands of the United States:
“The survey made and reported must, in every case, be an actual survey on the ground in full detail, made by you in person after receipt of the order, and without reference to any knowledge you may have previously acquired by reason of having made the location survey or otherwise, and must show the actual facts existing at the time. This precludes you from calculating the connections to corners of the public land survey and mineral monuments, or any other lines of your survey through prior surveys, unless it is satisfactorily shown in your report that you have retraced such lines and found them to be correct. (6 L.D., 718; 7 L.D., 81)”
Obviously somewhat MORE definitive and restrictive than [just] “responsible charge,” BUT IMO a good modus operandi.
BTW, 6 L.D. 718, “Veta Grande Lode” was dated May 24, 1888. So it's been around awhile. 7 L.D. 81 would have been later in the same year (I don't have a copy of 6 L.D. handy right now, but I bet that the Koopster does).
Loyal
This reminds me of a discussion I had with a rural landowner a couple of decades ago while I was surveying an oil well site on a nearby property on behalf on an energy company.
He asked me how long I expected to be in the area and asked if I would place a few lath along his property line so he could build a fence. He indicated that he would slip me $300 as a thank you.
As it turned out, the property line in question ran for a mile through a largely forested area. After a search, I determined that the original monumentation defining the property line had been lost requiring re-establishment. After having a search done by my office and reviewing what I would need to do to locate his property boundary for a fence including the physical effort to run and mark the the line, I gave him an estimate that was closer to $1500 not counting travel time. This was in the pre-GPS days so there was substantial work required to re-establish the property line.
He got quite upset, telling me that all he wanted were 'a few lath' put up so he could build his fence. I explained that what he really needed were 'a few lath in the right place'. It was the last part that cost $1500; I would have provided the lath for free.
I think that we often overlook the fact that we provide a service to build a survey plan per legislated requirements and professional standards to protect public interests, not just sell the finished survey plan as a commodity.
> My clients generally just want to see their true boundary lines in relation to their visible occupation. The bearing basis and coordinates generally only holds the attention of other surveyors.
Lol - well, sometimes there's a pesky legal requirement for the basis of bearing to be on the map of survey; whether your client gives a rip or not.
Food for thought...
>
> “The survey made and reported must, in every case, be an actual survey on the ground in full detail, made by you in person after receipt of the order, and without reference to any knowledge you may have previously acquired by reason of having made the location survey or otherwise, and must show the actual facts existing at the time. This precludes you from calculating the connections to corners of the public land survey and mineral monuments, or any other lines of your survey through prior surveys, unless it is satisfactorily shown in your report that you have retraced such lines and found them to be correct. (6 L.D., 718; 7 L.D., 81)”
>
That's pretty much the way I was taught to survey.
My Survey reflects the conditions on the ground and the positions relative to the controlling monumentation at the time the survey was performed.
Using someone elses data, or my own data from previous work leaves too much room for unpleasant surprises.
Setting or depicting a position from record data is a protration diagram, not a Survey.
IMHO
DJJ.
OOPS
I meant to say that I didn't have a copy of 7 L.D. handy, I do have 6 L.D. (obviously).
🙂
Loyal
I agree with Bruner. While there is a perception amongst many in the public(and many professionals, land surveyors included for that matter) that property lines and corners are static it simply is not the case. While many corners remain static over a long period of time this needs to be verified and property lines investigated for other encumbrances/encroachments before it should be considered "surveyed".
What constitutes a SURVEY- no black-and-white NUTS
It has to be interpred as to just what a survey is and in particular what a Record of Survey is. There is an implication a "survey" was done when the term Record of Survey is written or spoken.
If the Record of Survey is dependent upon other Records of Survey, it should so be stated. Specifically, it should be shown just exactly which elements are being relied upon from other Records of Survey. Adding qualifying opinions, comparisons, contrasts, facts or aguments would also be in order. The "record" in such a case should probably include a statement regarding whether and where the surveyor put his feet on the ground.
In order for the Record of Survey to be accurate, then it must show these elements as well as any other relevant information. It is then a "Record" of Survey.
It is unethical if the Record of Survey does not bring out factual information which might ordinarily be expected of such a document. The "gray" line, in relation to a black-and-white situation, is the factual information. The expectation can be correlated with the map reader's blurry vision.
As for being NUTS, that's a matter unto itself and is only dependent upon the congruence of the stater's opinion and the listener's inferences and interpretations.
Butch
My presumption has always been that when talking about a survey that all of the minimum requirements are on the survey. The question was how much effort does one give to prove out the bearings of record. Or for that matter, should one change the basis of bearing from the deed? Please try to offer some worthwhile input other than sanctimonious dribble.
