What Do You Call Paint Marks?

There are different levels of SUE. So not all paint markings are equal. This is where a Note on the plat or map needs to be made in order to protect the surveyor. We do a lot of locating paint by our SUE folks. Depending on what equipment they use and methods is how we determine the notes for that portion of work. I just did one that we were not allowed to know what it was. Our sure folks could only go so far in an area and we just locate the paint as an unknown utility. Well we locate the paint. They have many methods and tools just like we do. They all have pros n cons and different accuracies. GPR does a decent job. Vacuum trucks do even better as we can get right on a mark that way. TWO pin flags and the correct stomping of your foot I have been pretty good at being within less than a half a foot horizontal and vertical up to 4.5 feet down to waterlines. Which the SUE folks tie in and work there magic on sites and confirm I am pretty close.

A note on the map only means that you condone the practice of guessing where utilities are located instead of demanding that scientific methods be employed.

When I worked with subsurface utility engineering we used vacuum excavation to verify random locations. That is what our DOT is specifying in their contracts.

While I applaud those efforts it has been too many years to come to this realization.

I think that you are underestimating the process. Everybody (who matters) understands that "One-Call" paint marks are approximate. The design process will include following up with exposure by vacuum excavation - if not trenching. If it doesn't, the engineer knows very well that he is rolling the dice. SUE levels of quality are well defined. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/sueindex.cfm

ALTA Surveys aren't always prepared with a need for future construction. It's incumbent upon us as professionals to obtain knowledge of the client's ultimate purpose for the survey, and inform everyone involved on the survey with proper notation, or demand the appropriate method for location accordingly. The standards are defined as "Minimum Standard Detail Requirements"

Yeppers. I had to call miss utility before I dig on farm. Anytime I am close by 10 ft or more to any markings. I am extra careful for sure. Because it’s what it is. Now I borrowed some SUE equipment to do some markings around the airfield on the farm I lease because we are putting in some new fence posts along the airstrip. Now the original owner had a map he made which showed to be darn good. But in certain areas I dig by hand vs the auger on tractor just to be safe. Even though it’s low watts for lights along the grass strip. All I can say is our SUE guys do pretty well as when we come back for the vacuum stage and I have the previous data in so crews can check that as they locate the depths for certain they don’t miss a lot for what it’s worth. They usually are within the limits they say they are in depending on how they were asked to locate beforehand. Now sometimes it out more but mostly they hit pretty well. If they tell me they are within a couple feet they usually are if half a foot or less they usually are. Some of the equipment they have has been used for a long time for other purposes in the give and military at a different scale. But let’s just say a lot of lives have been saved because of it.

Surface indications of underground easements or servitudes on or across the surveyed property observed in the process of conducting the fieldwork (e.g., utility cuts, vent pipes, filler pipes, utility locate markings (including the source of the markings, with a note if unknown).

My quarrel is with the language found in the section entitled "Fieldwork" and what is required there. Specifically the phrase "utility locate markings" is particularly egregious.

I have participated in projects where working people that relied upon utility locate markings were in serious danger. One example was a drilling crew that accidentally penetrated an electrical duct bank. The utility had been marked 'approximately' 30 feet away. I remember looking at the marks just as the cooling water from the drill rig disappeared into the duct bank.

You can put disclaimers on the map, but that doesn't satisfy me. The language should not appear in the requirements unless care has been taken to ensure people will not be harmed. If I don't see it, then I'm not saying or implying that it is there.

"One example was a drilling crew that accidentally penetrated an
electrical duct bank. The utility had been marked ‘approximately’ 30
feet away."

Exactly what is meant by "rolling the dice". That drilling crew should have understood the meaning and expectations of the "One-Call" marks and run their own detection before proceeding. Note that the vacumn excavators typically electronically detect the location of utilities before they begin their operations to limit the probing around they have to do.

That's called "passing the buck". It's also admiting that people who make paint marks are unethical.

I thought I had heard the locator company was responsible for getting the paint within 18 inches of the utility. Not so? Why are people required to call them and they are getting paid if they aren't taking that liability?

We've been seeing a trend of locators buying their own GNSS gear - which may range from survey-grade network rovers running off the RTN, to resource-grade receivers with only WAAS corrections - and delivering shapefiles, instead of painting up sites.

Needless to say, I am not a fan. If they happen to push out the metadata/attributes with the shapefiles (it varies, because of course they don't really know GNSS or GIS or processing), I often look through it for kicks, because there's an "accuracy" field stored with each point that ranges from 0.5 feet to ~10-15 feet.

I include a very detailed note about where the underground utility lines came from, and label them QL-C or even D, rather than the QL-B that I would assign if we surveying the marks ourselves.

(They also deliver the shapefiles in ITRF/WGS84, which causes problems on our end when a random tech just imports them to C3D without transforming them to NAD83 first. 🙄 )

So far I haven't seen or heard of any crises resulting from this method; I make sure all our in-house engineers know when those locations were derived by non-surveyors.

"One Call" mark outs can be off as much as three feet, generally, but I've seen worse. The purpose of locating these marks is to put the stakeholders on notice that there are potential unrecorded rights vested in service providers through blanket easements. By no means are they intended to mark exact locations.

In situations where we are required to show these mark outs on our plans, it should be clearly noted as to who did the mark out, when it was done (if known), with a qualifying clause stating that anybody relying on this information, for any purpose, is required to complete subsurface investigations to verify their accuracy.

I don't see any problem with paint marking utilities. These markings indicate there are utilities in the area. Those using them for something more than an indicator are the ones who would cause a problem. Anyone who is diligent would have the utilities exposed by potholing to determine their location.

The utility companies aren't even required to mark in the field for design/planning level tickets in all areas we work. Some do, some don't. You never know until you hit the ground and see what's marked.

Relevant info from Table A follows. It is instructive for all surveys. The key is that we are providing evidence. In the context of ALTA/NSPS surveys, this is typically sufficient. For design, there may be additional needs.

As you can see below, the ALTA/NSPS standards clearly states that depiction of paint marks does not eliminate the need for an 811 call, and it explicitly states that excavation is needed to precisely locate features.

In Washington, the concerns of the OP are to be directly addressed on Topographic Surveys.

WAC 332-130-145

<i style="">(3) Statements of clarification of utility information shown:

(a) Source of utility location (such as "surface markings," "as-built," "potholing," or "field measurement");

(b) Statement of accuracy of utility depiction (such as "locations of underground utilities shown hereon are based upon field measurement" or "locations of underground utilities shown hereon are based upon as-built maps");

<i style="">(c) A statement of the scope of work between the project owner and the licensee regarding the comprehensiveness, exclusions, and limits of the utility investigations leading to these utility depictions.

ALTA/NSPS TABLE A

11. Evidence of underground utilities existing on or serving the surveyed property (in addition to the observed evidence of utilities required pursuant to Section 5.E.iv.) as determined by:

_____ (a) plans and/or reports provided by client (with reference as to the sources of information)

_____ (b) markings coordinated by the surveyor pursuant to a private utility locate request.

Note to the client, insurer, and lender – With regard to Table A, item 11, information from the sources checked above will be combined with observed evidence of utilities pursuant to Section 5.E.iv. to develop a view of the underground utilities. However, lacking excavation, the exact location of underground features cannot be accurately, completely, and reliably depicted. In addition, in some jurisdictions, 811 or other similar utility locate requests from surveyors may be ignored or result in an incomplete response, in which case the surveyor shall note on the plat or map how this affected the surveyor’s assessment of the location of the utilities. Where additional or more detailed information is required, the client is advised that excavation may be necessary.