what do you see here?

Slippery road ahead?

Certainly a lot of different initials working on that drawing. Wouldn't you like to be the fly on the wall during those meetings with the "client".

Daniel Ralph, post: 429914, member: 8817 wrote: Certainly a lot of different initials working on that drawing. Wouldn't you like to be the fly on the wall during those meetings with the "client".

winner winner chicken dinner. 8 different techs addressing comments on one survey. while it doesn't guarantee a lack of direct supervision by a registrant, it certainly suggests it to me. (in fact, i'm entirely convinced of as much, when combining this with various other info on the survey.)

client couldn't care less, they just want to close. as far as they're concerned, it closed just fine in 2013 and i'm just being an unnecessary pain in the arse.

Eh, I'm less concerned with the number of people working on it, than the four year gap between revisions. Neither one may be a cause for concern. We have a number of drafters here, and I'm doing the checking on my projects, no matter who's doing the CAD work on it, even if it's been musical chairs.

it closed in 2013 and is being treated as an update for a 2017 refi.

and, i guess different strokes... but there is no way i can see having 4 different techs work on a survey over the course of 6 weeks make better sense than assigning specific jobs to specific techs. and i get that people go on vacations, take days off, quit and go find other jobs... but twice (once four years ago and again now) this has happened. if it were two people... ok, maybe when considering the previous sentence. three- i don't know, that would have to be an extremely exceptional case. but eight?- as far as i'm concerned it practically guarantees crap work. and believe me- this survey fits that bill.

Techs do not verify revisions. Surveyors and/or engineers do. Never, ever saw the tech in the revision box, in the drafting box yes.

Who even makes a revision box that big to start with? Around here the first revision is on the bottom and they get stacked on top,

Paul in PA

If they're just drafting it, I don't see it as a major problem. As said, I'm reviewing the crap out of anything done by anyone other than me.

I agree, it seems weird that so many different people would have their hands in it, but ultimately, if my name goes on it, then I'm checking twice as hard.

well, here's the kicker to that: i've seen 3 revisions of the 2017 version so far, and there is- as of yet- no RPLS name or number listed under the signature space. today's redline i sent back basically cited every applicable passage of state code and minimum practice standards.

and yes- this is one of the orlando survey broker surveys.

You should pick up the phone and call the outfit that prepared the map. Ask for AG and see if they are a PLS. If so, remind him that unless he sends you a signed document in the next few hours that this is going on the bottom of your pile. If AG is not a PLS, it goes on the bottom of your pile. You must have standards by which you conduct business and you shouldn't be reviewing anything that has not been approved by a PLS before it gets to your desk.

I would think the responsible pls should be stamping the new, revised plans every time a revision is made. The date by their signature should be on or after the latest revision date. Who cares if the revision initials of the tech changes, just so there is a new signature and seal. (I see that the column label above the initials says "tech". I know laws are different in every state, but I would think revised plans should have a new signature and seal.

I see the client about to sue the hell out of someone.

I would want pictures to verify recent surveying activity even if it is just to prove monuments are in place.

flyin solo, post: 429926, member: 8089 wrote: well, here's the kicker to that: i've seen 3 revisions of the 2017 version so far, and there is- as of yet- no RPLS name or number listed under the signature space..

Sounds like you're doing the the RPLS's job for them. If you could just go ahead and certify that when you get it into final form, that'd be great. LOL

I'm guessing their plat is chock full of color?

Sounds like that plat doesn't meet current TBPLS requirments. All preliminary plats issued must identify the name and registration number of the responsible RPLS along with the phrase, "PRELIMINARY, THIS DOCUMENT SHALL NOT BE RECORDED FOR ANY PURPOSE AND SHALL NOT BE USED OR VIEWED OR RELIED UPON AS A FINAL SURVEY DOCUMENT." and the date and reason it was issued.

A Harris, post: 429937, member: 81 wrote: I would want pictures to verify recent surveying activity even if it is just to prove monuments are in place.

believe me, the thought crosses my mind daily (that and asking for copies of field books), which leads to the response to the following:

Andy Nold, post: 429938, member: 7 wrote: Sounds like you're doing the the RPLS's job for them. If you could just go ahead and certify that when you get it into final form, that'd be great. LOL

I'm guessing their plat is chock full of color?

Sounds like that plat doesn't meet current TBPLS requirments. All preliminary plats issued must identify the name and registration number of the responsible RPLS along with the phrase, "PRELIMINARY, THIS DOCUMENT SHALL NOT BE RECORDED FOR ANY PURPOSE AND SHALL NOT BE USED OR VIEWED OR RELIED UPON AS A FINAL SURVEY DOCUMENT." and the date and reason it was issued.

well, yes. and here's why i suspect i'm not long for this gig. i see anywhere from 2-10 commercial land title surveys each day. being that i work for a title company, one of my primary responsibilities (if not THE primary), in their eyes, is to help get good surveys for the purpose of expediting closings where the actual money is made. now, that's not completely incongruent- or even exclusive of- what i consider to be my primary responsibility: namely, to elevate the currency of what we do by ensuring that each survey is devoid of mathematical errors, omissions, substandard practice...

but the volume that i'm seeing, and the "average" quality of that volume... let's just say i'd be (already am, quite frankly) throwing a serious wrench in the operational and financial realities of not only my employer, but parties to all these junk surveys i have to deal with. i spend a LOT of time on the phone or emailing RPLS trying to nicely coax things, in the interest of making all involved parties happy. days (and weeks) like today and all i'm tempted to do is spend 8 hours filling out complaint forms and submitting them to the board. but you can probably understand how happy that'd make the people who pay me (for several reasons)...

bottom line is the title industry no more cares about a lot of these survey-specific issues than they do about what color paint is on the side of the building. and they shouldn't- they count on us to handle those matters. but i don't really have any desire to be a cop. or to, what, go shaming other registrants here or wherever (not to mention i'm rather lawsuit-averse). i guess i figure i can help more by going back to turning out good work than i can by beating my head against the wall trying to... i honestly don't even know how to attack the issue. the truth is there is a bunch of work being done- and polluting title all over- based on the model of commercial real estate brokers hiring "commercial real estate due diligence" firms (which is how they all market themselves) who set up these umbrellas that, for whatever reason, seem really appealing to a bunch of half-assed surveyors.

If it's not finished why are there revisions? Around here, until the product is deemed 'approved by the agency' there are no official revisions.

How can you even review a product like this if there is no PLS in responsible charge? Seems like that would be a violation of State Code. If they need a PLS to prepare and approve the plans then that PLS stamp better be on each and every submittal.