What would you do?

Who cares? If you had assumed bearings on the jobs across the street, but you can still retrace the tract, it doesn't matter, right? I wouldn't do anything. Presumably the deed is out there with the description that calls for the monuments.

Are the bearings correct in relationship to each other? Is there enough evidence remaining of that survey so it can be retraced? If so leave it alone, It should be easy to get on the bearing base you used and what is on the ground is what really matters. Did you use ground or grid distances?
jud

Yes, all of the bearings are in relation with each other, just not based on grid. The distances are ground as stated on the recorded plats.

Not to be considered as flippant ..

"To err is human, to forgive divine'.

The monuments govern, mathematics (coordinates included) is tertiary evidence.

YOS

DGG

Remember, bearings and distances are only pointers/directory calls to where the monument or corner is. As Kris alluded to, if you retrace it, using the called for monuments/corners, there's not a problem. The language you used in the description tells the surveyor where to go. Calls for objects at each corner and calls for adjoiners, natural objects, rights-of-way, passing calls, etc. are what you want to be correct. If those things can be found with certainty, that's all that matters.

While it would be nice if your bearings were correct and on grid, it's not the primary factor for retracement. Your descriptive language is the key.

I see no legitimate concern. Let it go.

Let it GO! Ground, Grid, or what ever! You did your job at that time and date, with the best evidence you had at that period of time. Probity better than what I run across today with no monuments set at all, with a faulty grid. If I can find your monuments, I can follow your footsteps!

Thanks,

Jules J.

I agree that your basis of bearings is insignificant if the angles are correct among themselves in the old surveys, but if the documents and maps you prepared specifically state that they are based on some particular system and they're not, maybe a correction is in order so they don't mislead future surveyors. Personally, when I try to retrace an old survey, it's more common for various surveys not to be on the same basis of bearings so it's just part of the job to rotate the recorded bearings as needed if I need to fit them together.

That depends. Did you state on those old surveys that your basis of bearings were grid?

Yes I did....my north arrow is labeled NC Grid and I have a note on the plat stating all bearings are coordinates are NC Grid and all distances are horizontal ground.

> Yes I did....my north arrow is labeled NC Grid and I have a note on the plat stating all bearings are coordinates are NC Grid and all distances are horizontal ground.

In that case, if I were going to correct anything, I'd correct the basis of bearing statement on the drawings and re-file those. If any deeds are tied to those plats there would be less corrective work that way.

The most important question you asked was "how long am I liable?" My father taught me at age 8 that he was liable until he became a monument himself.
The next questions are either do I admit my mistakes and do I correct it.
Correcting your mistakes seems like a nobrainer. Admitting your mistakes depends on who you are admitting it too.
As a fellow surveyor, following in your footsteps, I would have more confidence in your work after seeing a corrected plat. It makes me feel that you care more about the accuracy of your work than your reputation. For me, they are one in the same.
As far as admitting mistakes to former clients who are laypeople, I differ from the super ethical letter of the law type. Laypeople don't understand surveyspeak like grids and bearings. They don't understand what "an original monument has finality of position" means. When speaking to the public remember you are representing the industry just as much as you are representing yourself.

Alan

As usual, you are the voice of reason in an otherwise hostile environment.

🙂

Not everyone, not by a long shot, was using GPS in 1994. And without GPS not many were using state plane.

I've see lots of cases were guys use different basis of bearings on adjoining surveys. Not a worry.

dont worry about - i have called your state board for you...:-)
Personally, I would let it go - it can be retraced.

This Seems Fairly Trivial

You say you are rotated in based upon a solar shot, along with two geodetic monuments.

Perhaps by using GPS, you might have determined different bearings, as maybe by using a Polaris sighting, etc.

What if the monuments were third order instead of first order (or vice versa)? Same thing.

Each method might have given you a slightly different set of bearings.....should you go back and change all of those too?

So long as the adjacent surveys tie in together, shouldn't be a problem.

Besides, who knows what the guy who surveyed the next lot over used?

Thanks for contacting my state board, but I did that before I posted this originally. I'm still waiting for an answer from the board attorney.

if your basis of bearing is the biggest problem you have on a published plat you have nothing to worry about. if everything else is technically sound i can't see loosing any sleep over it. try to do better next time, learn from your mistake and fugetaboutit.

In my experience, the basis of bearings vary on most surveys and are usually assumed. The biggest problem I see with your situations is the call for grid. And since the next guy down the line will most likely rotate your basis to fit his that is not much of a problem.

If you are going to reference your previous surveys on this survey, I would make a note of my findings in the narrative and call it good. This way the next guy will be able to trace your steps between the jobs.