Was re-reading the September issue of The American Surveyor, and was wondering what everyone's thoughts were on this particular article. I didn't see anything pop up here or the other forums I frequent, so what gives? Is everyone already doing all the stuff that Carl talks about in his article, or does everyone think that it only applies to Oregon, since your particular state doesn't have a specific narrative or notes requirement?
Does everyone think they have to explain their survey (what they held, why they held it, why they didn't hold other stuff, etc.) or is it ok to leave it up to oral testimony during a court hearing? Since it is likely that many surveys will only be adjudicated after the surveyor who did it is long gone, how does that bear on your thinking?
Here is the link if you haven't read it yet: http://www.amerisurv.com/PDF/TheAmericanSurveyor_Clinton-WritingNarratives_September2017.pdf
I provide a narrative on about 30% of the maps that I produce and that probably will increase as I become more used to doing it. Sometimes it is just easier to use words to articulate methods and procedures than with numbers and lines.
I do not get the magazine the American Surveyor, so I had not seen the article until I read the copy in the link you posted above, but I know I have long been of the mind that since I would rather follow a well written description, I should be writing well written descriptions. I have been accused of having diarrhea of the word processor, even, because I will repeat information from one paragraph to the next instead of assuming the reader can follow that I meant by saying "the same as", I meant one paragraph back, not two paragraphs back. I will also mention monuments I found but did not hold, so that surveyors who follow me know I found them, but that they were not held, and why. I will explain what documents I used to come to my conclusions, and what text in those documents led me to believe what I did. I feel that especially with computers, it is easy to put our thoughts down in our reports and notes, and as I have been told numerous times when writing reports for the ambulance, "If it is not in writing, it didn't happen".
In California, when filing a Record of Survey, the land surveyor in responsible charge of the survey is required to show "Any other data necessary for the intelligent interpretation of the various items and locations of the points, lines, and areas shown,...and also show, either graphically or by note, the reason or reasons,.." why the filing of the map was required.
Of course, this language doesn't dictate how a surveyor should state anything on a boundary survey that was not required to be filed. When I was in private practice, I found that I provided what some would refer to as a narrative on more maps than I did not regardless of whether I was required to file. When I did provide those notes, it was because I felt more information needed to be provided to any users of my data such that my reasoning at the time was clear.
Another way of looking at the benefit of adding a narrative...if you as a retracing surveyor were questioned on why you gave specific weight to one previous survey over another, it is easier and more supportive to be able to refer directly to the original surveyor's written word rather than having to make educated assumptions based solely on how you "read" the map without a narrative.
This is a different context, as I don't file plats or ROS, but in bench mark recoveries. I try to record anything I think the next person would want to know rather than a simple "Found Good", and to convince anyone that I looked in the right place if SFNF. I really hate those NF (mostly by the Power Squadron) with no indication of how or where they looked. I may get a bit wordy, but rarely push the limit on the web recovery form.
-----------------
Here's one that thankfully was quite visible, or no one would have been likely to find it since all prior ties were gone except the street that was widened and renamed.
MH0229'RECOVERY NOTE BY INDIVIDUAL CONTRIBUTORS 2017 (BDH)
MH0229'IN LAWN SW OF OCEOLA AVE, SE OF THE HYVEE COMPANY TRUCK WASH, 60 YARDS
MH0229'NW OF A HOUSE, 18 YARDS SW OF THE AVENUE CL, 36.5 FT NORTH OF A 2 FT
MH0229'DIAMETER TREE, 33.5 FT SW OF A POWER POLE, 29.5 FT EAST OF PAVING FOR
MH0229'THE TRUCK WASH, 25.5 FT NE OF THE NE CORNER OF A DRAIN GRATING, AND
MH0229'PROJECTING 8 INCHES. NONE OF THE OLD REFERENCES REMAIN. N41 01 24.4
MH0229'W093 19 30.7 SKY GOOD EXCEPT FOR LARGE TREE SOUTH.
-----------------
Example of one that used to be on an abutment a foot higher than the road (I had once seen it but not reported because then was too soon after a prior recovery.)
AE9190'RECOVERY NOTE BY INDIVIDUAL CONTRIBUTORS 2017 (BDH)
AE9190'LIKELY DESTROYED. BRIDGE HAD MAJOR WORK IN LAST YEAR, WITH NEWER
AE9190'CONCRETE PATCH IN AREA DESCRIBED AND NEW CONC GUARD RAILS. NO PLACE ON
AE9190'NW CORNER OF BRIDGE IS NEAR 1 FT ABOVE HIGHWAY. BRIEF METAL DETECTOR
AE9190'SEARCH DID NOT FIND EVIDENCE IN BROKEN CONCRETE STREWN BELOW BRIDGE.
AE9190'
AE9190'SCRIBED CROSS ON NW WING WALL MARKED 718.62 (0.81 FT LOWER THAN DISK)
AE9190'WAS PROBABLY WORKING SUBSTITUTE FOR DISK.
----------------------
One that's long gone, with a likely reason
NJ0548'RECOVERY NOTE BY INDIVIDUAL CONTRIBUTORS 2017 (BDH)
NJ0548'COORDINATES ARE NEAR RIVER BRIDGE ON IOWA NORTHERN RR, THE FORMER
NJ0548'C.RI.+P. DISTANCE FROM EXISTING MILE POST 103 FALLS NEAR LOW WATER
NJ0548'RIVER BANK. TOPO MAP SUGGESTS ELEVATION WOULD BE REASONABLE.
NJ0548'
NJ0548'THERE IS NO CONCRETE PIER NEAR EAST END OF BRIDGE, ALTHOUGH THERE IS
NJ0548'ONE IN MID RIVER. LARGE SLABS AND SMALLER REMNANTS OF CONCRETE ON
NJ0548'BANK SUGGEST EAST PIER REPLACED BY EXISTING WOOD AND STEEL.
--------------------
A NF with some evidence that this has to be the right place along the RR to look, not on Main Street:
MH0260'RECOVERY NOTE BY INDIVIDUAL CONTRIBUTORS 2017 (BDH)
MH0260'THE ONLY CROSSING IN TOWN IS THE EAST-WEST ROAD NAMED SOUTH STREET,
MH0260'WHICH MAY HAVE APPEARED TO BE THE MAIN OR PRINCIPAL STREET IN 1935.
MH0260'THE ONE NOW NAMED MAIN GOES NORTH AND SOUTH AND DOES NOT CROSS.
MH0260'
MH0260'THERE IS NO GARAGE, FENCE, OR CROSSING SIGN THERE, BUT A BURIED
MH0260'SIDEWALK IS DISCERNIBLE FROM THE APPEARANCE OF THE GRASS. THE CENTER
MH0260'OF THE PRESENT STREET IS 28 FT FROM NORTH EDGE OF SIDEWALK RATHER THAN
MH0260'THE OLD 22 PLUS 9.
MH0260'
MH0260'METAL DETECTOR FINDS MUCH JUNK, AND GROUND IS DIFFICULT TO PROBE. NO
MH0260'EVIDENCE OF MARK WAS FOUND IN A QUICK EXAMINATION NEAR THE MEASURED
MH0260'DISTANCES.
------------------------
A simple one with 75 years of change in the roads and buildings:
MG0482'RECOVERY NOTE BY INDIVIDUAL CONTRIBUTORS 2017 (BDH)
MG0482'ACROSS JAMES AVE FROM CHURCH, NORTH OF BUILDING MARKED TURNERS SALVAGE
MG0482'STORE, AND WEST OF A WITNESS POST. NO FENCE BUT CORNER POST REMAINS.
MG0482'N41 06 19.7 W091 32 40.6 SKY OBSCURED BY TREES N AND NE AND BUILDING
MG0482'SE. HWY 218 HAS BEEN ROUTED AROUND TOWN.
------------------------
I try to provide a written narrative when I feel that it will aid someone trying to follow in my footsteps to understand how I arrived at my solution. I don't necessarily try to convince readers that my logic was superior, but just to explain why I did what I did.
Providing a narrative is required by law in OR, but is a good idea anywhere when additional explanation is necessary or helpful to explain the whats, hows, and whys of the surveyors decisions.
The Legislative Committee of the CLSA was looking at putting together a legislative proposal for a requirement similar to OR's, but thus far, haven't been able to come up with something the committee members can agree on, much less getting the support of the profession. We'll keep trying to come up with something that works well, but it's on the back burner for now.
I've given a presentation on the use of narratives a few times. My primary advice is that your map should make the evidence you found, your use of it, and your reasoning so clear as to make it easy for a following surveyor to accept what you did and make it very difficult for them to credibly disagree with your results.
Although a narrative will be of most use to a surveyor, it should also be written so as to make the complex as understandable as possible for non-surveyors. If your survey does become an issue in legal proceedings, it's best if the map can speak for itself. It is also useful for you to recall what you did (especially if it has been several years since the survey) so that your testimony as to your reasoning is less likely to contradict info on your map in any way.
In a deposition for a case where the plaintiffs were trying to pile on the survey as one more issue to argue about (there were several having nothing to do with the survey), the opposing attorney would point to a particular depicted monument and ask "What's this? Why did you use it?", to which I would point to the legend for an explanation of the symbol, read the brief notation next to the symbol he had pointed to which would say something like (fd. 3/4" CIP, "LS1234", See Note #8), then read note #8, which may have given a more complete description of the point, who set it, when, how and why I used it or why I rejected it. I would then ask him if he needed me to clarify any of that.
After the third monument symbol he asked about, he stopped asking anything about the boundary. My survey was not an issue by the time the matter got to court.
I haven't read Mr. Clinton's article beyond a quick scan so far, but expect that he advises a lot of the same that I advise in my presentation. I'll try to catch up on some of my reading this weekend.
Paul, post: 450456, member: 624 wrote: Was re-reading the September issue of The American Surveyor, and was wondering what everyone's thoughts were on this particular article. I didn't see anything pop up here or the other forums I frequent, so what gives? Is everyone already doing all the stuff that Carl talks about in his article, or does everyone think that it only applies to Oregon, since your particular state doesn't have a specific narrative or notes requirement?
Does everyone think they have to explain their survey (what they held, why they held it, why they didn't hold other stuff, etc.) or is it ok to leave it up to oral testimony during a court hearing? Since it is likely that many surveys will only be adjudicated after the surveyor who did it is long gone, how does that bear on your thinking?
Here is the link if you haven't read it yet: http://www.amerisurv.com/PDF/TheAmericanSurveyor_Clinton-WritingNarratives_September2017.pdf
Looks like a great article to me. The narrative explains and supports the surveyor opinion. I'll adopt some of its recommendations to improve my narratives.
The only time that I prepare a "narrative" is for use as pre-filed testimony, or n response to an attorney's request. Working in a recording state I try to let my plans "speak" for themselves.
Dtp
Up here in Washington, we have laws requiring information for the "intelligent interpretation" on a survey map. As you can imagine, there is a large gap between camps of surveyors on what that means.
For me, it means very much the same as the article. Meaning that if you need to give oral testimony to explain your survey: what you found, held, the deed you followed, which information you ignored, the surveys you disagreed with, the errors you found in the record documents and how you addressed them, etc then it doesn't comply, and you really didn't do a full survey.
Just having a bunch of lines with bearings and distances between them doesn't cut it. The cartoon is just a picture without the story behind it. Sometimes those stories are pretty hard to piece together. It takes a surveyor to tell them. And they need to be told.
Sent from my LG-M257 using Tapatalk
Oh, and by the way, I'm not necessarily advocating a narrative as it is used in OR (where I'm also licensed). It doesn't always work well, especially for large surveys with lots of problems. I like leadering notes into particular lines for allot of instances, otherwise it can be really hard to follow (flipping through pages, trying to figure out which line I'm talking about). A bad narrative can be worse than nothing, though most are perfectly fine.
However it gets done, it should be noted somewhere and somehow.
Sent from my LG-M257 using Tapatalk
Paul, post: 450569, member: 624 wrote: Oh, and by the way, I'm not necessarily advocating a narrative as it is used in OR (where I'm also licensed). It doesn't always work well, especially for large surveys with lots of problems. I like leadering notes into particular lines for allot of instances, otherwise it can be really hard to follow (flipping through pages, trying to figure out which line I'm talking about). A bad narrative can be worse than nothing, though most are perfectly fine.
However it gets done, it should be noted somewhere and somehow.
Sent from my LG-M257 using Tapatalk
I agree completely. Further, requiring a structured narrative eventually becomes a useless tradition. Require the infirmation but give us a chance to use our judgment on how to depict it.
Having done 99.9% metes and bounds for 45+ years, writing complete comprehensive descriptions is the daily norm.
Also, being repetitive in calling out information relating to every monument in every paragraph is the norm and necessary for the statement to be used when read on its own without causing any confusion in an attempt to use footnotes or reference to any specific prior paragraph or call.
Mostly every bit of information contained withing the description to any property is also located on the drawing on the specific property and location that the statement refers to.
The drawing is a mere graphic of the property description and contains all the same info.
I began my career in Oregon and have been preparing narratives since the first boundary I resolved. My first boss pounded it into my head to keep notes as I resolved the lines. I try my best to put my thought process down on paper for the future map user. When working on a larger project I sometimes have a hard time remembering why I held a line (if I break the above rule) let alone while I'm sitting in a court room 10 years and 300 projects later. Yes some of narratives take an entire page but paper is cheap. I prepare and provide narratives not only for the required plats and records of survey but also for ALTAs and unrecorded boundary resolutions for various engineering projects. As professionals we are paid for our knowledge as well as our technical expertise.
Bill93, post: 450476, member: 87 wrote: . I really hate those NF (mostly by the Power Squadron)
:beer:
My favorite narrative 
. The Legend shows 3 found monuments. Then states that 2 of 3 of those three monuments were "not visited this survey". 18 single family home sites were created from this "professional Work". Jp
I don't see a problem with that if I tied the monuments for an earlier project. I have a record of survey sitting on my desks right now that depicts monuments I tied back in 2000 on a survey that I have used without re-surveying on the new survey that utilized the same control. I just make sure to note when they were tied. To be honest, I don't even care if the monuments are still there. Why reinvent the wheel on every survey.
Paul, post: 450456, member: 624 wrote: Was re-reading the September issue of The American Surveyor, and was wondering what everyone's thoughts were on this particular article. I didn't see anything pop up here or the other forums I frequent, so what gives? Is everyone already doing all the stuff that Carl talks about in his article, or does everyone think that it only applies to Oregon, since your particular state doesn't have a specific narrative or notes requirement?
Does everyone think they have to explain their survey (what they held, why they held it, why they didn't hold other stuff, etc.) or is it ok to leave it up to oral testimony during a court hearing? Since it is likely that many surveys will only be adjudicated after the surveyor who did it is long gone, how does that bear on your thinking?
Here is the link if you haven't read it yet: http://www.amerisurv.com/PDF/TheAmericanSurveyor_Clinton-WritingNarratives_September2017.pdf
That's a very helpful article. In the past year or so I have written several narratives. Prior to that, in my 20 year career I may have written two. To my knowledge narratives are pretty uncommon here in metes and bounds East Texas. I write elaborate descriptions but I find narratives provide a better vehicle for explaining the process of the boundary reconstruction than the description does.
I'm a neophyte at writing them however. This article will be helpful. Basically the body of my narrative recites the direction and distance of each call along with a comparison of each deed call pertaining to the call and any particular details about my process for determining the line that may be relevant.
I routinely see surveys that show fences many feet off of the line they call the property line, with no indication of why they disregarded such a distinct line of possession. Especially when they didn't find any monuments and just plugged in deed bearing and distance from some POB. Even saw one once that showed found iron pipes at all the fence corners, with no comment on why they didn't hold them (they were of by 15 feet). When i dug into it, they matched perfectly with the original plat, assuming you realized that the plat used an older section corner position as their starting point, that was reestablished long before the DNR proportion it in 80 feet between the two. It may be fine to ignore the fence and monuments, but why did they? Perhaps they did the research, figured out that the monuments were set from the older section corner and decided not to hold them. They didn't say. Is it a secret? Only to be revealed at a later date? Shouldn't that kind of stuff be on the survey? I think so.
I see many surveys where they've obviously come up with a proportion between found corners. Shouldn't one say that somewhere, or do we (as readers of the survey) need to figure it out by doing the math (assuming the surveyor put the record distance between monuments on his survey). Many don't. You need to calculate that too.
I can guess at figuring out how someone resolved their survey as well as the next guy, but why? What if i get it wrong and completely miss why someone else did what they did? Is that my problem (as the user of the information) or theirs (as the creator)? Probably both.
The surveys i like retracing the best are the ones that give lots of details. Right or wrong, you know exactly what they did and why they did it. Again, its the story that the numbers tell that is important. Not the numbers themselves.
FYI. I only work in recording states, so I'm talking about survey maps (recorded and unrecorded boundary maps) and subdivisions.
Sent from my LG-M257 using Tapatalk
John Putnam, post: 450743, member: 1188 wrote: I don't see a problem with that if I tied the monuments for an earlier project. I have a record of survey sitting on my desks right now that depicts monuments I tied back in 2000 on a survey that I have used without re-surveying on the new survey that utilized the same control. I just make sure to note when they were tied. To be honest, I don't even care if the monuments are still there. Why reinvent the wheel on every survey.
Surveying a line reveals (or should reveal) the condition of monuments and possession. A lot can happen in 17 years...
