Am I the only one who thinks this is wrong?
it technically causes a map check report to fail
How so? N80E is exactly the same bearing as S80W. On a plat there is no single direction of a line because there is no metes and bounds. There is a direction of a map check report, but the only point is to CHECK the map, so if the bearing of the line is the same, all good. Your way would require two bearings (reciprocal) on each shared line, which would be most lines in a plat. That is just silly.
Your way would require two bearings (reciprocal) on each shared line, which would be most lines in a plat. That is just silly.
I don't understand what you're talking about.
I was referring to the subdivision boundary only, not lot lines. There's a metes and bounds description of the subdivision boundary usually on or near the signature page, and often times when a random bearing is going the wrong way on the map it's going the right way (or vice versa) in the description and that's a discrepancy that needs to be corrected anyway.
I draw out the plat exactly as the stamping surveyor has it shown and the map check routine I use has me click the line labels which, when not all going the same direction, leaves a gap. Could I swap the bearing to make the boundary close? Probably, but I'm not going to because then I've gone from checking the plat to interpreting the plat.
I was referring to the subdivision boundary only, not lot lines.
Is there a difference?
I draw out the plat exactly as the stamping surveyor has it shown and the map check routine I use has me click the line labels which, when not all going the same direction, leaves a gap.
So, this is just a problem with random software that you are using to check the work, not an actual error by the surveyor?
Could I swap the bearing to make the boundary close? Probably, but I’m not going to because then I’ve gone from checking the plat to interpreting the plat.
You are interpreting it when you type in the info. You find the info, you determine which line or line portion it refers to, etc etc etc. It just seems obtuse. You aren't making any change, simply modifying the (correct) info so that it works with your chosen software.
There’s a metes and bounds description of the subdivision boundary usually on or near the signature page, and often times when a random bearing is going the wrong way on the map it’s going the right way (or vice versa) in the description and that’s a discrepancy that needs to be corrected anyway.
It isn't a "wrong way". That isn't how bearings work. It just isn't how you like to see it. It sounds more like a way to show power than an actual fixing of problems. The plat is not the city's document, it isn't your document, it is the owner's document prepared by their surveyor. And if something isn't actually wrong (and not just different than "how we do it") then it should be approved.
It sounds more like a way to show power than an actual fixing of problems.
haha OK, now this has got to be the first time I've heard that literally copying the surveyor's work, word for word, is considered "showing power".
You really can't win as a reviewer. If you go outside of the checklist the surveyor whines like crazy and if you quote their work you're "showing power".
This entire thread should have been posted in the "The dumbest thing you will read today" thread.
I think that perhaps the reverend Mr. Cow is pulling your collective leg.
In all my years of licensure in 2 states and working in 3 states, I've never heard this discussion come up. I can think of much more important issues than this to spend my time on.
Just my opinion. I hope no one gets their feelings hurt by my personal dismissal of this issue.
Happy Saturday!
Oh, boo hoo, boo hoo. My day has been destroyed. Woe is me.
Seriously. Sloppiness should not be tolerated. Make the effort to remember that the bearings used in a metes and bounds description on a survey plat should agree with the labels on each boundary line shown on the drawing. It's really that simple.
Make the effort to remember that the bearings used in a metes and
bounds description on a survey plat should agree with the labels on each
boundary line shown on the drawing.
Why is this the case? I have not seen that requirement before.
The only time I know it's a requirement is for subdivision boundaries. I recently finished 8 BLA's and Family Exemption Plats. They all had multiple descriptions. The choice is to go clockwise, then counterclockwise to make the common lines go the way of the labels. Or what I do is label each side with different directions.
But I really don't care.
It's a non-issue to me.
It's a label of a line on the plat, if you can't see it as either direction,,,,,,,,,,,it's really, really, really picky.
I recall a case from many years ago where I had the closing call of my survey say: thence south (something) west to to the east line of the subject section. That would have involved a trip of over 15,000 miles to get to the east line of that section. Words are very important.
Another oddity came to my attention today. A survey drawing did an excellent job of delineating a new boundary. It showed that it was entirely within the west half of the southeast quarter of the section. The description, however, had six places that called out that the new tract was in the northeast quarter of the section..
Seriously. Sloppiness should not be tolerated. Make the effort to remember that the bearings used in a metes and bounds description on a survey plat should agree with the labels on each boundary line shown on the drawing. It’s really that simple.
No. NE and NW are the only bearings that should show on a proper plat. It isn't wrong. It is just a different style, no matter how much we argue about it.
(And why I do not actually follow that idea, but I can recognize that it is just fine, thus the sarcastic assertion that there is only one correct way to do the thing.)
As a group we surveyors suffer from congenital inability to be flexible in so much of our thinking. Our way is THE ONLY RIGHT WAY. It just isn't the case.
