Is this allowed?
I have prepared composite plats showing record measurements and the most recent monuments of record, but you'll never mistake it for a survey. Washington State allows record monuments on maps, but I won't do it on a filed map.
thebionicman: Washington State allows record monuments on maps, but I won’t do it on a filed map.
bstrand: I think if I were to do this I probably wouldn’t show any monument symbols on it though.
I opened a random survey recorded this past month. It is pretty common to show mons even though they are calculated.
I assume the method used to calculate the mon that is shown as existing, but was not visited, is explained in the notes, and is on one of the referenced surveys. This is very common around here (Seattle metro area). Showing a monument according to the record location on a survey or plat is pretty much standard practice for a lot of surveyors. Even the ones that appear to not be doing this are showing a location based on their visiting it 30 years ago.
This map shows lots being created without the benefit of a survey, and monuments, hopefully only the monuments that were from the previous surveys that were made into a mosaic here.
That sounds like what we call a "paper short plat" around here. Not allowed at this point, but it wasn't the board that ended the practice, it was the municipalities.
It is pretty common to show mons even though they are calculated.
That seems more confusing than helpful to me and I'm learning about how you guys do the monument notes/table which I'm sure helps, but it still seems a little strange to me to show a monument that you didn't actually visit.
I assume the method used to calculate the mon that is shown as existing, but was not visited, is explained in the notes, and is on one of the referenced surveys.
Definitely different than Idaho where we'd probably just show undimensioned, unmonumented linework since we didn't actually retrace any of it.
The Advisory Ruling actually dates back to 2000. 250 Code of Massachusetts Regulations was revised/updated in 2013 but the advisory is still applicable, I believe.
Is this allowed? It depends on the jurisdiction. What type of map is it? A recorded survey, a map from the transportation department or other municipality?
I've prepared many maps over the years based solely on available record information but never once passed it off as a survey, because it's not. These are usually more of a fact finding exercise for big picture planning and infrastructure. (Yes, we pull in available GIS utility data) As long as the map clearly states its sources and intended use, I don't see any issues with this. Whatever it is identified as it certainly doesn't qualify as a survey in any area i work in.
Someone mentioned putting calculated-not-visited notes on surveys. While somehow still allowed in WA, this practice is not allowed in ID. I personally think this is worse than original question in this thread. If you're basing a survey off of a calculated monument it means you have not visited it and therefore can't say with any certainty that it exists or is in the correct location. Hence the reason why ID banned this practice. If you're using it in your survey you need to visit it and tie it.
If you’re basing a survey off of a calculated monument it means you have not visited it and therefore can’t say with any certainty that it exists or is in the correct location.
I was under the impression they're sticking these record mons on record linework that is only there for reference and that the note would explain that this line or area wasn't actually surveyed, but maybe that assumption is wrong? I think it's dangerously confusing either way.
As far as stitching together various surveys or plats I don't see a problem with that, but I guess I don't see the point of recording it either. I don't think it would meet the requirements of recordation, so wouldn't the public be better served by just sending that drawing to your client and letting them use it to do whatever it is they need to do?
Someone mentioned putting calculated-not-visited notes on surveys. While somehow still allowed in WA, this practice is not allowed in ID. I personally think this is worse than original question in this thread. If you’re basing a survey off of a calculated monument it means you have not visited it and therefore can’t say with any certainty that it exists or is in the correct location. Hence the reason why ID banned this practice. If you’re using it in your survey you need to visit it and tie it.
Let me get this straight, you have thousands of lots in Seattle that are metes and bounds starting at aliquot part. You want each surveyor to make a new break down of the section to survey that lot? Is that really a great idea?
Not to mention, many (most) of those monuments are no longer physically extant in many of the cities around here, and a bunch more are inaccessible. The ONLY way you are going to show them is from records.
And as for "showing a mon", having two lines intersect, or having them intersect with a symbol that indicates a calculated position for a monument is exactly the same thing. And many people do not add that symbol.
Whatever it is identified as it certainly doesn’t qualify as a survey in any area i work in.
You are correct, by definition, a "record of survey" in WA is a map that shows field work. That isn't to say that every element of the information shown thereon must be the result of field work, but there is little point to recording something that doesn't involve something done physically on the ground.
