Is This Fair/Legal?
Higher levels of precision are expected to be utilized in areas with higher property values or in other areas necessitating higher accuracy
I came across this in the Washington survey rules and thought it was interesting.
How can you claim to have a standard and then say weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeell, just kidding it actually varies.
Isn't this essentially saying a farmer's dollar is worth less than a billionaire's dollar? Isn't it unethical for us to intentionally provide a greater value to one client over another?
I'm genuinely surprised the state hasn't been sued for creating such a blatant double standard.
Lastly, has anyone here gotten into trouble or heard of someone getting into trouble for not exercising "increased precision" on expensive properties?
To my knowledge rural area surveys have always been allowed more leeway than urban areas. Why should a farmer have to pay for the precision necessary for a survey being conducted in Manhattan. These differing requirements for precision based upon the value of the area being surveyed makes all the sense in the world to me. I think it would be unfair to impose a tight precision that would raise the cost of the survey while providing no increase in practical value of the survey.
I don't think it should be codified but the level of care for $1,000 an acre remote mountainside is a little different than one would handle a $1,000,000 + an acre urban lot that is about to have a billion dollar tower built on it. An inch or two is no big deal in the woods but could be a huge issue in the 2nd setting.
Taking the reverse case, it would be absurd to apply the standard of care appropriate for a sold-by-the square-inch lot in downtown Portland to a ten thousand acre ranch in southeast Oregon.
Taking the reverse case, it would be absurd to apply the standard of care appropriate for a sold-by-the square-inch lot in downtown Portland to a ten thousand acre ranch in southeast Oregon.
True.
And my first line was a little misleading. It's a minimum standard not the standard, so that's the critical language.
I think the ethical aspect is interesting though.
I'd say it'd be a good explanation for why your 'higher property value area' or 'higher necessity of accuracy area' surveys are so much more expensive. Guaranteeing a specific level accuracy on a map created with higher precision workmanship takes more time, sometimes more experienced judgement and definitely carries higher liability. But I wouldn't have published it in that way as a public agency. It seems to be a legally defensible position, but is worded too broadly/vaguely to withstand likely legal scrutiny and public misunderstanding.
But yes, I think a recorded 40 acre (or 2 acre) rural landowners plat could be less expensive than a 5500 sf Manhattan condo plat. Maybe we should have a conversation about creating standard language that describes a kind of level of detail (LOD) - level of accuracy, level of precision, etc that title companies and RE agents can throw around and use for rough pricing. It'd be nice if those LODs included expected standards beyond those described in our basic topo map, mortgage survey, K1-K4 or whatever your state calls them. We could base them on a variety of mapping standards but could have lingo that is easier for the public to categorize and understand if they want.
I kind of do that with my work regularly. I usually tell an owner what I'm doing and it's limitations and let them know that I can do this other thing if he thinks he'd need that - but that it'd cost more. They go both ways, but seems really helpful for them to understand what it takes to guarantee certain LOD.
I did a survey this weekend for a guy who wants to build a rock wall along a private subdivision r/w, so I was keeping it tight and making adjustments along the way as I found stuff. Literally took me 3+ hours to orient and then 30 minutes or less to layout. In the process I was up the road shooting off control I'd set there a couple years ago and an older lady comes out to ask questions. Fine. Then tells me she'd stopped her neighbor continuing his rock wall until they knew where their mutual corner was. Said she'd asked her kids to look for it several times and couldn't find it - wondered if I could. It was only about 12' from where I was set up so I told her "sure. I'll put a stick in the ground about where it probably is supposed to be but will let you find it if you want." Did that. Felt good about it. Got some fresh squeezed lemonade (compensation) for it. It may carry some liability, but I'd be happy to explain myself and methods to a neighbor or judge if needed. 10 minutes later another old lady stops by. She'd just gotten a call from a 3rd old lady that there's was a surveyor up near so and so's and she brought him a lemonade. She lived down at the bottom of the hill and says her neighbor (who's been there 40 years) says their front corner is one place and she thinks its 10' away underneath his driveway. Can I come measure it? It's supposed to be 100.00' and she'd pulled a tape on it.
LOL. That was a 10 minute explanation of "No".
This is nothing new. Levels or precision and accuracy have been specified by various classes of surveys for a very long time. This is why I often harp on the fact that despite the opinions of the younger generation of surveyors who think that GNNS is the do all/end all tool, that's where the selection of the right tool for the right job comes in, as well as sound procedures that need to be adhered to.
Is a closure if 1:10,000 or 12,000 acceptable for rural farmland? Sure it is. Is it acceptable in urban areas like any major city like NYC, LA or Philly where land is valued at hundreds of thousands of dollars per square foot? Absolutely not.
This stuff doesn't need to be codified, it's pretty common sense when it comes to standards of care.
Back in the 70's and 80's, even up into the 90's this was good policy. Measurement technology has come a long way since then. There really is no excuse for not doing tight work on nearly every boundary job.
In balance 'tight' is a subjective term. In the 70s we were ecstatic to close within a few tenths breaking out a quarter. We can nail it within hundredths now with a lot less effort.
In balance ‘tight’ is a subjective term. In the 70s we were ecstatic to close within a few tenths breaking out a quarter. We can nail it within hundredths now with a lot less effort.
I came into the survey world when that was changing, when half a foot in a closure around a quarter section was no longer acceptable. By the time I came in, the standards had changed, our expectations had changed, but we were still working on projects that had legacy back into the early 80's and sometimes the 70's. I saw first hand what happens when you attempt to apply modern measurements and techniques in plats and subdivisions that were created with less precision.
My mentors were early adopters of Star*Net, and had files with data stretching back into the 80's with untold numbers of observations, and we were still adding to them. Some of those original networks covered many square miles, with internal traverses, topo points, etc.
Now, by the time I was using those files, we weren't really adding to them. At some point when a plat got created, those coordinates would be constrained, but you could see the reports in the folders from over the years. The 1:xxxxx precision was great.
Enter me with my RTK and localizing to control traverses within those plats...
Is This Fair?
Nothing is fair. So, no.
Is This Legal?
Must be, it is there in the law. The point is that if I told a farmer that I could get down to an 1/8" on his corner for an extra 25%, he would laugh at me.
If I am putting a high rise in in downtown Seattle...no laughing.
