Bearing accuracy in deeds

sako · Post by **sako** » Fri Jun 01, 2012 5:28 pm

When rewriting an old description where the bearing accuracy is to the minutes like N. 89Âº52â€™ E, do you tend to show it as N. 89Âº52â€™00" E., or leave it the way it was written? how about if you need to show the bearing on a ROS?

Double_Proportion · Post by **Double_Proportion** » Fri Jun 01, 2012 6:14 pm

The stated accuracy is to the minutes; my understanding is that it is viable that 89-52 could very well be 89-53 or 89-51 (on second thought it may be a 1/2 variance, need to look it up, the ideal still applies). Say you measure 89-52-30, to me that would equal record and measured based on the given values. Leave the significant figures of the old deed alone if it is discernible and retraceable and state the values of the facts on the RS (if your work involves deed reformation, LLA, ect. the advise may be different) your measurements verses the recorded values, as they were recorded. Just my thoughts.

land butcher · Post by **land butcher** » Fri Jun 01, 2012 9:34 pm

I never increase the accuracy of older stuff, when showing record I show it as the original wrote it.

dmi · Post by **dmi** » Fri Jun 01, 2012 9:49 pm

A properly qualified course will not be negatively affected by a number, either bearing or distance.

To the southwest corner of the lands of Smith(properly identify lands of Smith);
Thence ,bearing and distance, along the southerly line of the lands of Smith to the southeast corner of the lands of Smith.

LS_8750 · Post by **LS_8750** » Sat Jun 02, 2012 8:37 am

Follow in the footsteps of your predecessor, imagine the equipment he used. Likely for him to get to the nearest minute was an accomplishment. Honor that and take your accuracy out to the same decimal place.

That pretty much sums up what the old timers taught me.

land butcher · Post by **land butcher** » Sat Jun 02, 2012 12:13 pm

If I am preparing a document based on record info that is described to the nearest minute (no seconds shown) I will show that info to the same accuracy.
A bearing of 89-35 could be anything from 89-34-30 to 89-35-29 nothing tells me it is exactly 89-35-00, I can assume that but not stake my license on it.

If I measure the line then I can use my more accurate(?) data.

MFORD · Post by **MFORD** » Sun Jun 03, 2012 9:01 am

In most jurisdictions expressing bearings to something less than seconds on a ROS is taboo. In the counties I work in if I leave off seconds in a bearing the map checker has a field day. Legal descriptions are a different matter depending on who is reviewing them. If a city/county plan check is involved you can bet the seconds will be indicated no matter if the prior document(s) did so or not. What if the bearings in the original document were expressed in degrees only? Would you express the bearings in your description accordingly? The convention would be to reference the record data along with your measurement.

land butcher · Post by **land butcher** » Sun Jun 03, 2012 11:22 am

As a professional you are obligated to express record date only to the accuracy of said record data, any map checker that requires that you take a record bearing of n25w and show it as n 25-00-00w needs to be fired and I would take it all the way to the state board.

Stephen Johnson · Post by **Stephen Johnson** » Mon Jun 04, 2012 6:06 am

land butcher wrote:As a professional you are obligated to express record date only to the accuracy of said record data, any map checker that requires that you take a record bearing of n25w and show it as n 25-00-00w needs to be fired and I would take it all the way to the state board.

Agreed!!! That would be totally unacceptable.

Bruce Johnson · Post by **Bruce Johnson** » Mon Jun 04, 2012 8:43 am

land butcher wrote:As a professional you are obligated to express record date only to the accuracy of said record data, any map checker that requires that you take a record bearing of n25w and show it as n 25-00-00w needs to be fired and I would take it all the way to the state board.

Perhaps trying to educate the map-checker, and working WITH the agencies, rather than trying to get someone fired every time you disagree with them, might help all parties involved, and lead to more cooperation.

Bruce Johnson, PLS 7845
Former Map Checker

PipeSetter · Post by **PipeSetter** » Mon Jun 04, 2012 9:45 am

land butcher wrote:As a professional you are obligated to express record date only to the accuracy of said record data, any map checker that requires that you take a record bearing of n25w and show it as n 25-00-00w needs to be fired and I would take it all the way to the state board.

Are you self employed? I can't imagine fussing about this stuff and being able to make a living. If the county surveyor wants some trailing zeros. Then that's what they get. Problem solved

Stephen Johnson · Post by **Stephen Johnson** » Mon Jun 04, 2012 10:24 am

PipeSetter wrote:Are you self employed? I can't imagine fussing about this stuff and being able to make a living. If the county surveyor wants some trailing zeros. Then that's what they get. Problem solved

The county surveyor should be smart enough to not try to require such nonsense. A map checker is something else.

land butcher · Post by **land butcher** » Mon Jun 04, 2012 10:51 am

Ok, not fired but retrained. But maybe it is a County Surveyor - what then.

"Are you self employed? I can't imagine fussing about this stuff and being able to make a living. If the county surveyor wants some trailing zeros. Then that's what they get. Problem solved"

Yes.

And that's why we have so much BS today. It's just a small request, just do it, 5years down the road you have 15 of these "small" requests that are now requirements.

The govt, like a child, keeps testing the waters to see how much they can get away with and without slapping their hand these "Small requests" become mountains of HAVE TOOs.
Case in point CA inspections stations. Some are requiring to look inside your trunk. Totally illegal. And their authority comes from the Business and Professions code regulating those involved in the COMMERCIAL Business of transportation of plants and vegetables. They have no authority over private citizens, but they make you stop and comply with their demands and like shepple we comply.

On the opposite side is govt NOT complying with existing laws, in this case Monument Preservation. And locally I see many cases of govt lane closures that to not come close to the minimum standard, but they have no problem requiring private companies to pay fees and submit traffic control plans for approval then inspect the closure for compliance. Cases of "Do as we say, not as we do."

land butcher · Post by **land butcher** » Mon Jun 04, 2012 12:12 pm

Years ago it was my job with a local city to prepare the list of conditions for, in this case, a lot split/PM.
A elderly couple had a single lot with no curb, gutter or sidewalk that they wanted to split into 2 lots, one for each of their kids.
The ass't city engr added to the list; curb, gutter, sidewalk paving. These items could only be required when a permit for construction was applied for, not for a lot split/PM.
When I questioned the engr on it I was told "If they ask why the condition is there we will tell them we can't require it but would like them to do it. If they do not question the requirement we get our street widened now instead of later."
This is the same engineer who came in one morning after a commission meeting complaining about a developer planning to build ~300 homes who questioned EVERY item on the list of conditions.
Thankfully the elderly couple questioned the conditions. The engr was not happy about that.

land butcher · Post by **land butcher** » Mon Jun 04, 2012 12:14 pm

Show me a surveyor that modifies or relies on the County Surveyor to determine his method of practice/procedures and I will show you a monkey playing the piano.

Love it.

E_Page · Post by **E_Page** » Mon Jun 04, 2012 2:10 pm

"Show me a surveyor that modifies or relies on the County Surveyor to determine his method of practice/procedures and I will show you a monkey playing the piano."

That was worth a good chuckle! I agree that a surveyor should not report something a certain way, either inappropriately adding to record data or neglecting to report certain evidence, simply because a map checker or the CS requests it that way. Your survey, your license, your judgment. If your not going to exercise your own professional judgment, return your license and don't conduct the surveys, leave it to the professionals.

Getting back to the original question, it is wholly inappropriate to add to or detract from data which is supposed to have been transcribed from the record as it would be a misrepresentation of the purported quality of the data.

sako · Post by **sako** » Tue Jun 05, 2012 11:12 pm

Here is the whole story:
I prepared a description and plat map for a street dedication. The public works department sends me a map check prepared by a consulting company. My description is redmarked all over it. When I called the consultant to discuse the comments, a lady answered whose name was also on the map check, she tries to explain her confusion over the language I used in the description (which is a common surveyor language), then her boss (a pre 82 CE) joins the phone conversation and explains that it's the city requirements to put a BOB at the end of description. At the end he says if I don't want headache "just comply with the comments and get over with it". I do my corrections, next week I get another map check with 10 comments, totally new, unrelated to prior comments, like 'take the 00" from the bearing", "show monuments on the CL" "why your BOB is this and not that". I call the pre-82 CE and ask him why these comments were not made on the first map check? he says he will talk to the person who prepared the second map check (who is not the same lady)and will call me back. Three business days are gone and no phone call, I made the corrections and sent the new documents. I'm anxiously waiting for the third map check to arrive.

PipeSetter · Post by **PipeSetter** » Wed Jun 06, 2012 5:35 am

sako wrote:Here is the whole story:
I prepared a description and plat map for a street dedication. The public works department sends me a map check prepared by a consulting company. My description is redmarked all over it. When I called the consultant to discuse the comments, a lady answered whose name was also on the map check, she tries to explain her confusion over the language I used in the description (which is a common surveyor language), then her boss (a pre 82 CE) joins the phone conversation and explains that it's the city requirements to put a BOB at the end of description. At the end he says if I don't want headache "just comply with the comments and get over with it". I do my corrections, next week I get another map check with 10 comments, totally new, unrelated to prior comments, like 'take the 00" from the bearing", "show monuments on the CL" "why your BOB is this and not that". I call the pre-82 CE and ask him why these comments were not made on the first map check? he says he will talk to the person who prepared the second map check (who is not the same lady)and will call me back. Three business days are gone and no phone call, I made the corrections and sent the new documents. I'm anxiously waiting for the third map check to arrive.

Saki. When your done complying with these typical remarks lets get together and start a band. I'll bring the coconuts and bananas you bring the toy piano.

Ric7308 · Post by **Ric7308** » Wed Jun 06, 2012 5:47 am

Sako,

Consider if the actions of the contract map checker constitue negligence or incompetence and file a complaint with the Board.

Anthony Maffia · Post by **Anthony Maffia** » Wed Jun 06, 2012 7:43 am

Remember you're the professional, and the checker can't tell you to redo your survey.

Jim Frame · Post by **Jim Frame** » Wed Jun 06, 2012 9:26 am

it is wholly inappropriate to add to or detract from data which is supposed to have been transcribed from the record as it would be a misrepresentation of the purported quality of the data.

I don't take as strict an approach to this; sometimes I just like to see the numbers line up. My purpose in showing record data isn't to make a statement about relative accuracy, but rather to document the differences so others can determine which sources of evidence I considered and how those measurements compare with mine. The expressed precision has little to do with it.

.

land butcher · Post by **land butcher** » Wed Jun 06, 2012 3:15 pm

"At the end he says if I don't want headache "just comply with the comments and get over with it"."

I would file a complaint with the board and the agency involved. This is blackmail.
I have heard of this "govt employee" attitude before and maybe it's time to handle these things like they did in the 1880s.

E_Page · Post by **E_Page** » Wed Jun 06, 2012 4:01 pm

Many map checkers are unlicensed, so I often expect a comment or two that might be out of line or contrary to good practice, but the pre-82 should know better.

If the comments which contradict good practice or are otherwise unneccessary are so much that they contribute to excessive costs for you to comply with or otherwise address, and if they represent significant time that results in unreasonably high review fees, then I might consider it to be negligent. The catch is that you have to be able to show that there are a significant amount of comments that are either irrelavent or contrary to good practice and that addressing them is causing you or your client to incur needless extra cost. If you can't demonstrate those things, then it will be viewed as no (significant) harm, no foul.

E_Page · Post by **E_Page** » Wed Jun 06, 2012 4:21 pm

Jim Frame wrote:My purpose in showing record data isn't to make a statement about relative accuracy, but rather to document the differences so others can determine which sources of evidence I considered and how those measurements compare with mine. The expressed precision has little to do with it.

.

I disagree, Jim. Part of our expertise is the interpretation and reporting of mathematical and/or dimensional data. The precision with which we report it is very significant. We have elevated knowledge of such things over other professionals who may be familiar with most other aspects of descriptions and maps. If we place trailing zeros in a quantity, it means something because of that specialized training we have. If the quantity is reported as it was in the original record it came from, we are telling readers (who know how to view dimensional data) that either the quality of the data is no better than reported in that original record, or that we have made no additional analysis of the quality of that data by field verification.

If we take a record measurement originally reported to the nearest minute and we report it ti the nearest second, we are stating that we have verified the data either to the least reading (remember your training with regard to significant figures), or to the reasonable capabilities of the measuring devices commonly available to surveyors in 2012.

If you report a precise value (and reporting to the nearest second, even if 00" is more precise than to the nearest minute - the reader has no way of being able to discern that you had no intention to imply greater precision because you may have measured and calculated it to be so many degrees, so many minutes, and 00" to the best of your measurement ability), some future reader is apt to follow that bearing exactly and figure that he does not have the freedom to discern that the intent was anything other than an exact bearing to the nearest second. It will result in a fence diverging off a line here, a corner of a porch being shown over the line there, when perhaps the bearings were originally measured with a staff compass and reorted in the first deed of the property to the nearest 1/4 or 1/2 degree. If still reported to the nearest half degree, Mr. ICantDetermineIntent might realize that he has some legitimate room for deviation from the reported bearing while still being in agreement with the description.

As a recognized expert in both boundary locations and working with dimensional data, there is an expectation of recognition of the implied quality of data as you report it. You show it, you sign it & stamp it, it should be reflective of your combined knowledge of the subjects the data is a result of and the subjects it affects.

Jim Frame · Post by **Jim Frame** » Thu Jun 07, 2012 7:17 am

If we take a record measurement originally reported to the nearest minute and we report it ti the nearest second, we are stating that we have verified the data either to the least reading (remember your training with regard to significant figures), or to the reasonable capabilities of the measuring devices commonly available to surveyors in 2012.

I agree that to knowingly remove significant figures from a record measurement (e.g. showing a bearing originally reported as N 89Â°22'10" E as N 89Â°22' E) would be improper, and possibly even fraudulent. However, I don't see anything improper in adding insignificant digits to one.

When I show a record measurement, I do so only for purposes of comparison, not verification of that measurer's results. It's a pointer to the evidence I considered, and anyone who chooses not to accept my reported measurements would be remiss not to investigate the original source. Expressing the record measurement in the same manner as my own measurement makes the visual comparison easier.

In a related matter, when I report the direction of a 10-foot boundary course to the nearest second, I do so only as a matter of custom, not as an expression of accuracy. In no way do I imply that I determined the direction of that course to the nearest second. If some future surveyor takes that measurement and holds it to the exclusion of higher evidence (e.g. a fence line or porch corner), that's his negligence, not mine.

.