Mount Diablo Base & Meridian **OR** just Meridian

[Anthony Maffia]

I've always read M.D.B.&M., or Mount Diablo Base and Meridian
I got a map check back that says it is only a Meridian, and that the proper name is "Mount Diablo Meridian"

What gives? It is an initial point, Base Line for latitude and Meridian for longitude, or am I mistaken?

http://www.mdshs.org/first.html

[Dave Lindell]

Get that map checker educated!

It's " ...Base and Meridian" (whichever one it is).

[David Kendall]

Who cares?! Maps have had B&M for a hundred years... The Humboldt county surveyor said the same thing last year. I thought about it for a minute and decided it wasn't important to my existence either way and went on. I think the BLM maps just say "meridian" is where he got it but whatever....

I'm pretty sure all of the meridians have a baseline as well.

So the map reviewers get one more thing to cluck over

job security

[Scott]

The actual Township maps do not say "BASE" on them anywhere, but M.D.B.&M. has been used so much, for so long, that either way should be acceptable.

A Jurisdictional Surveyor in my area was marking out "BASE" when checking a few years back.

I would just change it to what he wanted, so some of my stuff has it both ways.

[hellsangle]

You're all right - we "the living" know what it means. But how 'bout 200 years from now? Will future surveyors wonder "what happened in 2017 that changed the Initial point to just Meridian? Is there a new position for that point?"

It is a proper name. Like on a deed. If we are going to drop "Base" then shouldn't we also note: "also known as MDBM"?

I'd ask the map reviewer "educate" me and the future surveyors with his or her's note on the Record of Survey.

And to continue my Side Rant: Surveyor to Recorder and this whole thread would not be unnecessary! (I wish I was smart enough to post one of those "yes/no" surveys that Pallamary posts . . . asking how many support Surveyor to Recorder and eliminate the Record of Survey map review. Wink. Wink. Nod. Nod, Michael?)

If CLSA wanted to boost its membership . . . support Surveyor to Recorder! (Now there's another survey Mike could post. "Would you join CLSA if we could eliminate the Record of Survey review?")

Phil - Sonoma

[Ca.PLS8200]

Fresno County prefers M.D.B.&M., but some surveyors who have submitted maps for review have been offended at the suggestion (map comment) that M.D.B.&M. be used. As a map checker, the argument is not worth the headache. I'll continue to use and request M.D.B.&M., but I'll accept either one.

[Warren Smith]

William Wattles writes in his "Land Survey Descriptions", section 303:

"SBM" (or "MDM" etc.) in Section descriptions, to designate the meridian of reference, is correct; "SBB&M, while not wholly incorrect, is not in accord with the nomenclature of the Manual.

But then, he was just a title guy.

Consider Arizona's initial point, at the confluence of the Gila & Salt Rivers. It's a mouthful, so to speak, to write Gila & Salt River Base & Meridian.

Custom and usage come into play. Like so many things, it becomes a preference and a distinct one at that.

As to County Surveyor review of maps, I am a bit biased, of course, but see it as an overall good, given the bell curve of submittals. And Arizona is a Surveyor-to-Recorder State. Laissez-faire ...

[Scott]

Warren,

Do you accept either one?

I accept either one when checking and will change it when submitting if that is what the checker wants.

As Ca.PLS8200 stated above, not worth the headache, either way.

[Warren Smith]

Scott,

Certainly, either is acceptable.

Once public lands passed into private ownership, the S, T, R becomes an indexing scheme, not much more.

[Lee Hixson]

About 3 decades ago this came up. Many times, actually. I finally called the BLM office in Sacramento and they referred me to the office in Reno, so I wrote them to get their official opinion. Their answer? They mailed back copies of the pertinent pages from the manual with the relevant portions highlighted. I've used "MDM" ever since on all my work. See the attached copy. Note Example No. 5.

[Anthony Maffia]

Fine. It's annoying that I've never seen it on any local maps or in deeds, and I've been doing this since 1991.

Lee, THANK YOU. I accept the BLM reference.

[DWoolley]

Lee Hixon,

My memory correlates with your memory in that this became a topic of discussion approximately 30 years ago. As a map checker at that time we had been requesting San Bernardino Meridian as opposed to including Base and for whatever reason, it became a discussion in our office. I wish I could recall the details - I am sure the discussions we were having are connected to those you were having, circa 1990. In all likelihood, the common thread was someone was arguing the other side of a nonexistent coin.

Phil Danskin,

I believe removing the County Surveyor's review from the mapping process would certainly damage the public. The OC-JPPLC routinely sees maps submitted for map checking review that in no way comports with the most basic principles of practice. In fact, I have a growing concern that on the regulators side we have fewer competent county surveyors - if their map endorsements are any measure - to hold the land surveyors to the basic principles of boundary establishment and the corresponding mapping. For instance, I still throw up a little in the back of my mouth, when I think about a recently filed record of survey I found in San Mateo county in which the land surveyor established interior section lines in two different townships by using only two monuments - one standard corner and one quarter corner - found on the township line. For the uninitiated, the monumented quarter corner isn't necessarily common to the quarter corner in the adjacent township. In dismay, I called the county surveyor. His reply "you should have seen what I started with. That map is the best version I was going to get after 5 checks. Initially, there was only one monument on the township line. We went out and recovered the quarter corner and all of the mapping dimensions moved more than 40 feet." However, when he signed off on the map he did not put a note on the map or file a complaint BPELSG. It is a sorry state of affairs. In my 30 years of mapping and map checking I have not seen anything quite like that record of survey. For what it is worth, the land surveyor of record has been licensed for nearly 20 years and has a bachelors degree from Fresno. The county surveyor has a CFeds license.

DWoolley

[Lee Hixson]

I'm with you, Dave, on both accounts.

[land butcher]

Govt map checkers don't have enough to do, or in the case of contact checkers they are paid by the hour, so they are nit picking things that do not matter.

I had one require the former name of a street when this agency had not required that on maps showing that street in 6 years.

[land butcher]

So why is there a Baseline st in San Berdo?

[David Kendall]

I believe removing the County Surveyor's review from the mapping process would certainly damage the public. The OC-JPPLC routinely sees maps submitted for map checking review that in no way comports with the most basic principles of practice. In fact, I have a growing concern that on the regulators side we have fewer competent county surveyors - if their map endorsements are any measure - to hold the land surveyors to the basic principles of boundary establishment and the corresponding mapping. For instance, I still throw up a little in the back of my mouth, when I think about a recently filed record of survey I found in San Mateo county in which the land surveyor established interior section lines in two different townships by using only two monuments - one standard corner and one quarter corner - found on the township line. For the uninitiated, the monumented quarter corner isn't necessarily common to the quarter corner in the adjacent township. In dismay, I called the county surveyor. His reply "you should have seen what I started with. That map is the best version I was going to get after 5 checks. Initially, there was only one monument on the township line. We went out and recovered the quarter corner and all of the mapping dimensions moved more than 40 feet." However, when he signed off on the map he did not put a note on the map or file a complaint BPELSG. It is a sorry state of affairs. In my 30 years of mapping and map checking I have not seen anything quite like that record of survey. For what it is worth, the land surveyor of record has been licensed for nearly 20 years and has a bachelors degree from Fresno. The county surveyor has a CFeds license.

DWoolley

Woolley I thank you for a prime example in support of my argument. I would love to see the comments (and the bill) from the five mapchecks on that substandard record of survey. I expect that there was the changing of a few linetypes and monument symbols and statements and hopefully for the love of GOD he made them take the B out of the MDB&M but the entire exercise failed miserably in serving the property owners. Probably took six to nine months of hemming and hawing and twenty five draft copies of the map to get it to file. Still garbage. Most of the comments I get are nearly illegible and incoherent scribbles on the map with little explanation (or sense) and typically not based in law. One in ten is worthy of consideration. The standard of care is generally low and costs are high. Please explain how that is protecting the public. From what I know of the San Mateo County Surveyor he is one of the better ones. I believe that some County Surveyors are so intimidated by the threat of lawsuits or board complaints of their own or budget constraints that they are almost completely ineffectual and the entire exercise becomes theoretical, not based in actual practice.

I believe that the original intent of the county surveyor review was to impart local knowledge, wisdom and oversight on the survey mapping process. That is no longer how it works. The current standard for County Surveyor appears to me to be the nearest warm body with a license that couldn't get on with the DOT that is willing to sell their soul for a retirement plan and health benefits and a mandate to "protect the public". Then they hire the first two LSIT in town that no one else has picked up yet and those guys go down the checklist to perform the map reviews. Some counties just subcontract the whole mess out to someone three counties over who may have rolled through on a family vacation 10 years ago but never practiced anywhere near the county that they are lording over. I share your concern about competent county surveyors.

Please excuse the gross generalizations, I know for a fact that there are several exceptions to this description but THEY ARE EXCEPTIONAL, UNCOMMON. I bet this is accurate in at least 20 counties in CA. The system has lost it's way. I'm happy to hear that the OC JPPC is working to educate surveyors in SoCal. I attended the two sessions at the last CLSA conference and I was highly impressed. I don't believe that there is another group in CA that comes close to that standard. I expect that the majority of our PPC are almost completely inactive.

I believe that people will be hurt if county surveyors review is removed. However, if a surveyor records five or ten garbage surveys then the enforcement case will be a slam dunk. Make them clean up their messes or pull the license. Landowners and other surveyors will still complain, not much will change except the reputations of the surveyors who don't care will be on blast in the recorder's office for all to see.

I worked in Texas where nothing is recorded. I assure you that even without an expensive babysitter the standard of care was still high for the conscientious surveyors and maps were still retraceable. It took some diplomacy to get a copy of a plat but it was not uncommon to do. No one called up another surveyor demanding or expecting anything, you go to the landowner or the other surveyor with your hat in hand and ask politely for information. We built relationships, as we should.

I just got my plastic card last week and I don't know much but that's what I see. If i am wrong then I welcome and appreciate correction. I would love to hear from people who are practicing in other states where there is no review process how it is working out there.

The guys who are practicing garbage are still out there either way as your example shows. Thanks again

[dedkad]

Govt map checkers don't have enough to do, or in the case of contact checkers they are paid by the hour, so they are nit picking things that do not matter.

I had one require the former name of a street when this agency had not required that on maps showing that street in 6 years.

I'll ask that the former name be shown if one of the reference maps uses that name. It doesn't hurt to include it and could end up being helpful years from now.