Map Review

[PLS7393]

So you receive a package in the mail with a letter from a map reviewer requesting additional revisions, and the letter is dated January 11, 2019.
The package has a Post Mark date of "02/04/2019", 3 1/2 weeks after the letter was dated? This is the third revision.

[Edward M Reading]

Call them up and politely ask what happened. Maybe there is a reason.

[PLS7393]

Call them up and politely ask what happened. Maybe there is a reason.

Thanks Ed, it has already been documented in my reply letter. Hope you voted appropriately

[Edward M Reading]

Call them up and politely ask what happened. Maybe there is a reason.

Thanks Ed, it has already been documented in my reply letter. Hope you voted appropriately

Seems odd, ours go out the same day that we complete the review.

[LS7769]

I would just address the issues and move on

[hellsangle]

Crazy Phil sez . . . Surveyor to Recorder

[Peter Ehlert]

Crazy Peter agrees

[David Kendall]

I expect that the map reviewer probably just wrote the letter on Feb 4 and forgot to change the date from the second revision letter template. Or perhaps she wrote it January 11 but the County Surveyor needed to review and approve prior to mailing but they were still on Christmas vacation until February 3.

Please remember that those guys usually get an extraordinary amount of paid time off, I believe most full time county management positions get something on the order of 1 week off each month if you count vacation, holidays, sick leave, family sick leave, etc...

When did you send in the package for third revision? I don't find anything surprising about this level of competency, I've actually come to expect it from most of the bureaucrats.

Government is the best racket around right now, don't forget to tip your hat while you stomp your feet!

[PLS7393]

When did you send in the package for third revision? I don't find anything surprising about this level of competency, I've actually come to expect it from most of the bureaucrats.

Government is the best racket around right now, don't forget to tip your hat while you stomp your feet!

John "LS7769": I have tried but we have gone backwards, see below.

You asked for it David, so here are the short version facts, and glad you feel this time-frame for letters is appropriate, lol.

- Contract signed Feb 14, 2018
- RS submitted May 2018
- 1st check returned July 2018
- 2nd submittal July 2018
- Rcv'd email Aug 1, 2018 "No further comments. Please submit"
- CS performs his review and requests tie to rear adjoining tract monuments
- 3rd re-submittal Aug. 2018
- more comments, record tie to cul-de-sac mon, not enough. Need field tie to two mons per rear adj. tract. (extra field work not required per state code), but complied.
- New letter received 2/08/2019 from same reviewer as Aug 1 with multiple issues to be addressed . . . many non-technical issues too!
- Mailed revised map Feb. 11, 2019

It is a sad day to the surveying profession if a surveyor can't get a clients job completed in less than a year! Stomp Stomp for David, lol!!!

Who's on First? Surveyor to Recorder!!!

[David Kendall]

- Rcv'd email Aug 1, 2018 "No further comments. Please submit"
- CS performs his review and requests tie to rear adjoining tract monuments
- 3rd re-submittal Aug. 2018
- more comments, record tie to cul-de-sac mon, not enough. Need field tie to two mons per rear adj. tract. (extra field work not required per state code), but complied.

It drives me insane when they say we have to go back to the field for more ties. I have one like that where they said I needed to run a quarter mile through the mountain for a 1/4 corner tie, which could take two days and find nothing in logged timberland but either way it's of small value to the client. This comment comes from a reviewer and CS who have probably never run a 1/4 mile through the mountains....

That is the point that I throw up my hands and say unfortunately it will probably never be filed. Justified by the fact that if it is okay for the County Surveyor to break the law then it must be okay for me as well.... Actually it would be impossible for me to comply with that request and stay in business (which I suspect is the reasoning behind the law you cite)

Just out of curiosity Keith, is this one of them "full cost recovery" Counties?

[PLS7393]

Almost as bad:
I submit a revised record of survey in August 2018, and I receive a letter dated February 14, 2019 that I can proceed to prepare and submit a mylar copy for filing, along with filing fees and 2 copies.

[Jim Frame]

they said I needed to run a quarter mile through the mountain for a 1/4 corner tie

Unless I believed the tie was required to comply with the standard of care, I would inform the CS that we disagree and ask him/her to propose draft language for the §8768 note.

Unfortunately, there's no statutory time limit on *that* negotiation. I have one such request that's been pending for almost 5 weeks, with no response from the county in spite of a request for a status update.

[David Kendall]

Unless I believed the tie was required to comply with the standard of care, I would inform the CS that we disagree and ask him/her to propose draft language for the §8768 note.

Unfortunately, there's no statutory time limit on *that* negotiation. I have one such request that's been pending for almost 5 weeks, with no response from the county in spite of a request for a status update.

Many surveyors I have spoken with about this feel that the CS note torpedoes the validity of their boundary resolution (alternate boundaries). On top of this perceived failure the conflict could taint future interactions with the CS.

I don’t necessarily see it that way. I think if more surveyors in this situation would make the stand then it would lessen the “sting” of the note and reduce the amount of silliness in map review (CS would have to back up the two bit review comments)

Thank you Mr Frame for standing up for your standards and for being willing to discuss your trials with us publicly

[PLS7393]

Many surveyors I have spoken with about this feel that the CS note torpedoes the validity of their boundary resolution (alternate boundaries). On top of this perceived failure the conflict could taint future interactions with the CS.

I don’t necessarily see it that way. I think if more surveyors in this situation would make the stand then it would lessen the “sting” of the note and reduce the amount of silliness in map review (CS would have to back up the two bit review comments)

David, I'd love to understand your thinking on how any note could lessen the "sting" as you say? A CS is in that position short term (relatively speaking), where a note is on the map for life! Just because a CS feels he is the "new sheriff in town" and thinks his opinion is justified to be placed on your map, (being a surveyors opinion), someone down the road may not clearly understand the purpose of the CS note and cause potential credibility issues to that surveyor. I'm seeing more and more notes that are Non-Factual, which supports my mythology.

Any and all RS can potentially have a second opinion, thus justifying a note, in the CS eye. The silliness continues, wasting valuable time for all parties involved, and review fees will only go up because a CS is spending way too much time reviewing a RS! The Board is attempting to educate all CS statewide on the difference in their responsibilities when reviewing a RS vs. a subdivision map, but I have not seen any difference yet from their efforts.
Some review is needed, but from some counties I deal with, it is out of control!!!

[hellsangle]

Here. Here, gents!

Surveyor to Recorder (But we Davids can't fight the pecuniary interests of the Goliaths)

Yep! Crazy Phil again - Sonoma

[David Kendall]

David, I'd love to understand your thinking on how any note could lessen the "sting" as you say? A CS is in that position short term (relatively speaking), where a note is on the map for life! Just because a CS feels he is the "new sheriff in town" and thinks his opinion is justified to be placed on your map, (being a surveyors opinion), someone down the road may not clearly understand the purpose of the CS note and cause potential credibility issues to that surveyor. I'm seeing more and more notes that are Non-Factual, which supports my mythology.

Any and all RS can potentially have a second opinion, thus justifying a note, in the CS eye. The silliness continues, wasting valuable time for all parties involved, and review fees will only go up because a CS is spending way too much time reviewing a RS! The Board is attempting to educate all CS statewide on the difference in their responsibilities when reviewing a RS vs. a subdivision map, but I have not seen any difference yet from their efforts.
Some review is needed, but from some counties I deal with, it is out of control!!!

Good points. I suppose that if the notes were more common (as in more surveyors took a stand on their beliefs and opinions instead of caving to the frequently whimsical commentary of reviewers) then they would be less impactful and more of a reasoned discussion than a perceived infliction.

[E_Page]

If you have confidence in the level of work you've done and have adequately depicted and explained the results of your survey on the map, you should be able to effectively explain with sound technical reasoning why the additionally requested ties are unnecessary. If the CS request is truly unreasonable, your response note should be able to point that out with clear technical reasoning and a professional tone.

If the CS is prepared to place a note and don't feel that you can compose a response note that clearly shows the CS position to be unreasonable, then perhaps you should reconsider that perhaps the CS request is reasonable.

Ultimately, you can end negotiations about revisions, additional ties, etc. by making a demand to file as is. At that point, the CS has the statutory review timeline to provide a proposed note to add or to just sign and file.

Given the more complete timeline from 1st submittal in May to last comments in February and not knowing whether there are additional circumstances out of the CS's control, I'd say the process appears unacceptable. What I have a particular problem with is that the review up through August 1 appears to have happened without direct involvement of the CS, and then the CS places additional comments/conditions after you're told "no further comments". Unless that's an oddball case where a reviewer jumped the gun and the normal process is that the CS is involved earlier, that county needs to adjust their process. Also, the time between resubmittal in August and the January letter is excessive without explanation of a reason.

[land butcher]

I think the actual field work meets or exceeds the field work since the 50's but the map checking process seems to have become more intrusive as time has gone by. Same with legal descriptions, early 19th century deeds were wordy due to the scribes being paid by the word, then after WWII descriptions became short and easy to follow, now in this century we are back to the wordy deeds that just adds redundancy to the desc.

Here is a nice road dedication deed from 1965. Wouldn't fly today but it works very well, especially the spandrel, no worries about different bearings changing the delta and length of the curve.

An easement for street purposes over that portion of Lot 1 of Tract ...... , as shown on a map thereof recorded in .................. described as follows:

Parcel 1. The Northerly 12.00 feet of the Westerly 189.00 feet of said Lot 1.

Parcel 2. The Westerly 22.00 feet of the Northerly 180.15 feet of said Lot 1.

Excepting therefrom the Northerly 12.00 feet.

Parcel 3. A spandrel shaped parcel of land bounded on the North by the South line
of Parcel 1, bounded on the West by the East line of Parcel 2, and bounded South-
easterly by the arc of a curve concave Southeasterly having a radius of 25.00 feet
and tangent to said Parcel 1 and Parcel 2.

[Scott]

Recent Final Subdivision Map submission from me:
Jan. 8, Submitted
Feb. 25, Received Check Print back that was dated by the outside consultant checking Surveyor as "1ST REVIEW JAN. 29, 2019"

[Scott]

Do radial bearings need to be shown on tangent PRCs?

[Warren Smith]

Do radial bearings need to be shown on tangent PRCs?

They don't have to be, but it's not bad form to show them. A lot of subdivision ordinance requirements were written back when hand calculations were done in the field to lay out lots and building forms. Every bit of info was golden then.

[btaylor]

Do radial bearings need to be shown on tangent PRCs?

Nope. That's silly, to put it in the most charitable way possible.

Plus as a retacing surveyor I would be immediately confused, assuming the bearing being shown means something isn't tangent. If the map checker is serious about it then I would put a note stating unless radial line is shown, PRCs and ECs are to be presumed tangent.

[DWoolley]

As a seasoned map checker, I would ask for radial bearings on all points of reverse curvature (PRC), point of compound curvature (PCC) and any non-tangent curves. Additionally, I would ask that the radial bearing, both direction and annotation, be directed towards the radius point on a PCC.

The basis for the request is to be able to determine the direction of curvature. On flat PCC or PRC curves or short curves without a detail the map scales does not distinguish the direction of concavity. Having the radial bearings shown on the map saves a ton of time for the next surveyor. The alternative is to request a detail. Labeling a bearing takes minutes, drafting details takes hours. Pick your poison.

DWoolley

[btaylor]

Unless the radii involved are very large, rendering a curve to look essentialy flat, I have no idea why someone would have a hard time inputting a curve if things are tangent. I guess I'm lucky in my little bubble up here.

[LA Stevens]

Radial – the bearing of a radial line is the bearing
from the radius to a point on the curve.