California Surveyors Forums

Hi Everyone,

We would like to contribute an article to the next California Surveyor for the BPELSG Chronicles section. Please let us know any topics you would like discussed pertaining to land surveying and the Board. If there are multiple ideas, that is fine too as we could use those for future articles.

Thanks,
Ric

How about enforcement against unlicensed land surveyors - not talking construction, computerized grading or GIS, but people who pretend to be licensed but aren't. I've even heard of some in LA using other's PLS numbers and stamping filed maps.

Now that the State specific test is multiple choice, will there be any move towards requiring examinees to show a minimal level of competence in all subject areas as broken out in the Test Plan? In the past, it has been possible for candidates to pass the exam without even attempting portions of the exam. It seems like the new format lends itself to basically being 5 or so tests within a test, requiring some minimum score (60%?) in each to be issued a license. PE's have specialized tests for seismic and engineering surveying and must pass both, beside the general exam, to get their license. Seems something similar could be done for the PLS?

Anthony Maffia wrote:How about enforcement against unlicensed land surveyors - not talking construction, computerized grading or GIS, but people who pretend to be licensed but aren't. I've even heard of some in LA using other's PLS numbers and stamping filed maps.

Anthony - At our last Board meeting, the Board made a request for us to prepare an article on unlicensed surveying offering for the next Board newsletter. I'm sure this topic can support multiple articles.

SPMPLS wrote:Now that the State specific test is multiple choice, will there be any move towards requiring examinees to show a minimal level of competence in all subject areas as broken out in the Test Plan? In the past, it has been possible for candidates to pass the exam without even attempting portions of the exam. It seems like the new format lends itself to basically being 5 or so tests within a test, requiring some minimum score (60%?) in each to be issued a license. PE's have specialized tests for seismic and engineering surveying and must pass both, beside the general exam, to get their license. Seems something similar could be done for the PLS?

SPMPLS - sure we can write an article on this topic.

Both great ideas! Thanks and looking forward to more ideas from the rest of you for the California Surveyor.

Probably not a great topic for the "BPELSG Chronicles" but I've been wondering about "removing monuments". I've always heard, and somewhat agreed with what I've heard, "that it is a bad idea to remove a monument, under any circumstance. So never, never, never, even think about removing a monument.

Now I have seen in the past where a ROS shows where a corner was located, and that it was removed at the request of the original surveyor, or the county surveyor. In that scenario it seems acceptable to remove the monument.

But recently a surveyor told me he was may remove monuments he set for a parcel map. The parcel map has not recorded, and probably never will record, but the monuments have been there for several years now. I told him "bad idea" to remove the monuments, but I couldn't give him a really good reason why. These particular monuments are angle points between parcels that don't exist because the map never got recorded. The other surveyors theory was "they a my monuments, and the mean nothing, so I can pull them".

This probably should have been it's own topic, sorry if I'm hi-jacking Ric.

Robert,

I have seen ROS's that show monuments that were set before Parcel Maps and or Boundary Line Adjustments
have been perfected. Here the surveyor twists in the wind with iron in the ground. Every case is different
but I have read about Surveyor's getting pinched by pulling pipes or not filing a record of iron set.

File ROS with a surveyors note


Brian

Would be a good topic Ric

Removing monuments is mentioned in the PLS Act.

8764. The record of survey shall show the applicable provisions of the following consistent with the purpose of the survey:
(a) All monuments found, set, reset, replaced, or removed, describing their kind, size, and location, and giving other
data relating thereto.

There are probably cases where you find something and it's loose in the ground or bent over and for whatever reason you decide to remove it and replace it. Consider though it is mentioning "removed" in a section on the requirements for a Record of Survey map.

Regarding your story about the surveyor removing monuments that he set several years ago for a PM that didn't record...he is most likely in a situation where he needs to file an RS. He may be okay removing the monuments for any interior lines, since they aren't property lines, but his survey of the exterior boundary of the PM likely requires an RS be filed, whether he set monuments or not.

Robert Martin wrote:Probably not a great topic for the "BPELSG Chronicles" but I've been wondering about "removing monuments". I've always heard, and somewhat agreed with what I've heard, "that it is a bad idea to remove a monument, under any circumstance. So never, never, never, even think about removing a monument.

Now I have seen in the past where a ROS shows where a corner was located, and that it was removed at the request of the original surveyor, or the county surveyor. In that scenario it seems acceptable to remove the monument.

But recently a surveyor told me he was may remove monuments he set for a parcel map. The parcel map has not recorded, and probably never will record, but the monuments have been there for several years now. I told him "bad idea" to remove the monuments, but I couldn't give him a really good reason why. These particular monuments are angle points between parcels that don't exist because the map never got recorded. The other surveyors theory was "they a my monuments, and the mean nothing, so I can pull them".

This probably should have been it's own topic, sorry if I'm hi-jacking Ric.

This would be interesting as its own topic. Maybe you could create a new thread.

This would take time but what about an article with comparisons of professionals and board/legal actions taken against them. I have always been interested to know how other professions stack up in regards to their processes. I think it would be interesting to see the statistical data involved as well.

It could compare the length of time a board action takes, percentage who lose their license, percentage who are fined, public vs. private complaints, reasons for complaints, etc.

It could also factor in the time it takes to get your license in a number of different professions. Maybe focus on Doctors, Lawyers, Surveyors, Engineers and other high liability professionals within the State of California.