California Surveyors Forums

I have a Record of Survey in plan check. It is ready to go, minus one issue....my basis of bearings. It seems I have made the error of completing a map with a BOB that is not between 2 record monuments. I have two "no record" monuments....sort of. They appear on old field notes but not a map of record. Here is my take:

An old Record of Survey surveyed my portion of the block. All of the adjoining/neighboring deeds start at the NW Cor of Lot 1, run along the north line using the bearing from the ROS, then run their courses. Additionally, the monuments I found were used in private field notes that I obtained. The surveyor used the two monuments I used for his basis of bearings and proceeded to monument several of the parcels. He did not file a ROS.

If all of the deeds were written from the same line and the surveyor used the two pipes for his BOB to monument the parcels, why do I need to have 2 record monuments for my BOB just to record my survey? Besides, all the bearings are relative to each other. I could have assumed north, and the location of the lines on the ground would still be the same. Do I really need to rotate my map?

What do you think? I attached a preliminary copy of my map, the old ROS and the field notes from Grady Boaz.

A Basis of Bearings with two record monuments is not required by the PLS Act. A BOB is required. I could use assumed bearings if I wanted to.

The source of this comment may likely come from the County Engineers Association of California (CEAC) "Guide to the Preparation of Records of Survey and Corner Records". The checklist contained within that document states:

"Basis of Bearings: map of record, celestial observation, State Plane Coordinates, or County Surveyor's Records".

Right, wrong or indifferent, and while not law itself, this guide document is something developed and agreed to by the county surveyors as a matter of policy "intended to provide consistency in map checking statewide" and is likely what is guiding the county reviewer in your situation.

Steffan,

You are correct. The document you mentioned was, in fact, used as a reference. Just as pls7809 mentioned, I could not find anything on this in the PLS Act. The policy you speak of is causing me to have to demand that my survey be recorded, which I find annoying. I have never had to do this and want to get some feedback prior to recording.

R. Post

Perhaps use the following BOB statement in lieu of rotating your map or fighting the CS:

"Basis of Bearing is the east line of Alexander Drive between found monuments per RS 2915 rotated 0-01-24 counterclockwise to match the bearings between tied monuments along Citracado Pkwy per FB X-4537".

As for the CEAC Guide on BOB, I haven't researched the background on it. However I do offer that it may be for the benefit of end users such as surveyors trying to piece together the records of several surveys as part of a retracement or in the creation of an assessment district or other cadastre. I recall developing a record boundary for a redevelopment district and the difficulties encountered in trying to determine the relationship between adjoining surveys.

There was a lot of thought put into the development of the CEAC guide and I respect that. However, the CS is tasked with the responsibility to review an RS in accordance with the PLS Act and nothing else. If CEAC believes that the definition of a basis of bearings should be defined differently, then they need to introduce legislation to revise 8764.

Thanks for the posts gents. Did anyone notice the swimming pool with PL running through it?

Sometimes a survey just doesn't fit within a checklist.

It is not necessary nor required to have two monuments that are referenced on an existing record to act as a basis of bearings for a Record of Survey. The line that is shown on a map of record that is to be used for a basis is the important thing. But even then, there is nothing wrong with an assumed basis of bearings as long as it is noted on the map. I just don't see that often, an assumed basis of bearing that is.

A little off topic, But on Corner Records I place bearings and distances from found monuments to the centerline ties set in the curbs and place note on the CR that the bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum. Never had a problem with that but a basis might not be required on a CR, but it certainly is nice to know where the bearings come from, which is really the issue you are facing.

Where do these bearings come from? It appears that they are based on some line shown on some map of record. And that's the important thing, not whether record monuments exist on this line.

I agree Bruce. I generally don't use an assumed datum, but I would if I needed to. If I have the two exact monuments from a recorded map, then great I will use them.

But from what I gather from the original post, what if I have found a 2" iron pipe with no tag, no reference instead of a 1" iron pipe with tag "LSXXXX" per RS YYYY? Or what if I found a C-Nail, no reference, instead of that 1" pipe? Would my B.O.B. be rejected by San Diego County? The two monuments aren't shown on a record map. The horror!

This requirement is pretty ridiculous in my opinion.

steffan wrote:Perhaps use the following BOB statement in lieu of rotating your map or fighting the CS:

"Basis of Bearing is the east line of Alexander Drive between found monuments per RS 2915 rotated 0-01-24 counterclockwise to match the bearings between tied monuments along Citracado Pkwy per FB X-4537".

BTW - I think this is an acceptable solution to the problem with the CS to avoid a "force file" situation. I've used this idea before, so I could reference a map as the BOB, but hold the Deed bearings which were a minute or two different from the recorded map.

"Basis of Bearings: map of record, celestial observation, State Plane Coordinates, or County Surveyor's Records".

I guess one could infer that monuments are part of this "requirement" but the note reads "map of record" not "monuments of record".

Your BoB does not need to be established between two record monuments, although if they exist and properly match title records, that would be ideal.

The PLSA does not specifically say so, but good practice dictates that your BoB needs to be reproducible. Yours is as long as a following surveyor infers which monuments you used to establish the S line of the street. I suggest you add at the end of the BoB statement you have: "... as established from [describe one of the mons you held] and [describe one of the other mons you held], each found as noted per references listed hereon."

Even though one of those mons is not from a filed reference, it is identified in one of your reference records, and positively identifying which monuments you held makes the line clearly reproducible.

Good input. I think I will add the bit about the pipes I held. Good idea Evan. Just sent the County an email asking him to file it. I will let you all know how that goes. I am pretty sure he won't put a note on it, since it is not a LS Act issue. Either way, it has come back a few times with this as the only redline. It will be nice to get it recorded.

I believe some Counties have made an ordinance requiring two found points of record be used for a basis of bearings, as addressed in the County Surveyors Guide. I have always liked this concept when reviewing maps, because otherwise how is one suppose to follow the footsteps of the original surveyor? How was "The centerline of CLSA Way" established for the basis of bearings?

Keith: under what authority does a local agency create and enforce such an ordinance?
as Ric said above "CS is tasked with the responsibility to review an RS in accordance with the PLS Act and nothing else."

documents for land development, yes. But absolutely Not for a RoS!

Keith, are you saying that a survey cannot be retraced without the BOB being between 2 record monuments? My survey establishes the southerly ROW with 1 monument on the ROW and an offset monument. Is that not sufficient to retrace? What about all of the other bearings on the map that directly correlate to the BOB?

off topic a bit, but:
I think the "Basis of Bearings" statement is outdated and unnecessary.
It had a place when surveys were based on compass readings or astronomical observations.
Modern day (my lifetime) all we need are a few durable monuments (or other objects), and the relationships between them and the points or lines in the survey. Coordinates/Bearings and Distances/Cosmic Vibrations... they all work
Every darn one of us can translate and rotate to any darn record or imaginary basis of bearing/coordinate system and perform our tasks. (If someone Can Not do that then apply for a job as a hamburger flipper.)

so in short: If I can touch it and calculate the relationship to the survey it is a Done Deal.

When you get out in the sticks, a good BoB statement on existing records can be very helpful when searching for monuments. I don't consider it obsolete at all. However, there are many ways that a BoB can be established and reported such that it can be readily reproduced other than a line between two monuments from a filed map. Many times, using a line between available monuments shown on a previous filed map may not be appropriate. In some cases, it may be either impractical or impossible.

Before I was licensed I was involved in the field survey and prepared the RS for a lot survey in Laguna Beach. We found over 20 monuments but only one was of record. I got the same correction, needs 2 mons of record, from the initial map checker but further discussion with higher ups decided that we found enough evidence to property locate the lot.
On another survey 20 years later the lot was in the middle of a long curve with a long reverse curve on one end and a ~5ft tangent on the other. Of course I was required to use the 5ft tangent for the basis of bearing. Same agency as the above map.
Another map checker was upset because on a 5 sided lot we found 3 mons and only two. on opposite sides of the property, were tagged. The map checker wasn't happy us using a BoB based on calc'd B&D.
Education and Training, Education and Training.

I believe the answer is this:

Let the professional responsible for signing the map make the informed decision. Who would know better than the person who conducted the survey? Want a different BOB?......survey your self!

You might want to learn how to shoot a solar or star observation. Essentially all celestial bodies are the second monument. Take a moment to look at any older map or government surveys - they are all based on a celestial observation. Whenever I am surveying in the back country or the boonies, all I need is one distinct monument on the ground and after shooting a solar for orientation, I am off and running. It is a superior method for a BOB and is the origin for the systems we use today. You might be amazed to see how accurate it is. Other than a sighting instrument all you need is a good time piece/clock and with modern cell phones and other devices, that is an easy one also. Check out:

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/row/landsurvey ... ook/04.pdf

http://www.cadastral.com/cad-datm.htm

Good luck.

Also remember that the San Diego County Surveyor has his own manual and he has not endorsed or adopted the CEAC manual. He looks at things differently.

http://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/d ... urvred.pdf

Mike, it says
"BASIS OF BEARINGS
Section 8764b of the Professional Land Surveyor's Act requires the record of survey
to have a basis of bearings. The following types are preferred: ..."

so Preferred = Required?

I'm with you Peter. When Terry put that manual together, we tried to get him to engage and solicit the survey community, to no avail. The manual I like is the one Greg Hopkins oversaw at the City of San Diego as that encouraged and considered a lot of thoughtful input. When I worked in New England many years ago, we used magnetic bearings for a lot of surveys because there were so many trees and forests and we couldn't see the sky so easily.

See page 25:

http://www.sandiego.gov/development-ser ... manual.pdf

It sure would be nice if there was some uniformity. As you well point out, a map can be rotated. Unless one is tying into a GIS system or something similar, the bearings are relative. I agree with you.

PS, I hope you are enjoying retirement!