Map Review

Acceptable or Not Acceptable

Acceptable
2
18%
Not Acceptable
9
82%
 
Total votes: 11

User avatar
PLS7393
Posts: 646
Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2004 2:09 pm
Location: Bay Area (Fremont)
Contact:

Map Review

Postby PLS7393 » Tue Feb 12, 2019 1:59 pm

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
Posts: 105
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 7:23 am
Location: San Luis Obispo

Re: Map Review

Postby Edward M Reading » Tue Feb 12, 2019 3:38 pm

Call them up and politely ask what happened. Maybe there is a reason.
Edward M. Reading
SLO County

User avatar
PLS7393
Posts: 646
Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2004 2:09 pm
Location: Bay Area (Fremont)
Contact:

Re: Map Review

Postby PLS7393 » Tue Feb 12, 2019 3:50 pm

Edward M Reading wrote: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
Posts: 105
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 7:23 am
Location: San Luis Obispo

Re: Map Review

Postby Edward M Reading » Tue Feb 12, 2019 6:01 pm

PLS7393 wrote:
Edward M Reading wrote: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.
Edward M. Reading
SLO County

LS7769
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 7:26 am
Location: Oakland

Re: Map Review

Postby LS7769 » Wed Feb 13, 2019 7:50 am

I would just address the issues and move on

User avatar
hellsangle
Posts: 204
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 8:31 am
Location: Sonoma, CA

Re: Map Review

Postby hellsangle » Wed Feb 13, 2019 8:27 am

Crazy Phil sez . . . Surveyor to Recorder

User avatar
Peter Ehlert
Posts: 446
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 2:40 pm
Location: N31°43', W116°39'
Contact:

Re: Map Review

Postby Peter Ehlert » Wed Feb 13, 2019 9:07 am

Crazy Peter agrees
Peter Ehlert

User avatar
David Kendall
Posts: 306
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2014 1:45 pm
Location: Sonoma

Re: Map Review

Postby David Kendall » Wed Feb 13, 2019 9:14 am

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!

User avatar
PLS7393
Posts: 646
Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2004 2:09 pm
Location: Bay Area (Fremont)
Contact:

Re: Map Review

Postby PLS7393 » Wed Feb 13, 2019 10:34 am

David Kendall wrote:
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!!!

User avatar
David Kendall
Posts: 306
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2014 1:45 pm
Location: Sonoma

Re: Map Review

Postby David Kendall » Wed Feb 13, 2019 10:50 am

PLS7393 wrote:- 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?


Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests