September October 2017

s I continue to “practice” in the surveying field (maybe in a subconscious quest to finally “get it right!’), it is sometimes disappointing to see the im- age our profession occasionally projects when I browse through recorded maps and plats. After almost 40 years of “prac- ticing,” I have had the opportunity to draft a few maps of my own and to see and work with a lot of others. Many are good and some are bad (including sever- al of mine, no doubt). The one thing that I have come to value and appreciate in a map is its ability to impart the “mes- sage” of one’s work in a clear, concise, and tidy manner. For some surveyors, that ability seems to come naturally. Too often, though, the logic or purpose of the survey is not clear. For example, in Washington state, a “narrative” is not presently required on surveys (in many states it is required). About 15 years ago, I started adding “narratives” to my Washington surveys because I felt that they made the map more “user-friend- ly.” Many times, stating the purpose of the survey facilitates understanding why and how it was done. The narrative is also a good place to discuss any oth- er peculiarities that may otherwise go unnoticed. Invariably, one must add notes here and there to justify and explain certain boundary decisions. What annoys me are records of survey and subdivision plats by surveyors who don’t bother to docu- ment the boundaries shown. The need for justification either “never occurred to them,” “they don’t care,” or are “too busy (or lazy) to take the time,” or any num- ber of other “excuses.” It usually comes back to haunt the “offending surveyor” years later when litigation commences. That is a poor time to try to remember how you determined the bearing and/ or location for the lines that are now un- der scrutiny (and equally hard to justify to the opposing counsel as well as your own). Some maps, however, are amaz- ingly simple. They show four lines around a rectangular tract with irons set at the corners and not much else. (Maybe a tie to a section corner.) I think those survey- ors should at least add a big, red “TRUST ME” stamp across the property depicted as being “located andmonumented.” That would remove the uncertainty that oth- ers may have. Although brevity is many times a virtue, in these cases, it would be like saying either “I didn’t have enough room to elaborate on what controls the boundaries shown” or “I’m the only one that needs to know that information” or “I don’t remember how I came up with this” or “it’s none of your business,” so just “trust me.” At the other extreme are those maps that look terribly official (to the layman) because they are filled with important looking notes, dimensions, or meaningless lines and data that have no bearing on the real issues. Add a few cer- tificates and “presto,” they too, become a part of our recorded legacy. I’ll bet most of us have looked over amap and noticed a spelling error. Then you see another one in an adjacent note and then a dis- jointed sentence further on that leaves I try to stress to the younger, aspiring surveyors in our office that you need to justify each boundary line depicted. you confused as to what was trying to be said. At that point, the next thing most of us look for is the name of the surveyor who “authored” the product. The “stain” on his or her reputation is now start- ing to “set.” Taking more pride in one’s work initially can normally prevent later embarrassment. I try to stress to the younger, aspiring surveyors in our office that you need to justify each boundary line depicted. Whatever determines the position and/ or direction of a controlling line should be shown. In the eyes of the end-user, (be it another surveyor, attorney, or title insurance company) it is sometimes not so important that your judgment was right or wrong. It would just be nice to know what your judgment actually was! I’m sure my younger charges are tired of me asking where the “trust me” stamp is when I review their maps, but at least now, they are starting to think about it regularly. If you are an artist, you are not held responsible for the interpreta- tion others make of your work. (That is probably why artists are not licensed and can get by with “poetic license” instead.) Unfortunately, this is not the case with maps and plats that become memorial- ized in the public records. Not only do your clients and third parties (including the public) hold you responsible for the accuracy and content of those products, they also form opinions about the author of the work based on howwell it is or isn’t presented. Surveyors can avoid the need for a “TRUST ME” stamp on their maps by simply viewing them from the perspec- tive of an end-user. We could all benefit from regularly recalling the words of the Scottish bard, Robert Burns, who, in about 1790, wrote a poem entitled “To a Louse, On Seeing One On A Lady’s Bonnet, At Church” that contained the immortal line: “O, wad some Power the giftie gie us, to see ourselves as others see us!” 25 Professional Land Surveyors of Oregon | www.plso.org Invariably, one must add notes here and there to justify and explain certain boundary decisions. What annoys me are records of survey and subdivision plats by surveyors who don’t bother to docu- ment the boundaries shown. The need for justification either “never occurred to