6 ms·

The biggest difference between an official site survey and you (or him) doing it themselves is liability. It is pretty clear from the language on the site that

The biggest difference between an official site survey and you (or him) doing it themselves is liability. It is pretty clear from the language on the site that they aren't accepting legal liability and are just a convenience over doing it yourself using Google Maps or a tape-measure. I think the article is very well argued, and if this board's closure notice is allowed to stand then it will infringe on Californian's right to simply draw a map of their home or business. His business isn't offering site surveys and doesn't proclaim to, and to be honest even Google Maps/Bing/Apple could be at risk if this board's ability to close/ban this were allowed (they do show property boundaries after all). The biggest problem they're going to run into is: Who has deeper pockets? Since often in the US legal system that can decide the winner/loser.

voisin 4y ago
> The biggest problem they're going to run into is: Who has deeper pockets? Since often in the US legal system that can decide the winner/loser. Seems like the big mapping companies you mention should file amicus briefs in his favour.
geenew 4y ago
I largely agree with you, but it may be a situation where a disclaimer on the plans themselves would assuage the professional board. The site itself includes a disclaimer (“THIS IS NOT A LEGAL SURVEY, NOR IS IT INTENDED TO BE OR REPLACE ONE.” ). However, at least on the sample plans the site shows[1][2], there does not seem to be any disclaimer. A reasonable person may be mislead into thinking that the plans produced by that website are legal surveys - they have the appearance of a typical surveyor/engineer produced CAD drawing. In all the engineering drawings I've seen, the title block is essentially your only way of ensuring contextual information is always associated with the drawing. Including relevant disclaimers in the title block is critical. If the sample drawings shown are representative of the output of the site, they could do a better job by including reasonable disclaimers on each drawing. [1] https://www.mysiteplan.com/en-ca/products/simple-plot-plan?variant=386897576 https://www.mysiteplan.com/en-ca/products/simple-plot-plan?v... [2] https://www.mysiteplan.com/products/plot-plan-showing-structures-tree-and-vegetation?variant=386904444 https://www.mysiteplan.com/products/plot-plan-showing-struct...
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  I think that is asking too much. Absence of certification from a licensed surveyor should be enough. If a schematic needs to be from a licensed professional, the burden is to demonstrate that it is. Sometimes it is appropriate to require a license professional to certify something, other times it is not
  - toss1 4y ago
    I've no idea why you're getting downvoted, as your comment is spot-on. Currently going through a permitting process for small modification in my yard, and the town is very explicit about what needs a certified engineer's stamp and what does not need it. It is a very specific requirement and specific thing to produce. If it does not have the official stamp and signature, it is NOT a certified/stamped/approved drawing. End of story. Perhaps it works differently in different states, but this has been the routine in every state in which I've lived. the bottom line is that the presumption is that it is NOT an engineering drawing NOR is it certified, unless the certification/stamp/signature is explicit. Also, thinking about it a second, the stamp/certification/signature is literally the engineer putting their reputation, license, and career on the line over the accuracy of the drawing. No engineer is going to want that to happen as a default operation — it must be explicit.
    - mcherm 4y ago
      > No engineer is going to want that to happen as a default operation — it must be explicit. I would go so far as to say that it would be unconstitutional (first amendment; free speech) to restrict the act of "making a map" (although restricting the use of an official seal would be fine).
      - toss1 4y ago
        >> it would be unconstitutional (first amendment; free speech) to restrict the act of "making a map" Excellent point — go file an Amicus brief!
tacostakohashi 4y ago
> they aren't accepting legal liability and are just a convenience over doing it yourself This is not a thing when it comes to regulated professional services. A provider doesn't get to choose whether they "accept" liability, or be "just a convenience".
- fddhjjj 4y ago
  Why not?
  - kube-system 4y ago
    Because laws override contracts.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  Yes, they do get to choose exactly that. I am not a lawyer, and this isn't legal advice, but I think your interpretation of constitutional law is obviously incorrect. If someone needs a certified survey from a licensed professionals, they are not offering that service. If someone want a drawing of their lot in proximity, something that a homeowner could do with a tape measure, or even just guess at, they will do it for you.
  - KennyBlanken 4y ago
    You do not get to choose whether you are liable when providing a service or product. You can't just say "Sorry, not liable if this widget blows up." Otherwise, and I know this is a big brain moment: everyone and every corporation would "choose" to not be liable for anything. If the customer signs a waiver, that's different - but even waivers can't waive all liability. Half the stuff in a waiver isn't even legally effective, it's just there to make you think you can't pursue damages, because they assume you'll read it and go "well shucks, this says..." instead of talking to an attorney. > I am not a lawyer That's pretty obvious.
    - modeless 4y ago
pbreit 4y ago
I think licensure has totally gone off the rails. But this doesn't strike me as the best example. Just get the license. Your 2nd paragraph has gone further off.
treis 4y ago
>will infringe on Californian's right to simply draw a map of their home or business Unless I'm missing something these sort of license laws only apply to providing services to other people. So cut your own hair, diasgnos your own illness, build your own kitchen, etc. but do it for someone else, especially for money, and you need a license. As far as drawing maps goes I don't see it as any less worthy than other things we regulate. Boundaries tend to be important and those doing so for money should probably demonstrate a basic level of competence.

voisin 4y ago

> The biggest problem they're going to run into is: Who has deeper pockets? Since often in the US legal system that can decide the winner/loser. Seems like the big mapping companies you mention should file amicus briefs in his favour.

geenew 4y ago

I largely agree with you, but it may be a situation where a disclaimer on the plans themselves would assuage the professional board. The site itself includes a disclaimer (“THIS IS NOT A LEGAL SURVEY, NOR IS IT INTENDED TO BE OR REPLACE ONE.” ). However, at least on the sample plans the site shows[1][2], there does not seem to be any disclaimer. A reasonable person may be mislead into thinking that the plans produced by that website are legal surveys - they have the appearance of a typical surveyor/engineer produced CAD drawing. In all the engineering drawings I've seen, the title block is essentially your only way of ensuring contextual information is always associated with the drawing. Including relevant disclaimers in the title block is critical. If the sample drawings shown are representative of the output of the site, they could do a better job by including reasonable disclaimers on each drawing. [1] https://www.mysiteplan.com/en-ca/products/simple-plot-plan?variant=386897576 https://www.mysiteplan.com/en-ca/products/simple-plot-plan?v... [2] https://www.mysiteplan.com/products/plot-plan-showing-structures-tree-and-vegetation?variant=386904444 https://www.mysiteplan.com/products/plot-plan-showing-struct...

s1artibartfast 4y ago
I think that is asking too much. Absence of certification from a licensed surveyor should be enough. If a schematic needs to be from a licensed professional, the burden is to demonstrate that it is. Sometimes it is appropriate to require a license professional to certify something, other times it is not
- toss1 4y ago
  I've no idea why you're getting downvoted, as your comment is spot-on. Currently going through a permitting process for small modification in my yard, and the town is very explicit about what needs a certified engineer's stamp and what does not need it. It is a very specific requirement and specific thing to produce. If it does not have the official stamp and signature, it is NOT a certified/stamped/approved drawing. End of story. Perhaps it works differently in different states, but this has been the routine in every state in which I've lived. the bottom line is that the presumption is that it is NOT an engineering drawing NOR is it certified, unless the certification/stamp/signature is explicit. Also, thinking about it a second, the stamp/certification/signature is literally the engineer putting their reputation, license, and career on the line over the accuracy of the drawing. No engineer is going to want that to happen as a default operation — it must be explicit.
  - mcherm 4y ago
    > No engineer is going to want that to happen as a default operation — it must be explicit. I would go so far as to say that it would be unconstitutional (first amendment; free speech) to restrict the act of "making a map" (although restricting the use of an official seal would be fine).
    - toss1 4y ago
      >> it would be unconstitutional (first amendment; free speech) to restrict the act of "making a map" Excellent point — go file an Amicus brief!

tacostakohashi 4y ago

> they aren't accepting legal liability and are just a convenience over doing it yourself This is not a thing when it comes to regulated professional services. A provider doesn't get to choose whether they "accept" liability, or be "just a convenience".

fddhjjj 4y ago
Why not?
- kube-system 4y ago
  Because laws override contracts.
s1artibartfast 4y ago
Yes, they do get to choose exactly that. I am not a lawyer, and this isn't legal advice, but I think your interpretation of constitutional law is obviously incorrect. If someone needs a certified survey from a licensed professionals, they are not offering that service. If someone want a drawing of their lot in proximity, something that a homeowner could do with a tape measure, or even just guess at, they will do it for you.
- KennyBlanken 4y ago
  You do not get to choose whether you are liable when providing a service or product. You can't just say "Sorry, not liable if this widget blows up." Otherwise, and I know this is a big brain moment: everyone and every corporation would "choose" to not be liable for anything. If the customer signs a waiver, that's different - but even waivers can't waive all liability. Half the stuff in a waiver isn't even legally effective, it's just there to make you think you can't pursue damages, because they assume you'll read it and go "well shucks, this says..." instead of talking to an attorney. > I am not a lawyer That's pretty obvious.
  - modeless 4y ago

pbreit 4y ago

I think licensure has totally gone off the rails. But this doesn't strike me as the best example. Just get the license. Your 2nd paragraph has gone further off.

treis 4y ago

>will infringe on Californian's right to simply draw a map of their home or business Unless I'm missing something these sort of license laws only apply to providing services to other people. So cut your own hair, diasgnos your own illness, build your own kitchen, etc. but do it for someone else, especially for money, and you need a license. As far as drawing maps goes I don't see it as any less worthy than other things we regulate. Boundaries tend to be important and those doing so for money should probably demonstrate a basic level of competence.