7 ms·

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

by 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!
      - s1artibartfast 4y ago
        It is already one of the primary claims in the lawsuit
- mannykannot 4y ago
  > I think that is asking too much. It is not a big ask, and it would not interfere in any way with any of the reasonable uses that are being suggested here. I suspect there is something of a Chesterton's fence here, dating back to a time when the use of false documents in swindling people were not uncommon. Many comments here are premised on the assumption that the acquirers of such maps should be under no illusion as to their legal status, but that does not necessarily extend to those to whom the acquirers might present these documents. The average HN reader may not be fooled, but they may have elderly relatives who might be. While I have no reason to believe the person here is in any way abetting any such scheme, a simple disclaimer on the maps themselves might offer a reasonable compromise between disparate concerns.
- maxsilver 4y ago
  > I think that is asking too much. Absence of certification from a licensed surveyor should be enough. I don't. As someone who has actually worked in compliance and accreditation, fakes and frauds happen constantly, and regular laypeople have no reasonable way to know whether they're being defrauded over this or not. Web startups that claim to offer "Guaranteed Acceptance" (like his does) without having actually done any of the compliance work to earn that acceptance, are common -- the field is ripe with abuse. "Absense of certification" is how you end up with food that's poisoned (it didn't promise not to be poisoned) or products that electrocute you (it didn't promise not to zap you) or fake land surveys (it didn't promise not to hold up in court) You shouldn't have to be an expert in every single field on the entire planet, to not get scammed 24/7/365. It's one major reason why we require licensed professionals in the first place. A regular person might only see a land survey once or twice in their entire life, they can't be expected to know that these random website ones are fakes. This person is selling drawings he knows are commonly used in place of land surveys, that are fake -- he's not a land surveyor, he's not licensed to sell these. (He could just get licensed, it's not that hard, every other surveyor in my state has done so, there's no cap or limit on licensing of these, it's not difficult to perform them legally). -- His argument is no different than a fellow selling fake Drivers Licenses trying to get out of their consequences by claiming the board wants to "make printing photographs illegal" > Sometimes it is appropriate to require a license professional to certify something, other times it is not Sure, but property lines are a pretty clear place where a licensed professional needs to certify it. If you let laypeople do it without knowledge, then property rights start to lose the ability to get enforced fairly.
  - rahimnathwani 4y ago
    When you say "that are fake -- he's not a land surveyor, he's not licensed to sell these" it seems to me that the fakeness is based on who is providing them, not on what he's selling. Have I understood your point correctly? I mean, if he were to obtain the relevant credentials, but did not change a single thing about what he's selling or how they're produced, would that mean the things he's selling are no longer fake?
    - maxsilver 4y ago
- _fat_santa 4y ago
  It is and it isn't. While not technically required by what you said, it would be trivial for the business to add a small watermark at the bottom of the page, and would add an extra layer of CYA for the business.
anigbrowl 4y ago
It's not reasonable to see the disclaimer on the website and then conclude the opposite is true. Right in the middle of the landing page, the site also states 'Our Site Plans are Non-Certified (Read More)' in the same list as their selling points. And their explanation of what this means is simple and to the point: https://www.mysiteplan.com/pages/certified-site-plans https://www.mysiteplan.com/pages/certified-site-plans Users of the site are very plainly advised. And if they submit those plans to local authorities or whoever, the people who evaluate them are competent to notice whether or not the plans are signed by a licensed surveyor. I'm not sure who you think is at risk of harm here.
- leeoniya 4y ago
  the disclaimers must be on the digital and physical documents. not everyone who will ever handle them will know their origin, authenticity, or how to validate them.
  - happyopossum 4y ago
    Everyone who sees them that is expecting certified engineering plans or a surveyor’s plat will know this isn’t that as it won’t have the correct stamp on it. Adding a disclaimer is like writing “this is not a car” on a bicycle.
    - leeoniya 4y ago
      i wonder if you would notice a dollar bill that had slightly different wording on it, or was missing some words. even though you handle cash every day, even if you're a teller at a bank.
      - Schroedingersat 4y ago
        The correct analogy is if your job is to handle cheques and someone hands you an IOU lacking any account number or signature that wasn't even addressed to them or their electric bill. A drawing of your property boundary so you can know where to mow the lawn to or find a plot of acreage granny left you isn't an engineering or legal document and shouldn't be treated as one.
happyopossum 4y ago
A disclaimer is completely unnecessary on the plans, as official maps by surveyors or engineers have their stamps on them. The absence of those stamps proves it’s not trying to pass as a surveyor’s map.
- datavirtue 4y ago
  The guild cannot allow this type of tech to exist and foster lest it become normalized and somehow eventually displace thier exclusivity for certified documents. If I was a surveyor I would want this guy crushed.

by geenew 4y ago

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!
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      It is already one of the primary claims in the lawsuit
mannykannot 4y ago
> I think that is asking too much. It is not a big ask, and it would not interfere in any way with any of the reasonable uses that are being suggested here. I suspect there is something of a Chesterton's fence here, dating back to a time when the use of false documents in swindling people were not uncommon. Many comments here are premised on the assumption that the acquirers of such maps should be under no illusion as to their legal status, but that does not necessarily extend to those to whom the acquirers might present these documents. The average HN reader may not be fooled, but they may have elderly relatives who might be. While I have no reason to believe the person here is in any way abetting any such scheme, a simple disclaimer on the maps themselves might offer a reasonable compromise between disparate concerns.
maxsilver 4y ago
> I think that is asking too much. Absence of certification from a licensed surveyor should be enough. I don't. As someone who has actually worked in compliance and accreditation, fakes and frauds happen constantly, and regular laypeople have no reasonable way to know whether they're being defrauded over this or not. Web startups that claim to offer "Guaranteed Acceptance" (like his does) without having actually done any of the compliance work to earn that acceptance, are common -- the field is ripe with abuse. "Absense of certification" is how you end up with food that's poisoned (it didn't promise not to be poisoned) or products that electrocute you (it didn't promise not to zap you) or fake land surveys (it didn't promise not to hold up in court) You shouldn't have to be an expert in every single field on the entire planet, to not get scammed 24/7/365. It's one major reason why we require licensed professionals in the first place. A regular person might only see a land survey once or twice in their entire life, they can't be expected to know that these random website ones are fakes. This person is selling drawings he knows are commonly used in place of land surveys, that are fake -- he's not a land surveyor, he's not licensed to sell these. (He could just get licensed, it's not that hard, every other surveyor in my state has done so, there's no cap or limit on licensing of these, it's not difficult to perform them legally). -- His argument is no different than a fellow selling fake Drivers Licenses trying to get out of their consequences by claiming the board wants to "make printing photographs illegal" > Sometimes it is appropriate to require a license professional to certify something, other times it is not Sure, but property lines are a pretty clear place where a licensed professional needs to certify it. If you let laypeople do it without knowledge, then property rights start to lose the ability to get enforced fairly.
- rahimnathwani 4y ago
  When you say "that are fake -- he's not a land surveyor, he's not licensed to sell these" it seems to me that the fakeness is based on who is providing them, not on what he's selling. Have I understood your point correctly? I mean, if he were to obtain the relevant credentials, but did not change a single thing about what he's selling or how they're produced, would that mean the things he's selling are no longer fake?
  - maxsilver 4y ago
_fat_santa 4y ago
It is and it isn't. While not technically required by what you said, it would be trivial for the business to add a small watermark at the bottom of the page, and would add an extra layer of CYA for the business.

anigbrowl 4y ago

It's not reasonable to see the disclaimer on the website and then conclude the opposite is true. Right in the middle of the landing page, the site also states 'Our Site Plans are Non-Certified (Read More)' in the same list as their selling points. And their explanation of what this means is simple and to the point: https://www.mysiteplan.com/pages/certified-site-plans https://www.mysiteplan.com/pages/certified-site-plans Users of the site are very plainly advised. And if they submit those plans to local authorities or whoever, the people who evaluate them are competent to notice whether or not the plans are signed by a licensed surveyor. I'm not sure who you think is at risk of harm here.

leeoniya 4y ago
the disclaimers must be on the digital and physical documents. not everyone who will ever handle them will know their origin, authenticity, or how to validate them.
- happyopossum 4y ago
  Everyone who sees them that is expecting certified engineering plans or a surveyor’s plat will know this isn’t that as it won’t have the correct stamp on it. Adding a disclaimer is like writing “this is not a car” on a bicycle.
  - leeoniya 4y ago
    i wonder if you would notice a dollar bill that had slightly different wording on it, or was missing some words. even though you handle cash every day, even if you're a teller at a bank.
    - Schroedingersat 4y ago
      The correct analogy is if your job is to handle cheques and someone hands you an IOU lacking any account number or signature that wasn't even addressed to them or their electric bill. A drawing of your property boundary so you can know where to mow the lawn to or find a plot of acreage granny left you isn't an engineering or legal document and shouldn't be treated as one.

happyopossum 4y ago

A disclaimer is completely unnecessary on the plans, as official maps by surveyors or engineers have their stamps on them. The absence of those stamps proves it’s not trying to pass as a surveyor’s map.

datavirtue 4y ago
The guild cannot allow this type of tech to exist and foster lest it become normalized and somehow eventually displace thier exclusivity for certified documents. If I was a surveyor I would want this guy crushed.