Steve Douty
Well-Known Member
As of February 23, 2021 the "Minimum Standard Detail Requirements for ALTA/NSPS Land Title Surveys" and the associated "Measurement Standards" have been changed. As a result of this change I believe it would be appreciated if the JAVAD team provided us with a second option when requesting a "Relative Accuracy Report".
The new ALTA/NSPS requires (in part):
"Relative Positional Precision” means the length of the semi-major axis, expressed in meters or feet, of the error ellipse representing the uncertainty in the position of the monument or witness marking any boundary corner of the surveyed property relative to the position of the monument or witness marking an immediately adjacent boundary corner of the surveyed property...."
This new standard requires the relative position be reported between "adjacent boundary corner(s)..." whereas, the old standard could be read as requiring the reporting of relative positions between ALL of the corners within the survey. As an example: I just completed a survey of a property that contained six (6) property corners. The present JAVAD report yields fifteen (15) relative position results. I believe the new standard is only asking us to evaluate and certify only to six (6) six of these reported results.
I am requesting that the JAVAD team provide us with a second "Relative Positional Precision Report" option that allows us to chose the corners in the order of adjacent corners we require. As an example we could list the boundary corners in the order we pick (1,4,2,3,6,5,1) and the report would yield the relative positional precisions of the six adjoining lines in the sequence requested.
Also; the present report uses a "Positional Tolerance of 0.06561667 ft + 50.0 ppm at the 95%". The ALTA/NSPS standard ask for "2 cm (0.07 feet) plus 50 parts per million (based on the direct distance between the two corners being tested)." The present report is using 0.06561667, which is 2 cm in US Survey feet; NOT the 0.07 feet called for in the new standard. I am requesting that team consider changing the report(s) to reflect the requirements of the standard.
I know all of this is long and "Geeky", but that is what we are! Looking forward to Geeky feedback.
The new ALTA/NSPS requires (in part):
"Relative Positional Precision” means the length of the semi-major axis, expressed in meters or feet, of the error ellipse representing the uncertainty in the position of the monument or witness marking any boundary corner of the surveyed property relative to the position of the monument or witness marking an immediately adjacent boundary corner of the surveyed property...."
This new standard requires the relative position be reported between "adjacent boundary corner(s)..." whereas, the old standard could be read as requiring the reporting of relative positions between ALL of the corners within the survey. As an example: I just completed a survey of a property that contained six (6) property corners. The present JAVAD report yields fifteen (15) relative position results. I believe the new standard is only asking us to evaluate and certify only to six (6) six of these reported results.
I am requesting that the JAVAD team provide us with a second "Relative Positional Precision Report" option that allows us to chose the corners in the order of adjacent corners we require. As an example we could list the boundary corners in the order we pick (1,4,2,3,6,5,1) and the report would yield the relative positional precisions of the six adjoining lines in the sequence requested.
Also; the present report uses a "Positional Tolerance of 0.06561667 ft + 50.0 ppm at the 95%". The ALTA/NSPS standard ask for "2 cm (0.07 feet) plus 50 parts per million (based on the direct distance between the two corners being tested)." The present report is using 0.06561667, which is 2 cm in US Survey feet; NOT the 0.07 feet called for in the new standard. I am requesting that team consider changing the report(s) to reflect the requirements of the standard.
I know all of this is long and "Geeky", but that is what we are! Looking forward to Geeky feedback.
