|
|
Post by Alex Liggett on Sept 25, 2014 22:15:13 GMT
*** This thread has been de-merged from the RCS 2016 thread at the request of the ICS exec. *** The purpose of this thread is to record any issues surveyors may have with RCS2010. RCS2010 is scheduled for review in 2015(?), and the Institute is strongly advocating for the process of review and enactment of the new Rules to more rigidly follow the letter of the law than last time (perhaps Bruce Speirs may wish to comment on this). I am hoping that there will also be an opportunity for the Institute to make a submission on the content of the new Rules, so if anything drives you crazy in the new Rules, let's hear it. ...and no, 'Everything' is not a valid submission.  |
|
|
|
Post by Alex Liggett on Sept 25, 2014 22:26:32 GMT
My (current) personal issues with the Rules are as follows:
1. Definitions: The removal from the definition of Balance Parcel of "the balance of a parcel where land is defined for the purpose of acquisition under the Public Works Act 1981" - this was present in all previous iterations of SGR etc. Yes, I am still banging on about this - it must be costing taxpayers and ratepayers a fortune, and why? Because the then SG didn't think that Crown agencies should be treated differently to land developers.
2. Rule 5.5.4: The requirement for non-primary parcels to be identified by a letter only, eg under previous Rules you could have Area A1 etc, now it can only be Area A or Area AA. One case when this is particularly annoying is when one of my clients in their internal documentation identifies areas to be covenanted as, for example Block A and Block B. If these areas straddle a parcel boundary it was nice to call the bits either side A1, A2 etc, so that they could still see their 'Block A'. The AA, AB business just confuses things, and again there doesn't seem to have been any particular logic behind the change.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mark Geddes on Sept 25, 2014 23:20:03 GMT
Alex, on point 2 there, I completely agree. I had a scenario where the naming convention did not suit my job and some flexibility or at least a return to previuosly permitted ways, would have been more appropriate in displaying what parcel/covenant is tied to what at a glance. I see little to no reason for why Rule 5.5.4 is so ridgid on this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Manson on Jun 19, 2016 22:52:24 GMT
A minor issue that has bugged me recently is with regard to the definition of a water boundary. The definition section of the rules talks about the "landward margin" which is reasonable but we often seem to find small streams that are boundaries but are depicted as a single line and show no width. Is this depiction a centreline or right and left banks that at the scale of the plot are coincident. I think the later but have had issues with LINZ regarding them as centrelines and therefore not "landward margins". To regard such boundaries as anything other than a water boundary in my mind is clearly wrong and not what the original surveyor intended. Perhaps the rule could have words like - may also be also be a stream centreline if shown as a single line with no stated width - or similar.
Has anyone else experience this issue?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Manson on Jun 19, 2016 23:09:57 GMT
Another issue with irregular boundaries I have had recently was with Rule 6.6. I had a couple of residual parcels of rural freehold land left after taking small parts for road on a legalisation plan. These parcels were less than 20 hectares and had irregular road boundaries against a river. It seems that the rules insist that these irregular boundaries get converted to rightlines and thus need to be "defined by survey" and then are caught by the need for witness marks. Bloody silly in my mind. We are by necessity altering boundaries to accommodate changes to roads but I don't think we should be making changes to any other boundaries distant from these. For one thing the owners have no say and will most likely not have any knowledge that their boundary has been fiddled with.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mark Geddes on Jun 19, 2016 23:38:05 GMT
We just had a talk about it in the office....we haven't had this scenario but do agree with your approach. The implications for Landonline in terms of sliver parcels being created could be an underlying reason for the reply you received. To take the left or right bank obviously creates additional parcels if they only consider it a line (the definition of the centreline that is). I agree the original intent of the surveyor is key here and also suggest the recent field data of the water feature, which you would hold, should also be considered over a database definition of the stream where the scale of the original plan was not a consideration (especially in the absence of historic plan or documentary detail on the width or definition of the feature).
|
|
|
|
Post by Alex Liggett on Jun 20, 2016 1:49:40 GMT
A minor issue that has bugged me recently is with regard to the definition of a water boundary. The definition section of the rules talks about the "landward margin" which is reasonable but we often seem to find small streams that are boundaries but are depicted as a single line and show no width. Is this depiction a centreline or right and left banks that at the scale of the plot are coincident. I think the later but have had issues with LINZ regarding them as centrelines and therefore not "landward margins". To regard such boundaries as anything other than a water boundary in my mind is clearly wrong and not what the original surveyor intended. Perhaps the rule could have words like - may also be also be a stream centreline if shown as a single line with no stated width - or similar. Has anyone else experience this issue? Yes, and I agree with you. Another issue with irregular boundaries I have had recently was with Rule 6.6. I had a couple of residual parcels of rural freehold land left after taking small parts for road on a legalisation plan. These parcels were less than 20 hectares and had irregular road boundaries against a river. It seems that the rules insist that these irregular boundaries get converted to rightlines and thus need to be "defined by survey" and then are caught by the need for witness marks. Bloody silly in my mind. We are by necessity altering boundaries to accommodate changes to roads but I don't think we should be making changes to any other boundaries distant from these. For one thing the owners have no say and will most likely not have any knowledge that their boundary has been fiddled with. Did you request a dispensation? This sounds like an open and shut case for getting one. In the end it is another unintended consequence of this poorly thought out change: 1. Definitions: The removal from the definition of Balance Parcel of "the balance of a parcel where land is defined for the purpose of acquisition under the Public Works Act 1981" - this was present in all previous iterations of SGR etc. Yes, I am still banging on about this - it must be costing taxpayers and ratepayers a fortune, and why? Because the then SG didn't think that Crown agencies should be treated differently to land developers. |
|
|
|
Post by Pat Sole on Jun 20, 2016 23:21:36 GMT
Right-lining previous irregular/former water boundaries (unless on very high value land) represents poor survey practice and in my view is unlawful (other than through the rules!). It does not protect owners rights (prevents future claims to accretion?), has a high price tag for no benefit (especially if not ground -truthed). These provisions in Rules 6.6 and 6.7 of the rules need to be removed in the next edition!
|
|
|
|
Post by Ian Gillespie on Sept 15, 2016 3:07:17 GMT
I have never really considered Rule 4.1(c) as referring to anything other than measurements until a recent requisition drew my attention to some of its implications. When preparing a plan compiled from old survey data (without field work) adoptions are usually taken directly from old surveys some of which may be OC, G49 or G2000. If there is no justification for a bearing correction then it seems a pretty impossible task to have all bearings being in terms of the same horizontal projection.
and I agree with Dave above - the definition of streams as boundaries is not working. The law needs an overhaul here. I think its a matter for legislation rather than a change to the rules that is required but it would seem to me that using a stream centreline as a boundary would be superior to using the banks of a stream.
In the example that Dave mentions unless the old survey plan specifically says the boundary is the centreline of the steam then I would think you would have to believe it is bank that is the current day equivalent.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Manson on Sept 16, 2016 2:31:37 GMT
Sometimes I wonder how we got conned into the current regs and even more so the "lodgement standards". Snake oil salesmen it must have been. I am continually getting frustrated by the nit picky requisitions that in my mind show that the LINZ examiners have little knowledge of the real world. Many of these things might not strickly obey the rules but with many of them I think "so what" the plan is fit for purpose and perfection under the current rules seems for an old timer like me an almost impossible goal.
To add to Pat's comments above I recently got pinged by the two vector rule. It was just for a LOL point added to prevent a water boundary from self imploding. The second calculated vector is of course rubbish and I have hidden it on the plan face. It is nasty but in the system and could be extracted by some unknowing unfortunate in the future when the current rules are but a bad dream. How did we get sucked into this situation? If LINZ need such vectors for their system to work they should do it themselves.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pat Sole on Sept 16, 2016 3:44:15 GMT
I have always had a problem with the (LINZ) view of consistent bearing swings - there are many occasions when reobserving old lines that different bearing corrections apply to different parts of a (particularly rural) survey. To apply blanket corrections to OCD/GEO49 plans to put them in terms of GD2000 (unless they are well proven) in my view just further degrades the cadastre (you'd may as well adopt them raw often). I have done many investigation surveys into apparent survey errors, and it is often (not always) the historic bearings which turn out to be better than the modern ones! The old guys certainly knew how to control orientation with the rudimenary gear they had!
The two vector rule is a nonsense. I have had to make a choice on several requisitions whether to remove a mark or show a second calculated tie. In my view a well checked hanging line (which you are prepared to certify) is fine in terms of good survey practice - I agree that LINZ should calculate a second tie if they want them and not confuse them with our work.
There are huge problems with stream definition/right-lining/etc with the rules/exception processing and consistent LINZ interpretation - problem is there is little case law in this area and LINZ are trying to write it (without legislative support) in their rules/guidelines etc. Right-lining when you are not claiming accretion is an example!
|
|
|
|
Post by Mark Geddes on Sept 16, 2016 7:41:44 GMT
Pat, points well made there. I've stated in a couple of reports recently that I am unwilling to state a general correction to a given plan and explained what I have applied where and why in the report. Both have been approved, but once only after a requisition where the examiner simply didn't understand what the issue was.....I reworded and explained in terms that were simpler than would normally be necessary in a report.
As for hiding text after getting pinged for silly rules - I had similar. We our started our observations with trig obs to determine NZGD2000 bearings and then completed a loop traverse through numerous old marks relevant for definition back to the trig. .......I was then pinged for not connecting to a geodetic mark that was unrelated to my definition just inside the radius set in the rules. I did not have GPS with me and there was no other mark in NZGD 2000 in sight to determine a geodetic correction from this stray mark anyway. I added a series of adoptions to make a connection to the mark but it added little to no value to the survey and made the plan more confusing - I chose to hide the adopted lines on the survey sheets and the plan was approved. ......a requisition for compliance not definition I thought.
|
|
