Post by Brent George on Sept 8, 2020 20:52:36 GMT
This change to a Surveyor-General's Guideline was notified within the June-2020 “Landwrap”. It may have slipped through your review:-
A change has been made to the Surveyor-General’s guideline on Survey Mark Names to clarify the application of Rule 9.6.2(d)(ii) – a Diagram of Survey must include the identifier for a survey mark or point where an identifier already exists.
In situations where unique identifiers have been added to pre-existing non-unique survey marks, there has been some confusion about whether that identifier must be retained on subsequent CSDs. In some cases, the identifier has been removed on the basis that Rule 8.4 requires the mark name to be unchanged from the plan that originally placed it.
The Surveyor-General’s guideline on Survey Mark Names has been updated to:
If an existing non-boundary mark or boundary point does not have a unique name, a unique identifier may be added in brackets before the CSD reference. For example, marks adopted from DP 7700 could become IT (1) DP 7700 and UNMK (2) DP 7700. This unique name will then be used on future CSDs to comply with rule 9.6.2(d)(ii), unless there are duplicate names, in which case the identifier may be changed to make it unique.
LINZ will not requisition for this matter until 3 August 2020 to allow surveyors to update their quality assurance processes.
ICS supplementary questions:
i. “a unique identifier may be added…”. This implies that the unique identifier is optional - correct?
ii. As the S-G guidelines are not “legally binding”, then will a requisition to enforce the addition of a unique identified be able to be resisted?
Comments??
A change has been made to the Surveyor-General’s guideline on Survey Mark Names to clarify the application of Rule 9.6.2(d)(ii) – a Diagram of Survey must include the identifier for a survey mark or point where an identifier already exists.
In situations where unique identifiers have been added to pre-existing non-unique survey marks, there has been some confusion about whether that identifier must be retained on subsequent CSDs. In some cases, the identifier has been removed on the basis that Rule 8.4 requires the mark name to be unchanged from the plan that originally placed it.
The Surveyor-General’s guideline on Survey Mark Names has been updated to:
If an existing non-boundary mark or boundary point does not have a unique name, a unique identifier may be added in brackets before the CSD reference. For example, marks adopted from DP 7700 could become IT (1) DP 7700 and UNMK (2) DP 7700. This unique name will then be used on future CSDs to comply with rule 9.6.2(d)(ii), unless there are duplicate names, in which case the identifier may be changed to make it unique.
LINZ will not requisition for this matter until 3 August 2020 to allow surveyors to update their quality assurance processes.
ICS supplementary questions:
i. “a unique identifier may be added…”. This implies that the unique identifier is optional - correct?
ii. As the S-G guidelines are not “legally binding”, then will a requisition to enforce the addition of a unique identified be able to be resisted?
Comments??