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?v...
[2] https://www.mysiteplan.com/products/plot-plan-showing-struct...
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
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.
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).
Excellent point — go file an Amicus brief!
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.
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.
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?
Here, the fake claim isn't the brand name, it's the product itself. He's selling a thing that looks exactly like a land survey, that's being used as if it's a land survey, but actually isn't. His measurements may be right (they probably aren't, this guy is mostly just scraping and reselling Google Maps, including literal screenshots from his browser, I sure hope he's paying the licensing fees to do that legally). But even if his measurements were per-millimeter accurate, it wouldn't change the problem. He's selling things that are intended to be used like land surveys, but aren't.
---
If I bought a printer, and I printed off some money, and it's a perfect reproduction (identical size, identical weight, identical materials, identical to any other dollar), is it a fake dollar? If I put on my website that these fake dollars are "not intended to replace real US currency", but don't actually mark that anywhere on the dollars themselves, am I good to go?
If I actually want to be in the "fake money" business ethically (say as a prop for plays and movies, or as a toy for kids), would it not be reasonable to require me to declare it as such? (Like fake money usually does, right on each bill? See https://propmoviemoney.com/collections/full-print-prop-money - 'Motion Picture Use Only' - as an example)
No, because the watches don't claim to be an rolex, even if they tell time and the ID doesn't claim to be legal and state issued.
In this case, unofficial maps are a preexisting good already distinct from a certified land survey.
Governments accept unofficial maps for some uses, and require a certified survey for others. Governments are clear on when one is required but not the other. Governments even provide citizens instructions for how to make their own uncertified maps.
Official land surveys are easily distinguished from unofficial maps by the lack of a surveyors stamp/certification. Governments have experience processing official and unofficial documents, and know to look for the stamp, so the risk of confusion is low.
The site also makes it clear to the purchaser that they are unofficial.
I don't think the presence or absence of a seal will change this. If the fraud already happens constantly and this board is in place, then this would be an argument for replacing them, yes?
> ripe with abuse.
rife* with abuse
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
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.
A reasonable person could confuse the plans produced by the website and legitimate plans produced by a professional surveyor, though.
More to the point, the author of the website seems to disagree with you, since he already includes a disclaimer on the website. The issue raised is that he does not include that same disclaimer on the plans.
GP's phrasing of 'everyone who will ever handle' the plans is the correct phrasing: those are the people that must be considered. That group includes all people whose work and interests require knowing where property boundaries and physical structures are, now, and in the future.
The professional engineering and survey boards have a duty to the protect the public, and a duty to regulate the practice of land surveying and civil engineering. If someone's behavior interferes with that practice, then they have a legitimate cause to prevent that behavior.
The disclaimer on the website is so buyers know what they're getting and don't waste money on something that isn't adequate for their legal/planning needs.
Your interpretation of the disclaimer may be correct, but the phrasing "This is not a Legal Survey, nor is it intended to be or replace a Legal Survey." is excessive for that purpose and makes more sense if it's meant to head off complaints from the engineer's association.
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.
however, there are plenty of things in civil and structural engineering that carry a huge amount of liability, and do in fact need to be done by a licensed/insured professional. for example, where electrical wiring or sewage pipes are buried. getting a property line wrong, in some cases can be a big problem.
Unless the only context in which anyone will ever view those plans is on that website, I don't see how this is relevant.
Seems like the big mapping companies you mention should file amicus briefs in his favour.
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".
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.
https://www.new-york-lawyers.org/unauthorized-practice-of-a-...
You have to remember that if "someone draws up a lot line for you" for money then you might be providing a licensed service without a license.
The rules to cut hair in NY are harder than the rules to be a computer programmer:
"Complete a 1,000 hour approved course of study and pass both the New York State written and practical examinations." - https://dos.ny.gov/cosmetology
In my experience, people generally believe that stating one isn't a doctor or lawyer protects against an accusation of practicing without a license.
I can't believe you that as a lawyer you would claim that!
I do not think that such a disclaimer would help if we were talking about your, djoldman's, plea bargain negotiations.
Occupational licensing was a key element in Jim Crow. Why should there be exams and licenses for barbers (who are legally allowed to cut facial hair) or cosmetologists (who are prohibited from cutting facial hair - beards & mustaches)? Because black people might get away with doing the job. And if black people were doing that job, then other black people would never go to a white barber or cosmetologist. Vagrancy (the crime of not having a job) was enforced almost exclusively against only non-white people. Then, they'd be sentenced to work on the chain gang (or other slavery-equivalent) in accordance with the 13th Amendment. Requiring a license (which minorities could never get) made it far easier to punish people for failing to be born white.
Whenever something in America seems to make no sense at all, the key is to think about how a white supremacist would use it to abuse non-white people. One key to understanding the history of racial inequality and civil rights in America would be to imagine that the South actually won the Civil War.
TL;DR - it is racism all the way down.
“Want to buy pizza at my restaurant? (This restaurant not inspected by health department and pizza is not for human consumption)”
Because it’s obvious BS.
But you can say:
“This is dog food, not for human consumption.” On actual dog food.
Now I don’t know whether it’s BS in this instance or not but it would be very relevant to the situation.
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.
If you exchange something, like money, then you may be providing something under an oral contract, even if nothing is signed. And if you introduce a waiver, then you turn that oral contract into a written one.
The point is that it isn't the same service being provided and they are very upfront about that with the customer.
One of the guarantees that probably applies in this situation, especially as it is California which tend to have a few stronger guarantees, is fitness-to-purpose. If there is a service, where an exchange is taking place, there is a guarantee that the product should be considered fit-to-purpose.
> The warranty of fitness for a particular purpose is not limited to sales by a merchant as is the warranty of merchantability. It may be imposed on any seller possessing sufficient skill and judgment to justify the buyer’s reliance. The Code drafters suggest, however, that a nonmerchant seller will only in particular circumstances have that degree of skill and judgment necessary to justify imposing the warranty.” (4 Witkin, Summary of California Law (10th ed. 2005))
The products themselves are unmarked, which means it doesn't matter how upfront that they are with the first customer, because the product is allowed to be resold, and then the limitation on purpose aren't guaranteed to be seen anymore, but it needs to be, if you want to reduce your liability.
And you do get to escape liability with disclaimers quite well. Just look at every tax reporting agency out there. Massive disclaimers about how you are still liable for any mistakes they may make.
Clearly you can. Every software license has a disclaimer of liability. It's not like those are there for no reason. No, they are not an absolute shield that's effective in every circumstance, but you can and should have one.
What I can't do is offer to represent you in a legal case, or imply (with signage, advertising, business cards etc) that I can provide any sort of legal services. And if I took money from you, it would have to be on the understanding that I was just providing entertaining opinions which it would be unwise for you to rely on.
At some point you have to grant that the clients of such a service have some agency and are able to evaluate straightforward disclaimers of liability or fitness.
I recently used AcreValue.com to find the rough location of some remote timberland my late mother owned. I've never been there, nor has any other living member of my family. My niece is in the area, and wanted to go out and take a look at it (mainly to make sure no one has set up a meth lab out there or something). The map from AcreValue is perfectly adequate to navigate her to the area.
Now, we would be foolish to use that map in lieu of a professional surveyor if we were planning on building a wall around it or something, but we're not doing that, or anything like it.
I'm guessing from what people are saying that is that the AcreValue site is also illegal under California law.
Edit: I can tell that it's adequate because I also looked at the official county plat map, and can see that the AV map is congruent with the plat map, in respect to the (dirt) roads and geographic features of the surrounding area. I don't (and shouldn't) need to hire a surveyor for this.
For example you could hire an architect, ask them to do a preliminary sketch, fire them, add an extra floor to the design, and then construct the building based on that design. You cannot expect them to take liability.
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.
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.