Search tip: Use Ctrl+F to search for keywords on this page.

Survey requisitions - common items

Some preliminary requisition analysis has been undertaken for the Cadastral Survey Rules 2021 (CSR 2021). The following trends have been identified.

Pre-validation reporting

There are several CSR 2021 requisitions relating to automatic business rules that are easily identified prior to lodgement by running a pre-validation report and addressing potential issues identified. These warnings must be addressed by surveyors prior to lodgement.

C620 - Warning - Record of Survey does not include at least 1 measured vector to every new or old survey mark. These vectors must be captured to enable depiction on the survey diagram (CSR 2021 r89(a)).
Guidance relating to this rule is available in Depiction of vectors. An acceptable reason to submit a dataset without resolving this warning is where a trig observation is recorded without a distance. However, this needs to be clearly explained in the survey report. Further information is covered in Trig observations.

C621 - Warning – Record of Survey does not include measured vectors to at least 2 other new or old non-boundary marks for every new non-boundary mark that is not disturbed. These vectors must be captured to enable depiction on the survey diagram (r 89(b)).
Guidance relating to this rule is available in Depiction of vectors.

C623 - Warning – For non-primary parcels, the record of survey does not include at least 2 points on every non-primary parcel that are connected to a minimum of 2 underlying primary parcels points either through being coincident or by vectors. These vectors must be captured to enable depiction on the survey diagram (CSR 2021 r 89(g)(i)).
Non-primary parcels need to connect to at least two underlying primary parcel points either by being coincident or by non-boundary vectors, unless inaccurately determined. Refer to Figure 2 Depiction of vectors. Note that balance primary parcel boundary distances for easements coincident with part of a primary parcel boundary need to be captured as non-boundary lines. These balance primary parcel boundary distances are often required to be captured to meet the requirements of rule 89(g). Refer to Parcels without survey information CSD.

C697 - Warning – Survey class must be one of AD, BD, CD where a right line boundary vector intersects a water, water centre-line or irregular boundary.
Guidance relating to rule 30 and 69 which require the split accuracy class between bearings and distances (only where the vector intersects a water, water centre-line or irregular boundary) is available in:

We note that some road parcels within Landonline may have been captured with an irregular boundary across the road. When undertaking a legalisation survey with a balance road parcel a warning will show in the pre-validation report where the boundary across the road has been captured as an irregular line. This is a situation where it is acceptable to submit the dataset with this warning remaining, although it should be covered in the survey report.

Refer to:

Mark condition

Where a boundary point is ‘impracticable to mark’ the captured mark condition needs to reflect this (r 80(6)). This will allow Landonline to test whether a boundary point needs to be referenced.

Rule 80(7) now requires the record of survey whenever possible to identify the details for

  • marks searched for and not found
  • destroyed marks.

If it is not possible to include this information in the record of survey, then it must be addressed in the survey report (r 72(h))

Refer to:

Mark description for PRMs

Rule 80(8) specifies that PRMs must describe the relationship to ground level and its situation. For example, ‘IT 0.1m down in berm’ or ‘IS flush in seal’. With the advancement of digital capture, this should be recorded in the mark description field of Landonline. There is no longer a need for finder diagrams, although they can still be included as a supporting document.

Refer to:

Reinstated boundaries

Boundary reinstatement CSDs are not depicting the reinstated boundaries with a thick line type. Boundary vectors for reinstated boundaries must be captured in the ‘Nbdy’ layer, given a bearing and distance type of ‘Rein Adopted’ or ‘Rein Calculated’ and a class assigned. An example of what is expected is included in the guidance Boundary reinstatements.

Occupation information

The rules have changed slightly to require occupation information (in graphical form) for all new boundary points, not just on the existing primary parcel boundaries. Also, where there is no occupation the CSD must include a ‘No occupation’ annotation. (Rule 81)

Refer to:

Easement Schedule

To streamline the land development process, we added the requirement for the title plan to include details of easements to be surrendered and covenants to be revoked. There are still a large number of requisitions asking for surveyors to account for all easements in the head title.

The Landonline automatic easement schedule provides functionality to record the surrender of easements and revocation of covenants recorded on the underlying title. Surveyors are encouraged to use this functionality, as it ensures the correct creating document number is pulled through from the underlying title and makes the cancellation process more efficient.

Note that easement schedules should now refer to burdened (r 93(2)(d)) and benefited land (r 93(2)(e)) to reflect the Land Transfer Act 2017. Due to the requirements of s 243 Resource Management Act 1991, the easement schedule template should continue to reference the servient and dominant tenement.

Ensure headings are consistent with rules 93(2)(a) and 94(2)(a), the captured data within the record of survey and the schedule correlate and that the existing easements from different creating documents are shown separately.

Refer to:

Field information

There have been a number of requisitions for missing field information. Please ensure that you have included field information where your CSD includes survey measurements (r71(e)). 

Field information should include all measurements to non-boundary and boundary marks along with check measurements. Often vectors to boundary marks and check measurements are not included in the submitted field information.

Please ensure the survey mark name is added to the field information so the measured vector or coordinate can be related to the vectors in the CSD.

Where GNSS has been used the quality information such as epochs, horizontal precision and number of satellites should be recorded for each vector or observation.

Please ensure the survey report includes a description of the type of equipment and methods used (r72(o)).

Watch the short video below explaining the new guidance, common issues and examples of field information.

Hi everyone, I’m Toni Hill, Senior Survey Advisor in the Office of the Surveyor-General at Toitū Te Whenua, Land Information New Zealand. This video is an update to previous guidance on field information. We saw some improvement following the video Lyndon Telfer presented in 2022, however further improvement is required. Recent case history still shows significant examples that do not record actual measurements, and hence further guidance from us is provided. Today I’m going to go over some of the key messages relating to field information requirements and the expectations LINZ has. At the end I’m going to touch on methodology reporting that can complement the field information you submit.
The rule we are talking about is rule 71(e) which states a CSD must include all relevant field information, in a form that ensures permanent usability.
So, what is relevant? 
It should be obvious, but it includes, all measurements and notes made in the field, to establish the correct definition of survey. 
That includes measurements to old and new survey marks.
It includes ties to occupation. (Anyone working in Christchurch can tell you how important that was and is.)
Independent checks are also extremely important. One of the main reasons we tend to refer to field information is when something isn’t working quite right, and we are trying to work out why. Independent checks give confidence the data used is correct and to move onto another area or investigation, or they can highlight a discrepancy in the data used.
Where applicable, it also includes accurate fix of water boundary positions.
Other information relevant to the CSD is the type, depth and condition of survey marks as well as the age and description of occupation and other features. 
In summary, whatever information you need to gather in order to define boundaries and create the CSD, that is what is relevant.
In terms of form, hand-written traditional field notes are still accepted. Digital reports don’t tend to transpose records and can record a lot more data automatically. Whether hand or digital what we are after is a report that shows raw or reduced data, not deduced calculations. 
Whatever field information is submitted, it should be easy to use. If scanning pages, make sure the quality readable and that it is clear what is being recorded. 
The form should be software independent however, Landonline restricts this anyway. 
If possible, it is preferred if digital data can be uploaded in an electronic readable format (like PDF). So that it enables future uses to copy and paste data rather than having to manually read and retype the information if wanting to check calculations. 
And it should be as original as possible. Obviously, not so raw or original that it’s not usable. If you need to tidy up mark names in order for the information to match the CSD then those minimal edits are acceptable. 
If possible, it is preferred if digital data can be uploaded in an electronic readable format (like PDF). That enables future uses to copy and paste data, rather than having to manually read and retype the information if wanting to check calculations. 
And it should be as original as possible. Obviously, not so raw or original that it’s not usable. If you need to tidy up mark names in order for the information to match the CSD then those minimal edits are acceptable. 
And it should be as original as possible. Obviously, not so raw or original that its not usable. If you need to tidy up mark names for example, in order for the information to match the CSD, then those minimal edits are acceptable. 
It’s important that marks and measurements clearly relate to the marks and vectors in the CSD.
We have noticed some surveyors using a different font to distinguish what has been edited which can be helpful. Also annotating by strikethrough, the replaced information. This is a great way, if possible, to see what edits have taken place.
Alternatively, you could also include a diagram, annotating point numbers to survey marks. This image shows point numbers on a draft plan, its clearly part of QA checks, rather than a field record, but valuable information. 
If the field surveyor takes out a plan or diagram of precalc’d marks to search and annotates notes or mark numbers, descriptions or other details, including this can be very helpful.
You could also include a list of point numbers that relate to final mark names, just remember to include your checks too. 
What is important is we want the data before it is adjusted and manipulated so that if any errors are made in determining any derived vectors or whatever, we still have the ‘original’ data to check calculations. 
Useability is really defined as being easily read and interpreted by those who may not have a full understanding of the equipment and methods used. 
Can they look at your field information and go, that’s what they have done and move on from there. 
It should leave no doubt as to what was measured and how you measured it. (Please don’t including pre-calc marks in your reporting.) 
It should be clear what marks you have measured between, hence why mark names mentioned previously are important to record clearly. Obviously its more useable to have the relevant mark names within the one record you are referring to but being able to easily identify the marks is most important.
Your field information should include sufficient detail to enable others to correctly reduce or confirm the measured data. 
The direct measurements used in the determination of derived vectors. 
So, what does this really mean? Now you might say, this is my vector between these two points, but it’s not actually what was measured. You measured from the base station to that point and the base station to this point. It’s all very well to say oh yeah but I’ve got the coordinates. I just suck the coordinates out. But how can someone check that? A common mistake our teams come across, when something isn’t quite fitting, is when someone has entered an incorrect height of the base station and sea-level or ellipsoidal distance corrections have not been applied appropriately. 
So, what we want you to do, is include enough information, to prove that you have got it right first time. And this includes recording your base station information. 
The best way for your information to be usable, is it records the raw measurements that were used to derive the measurement that you’ve finally shown in your dataset.
Now, you can include additional reduction and adjustment information if you want, as a calculation sheet. It’s just not considered to be field information. Supplementary diagrams that help interpret field information are always encouraged.
As a bit of a summary, you could think of it this way… 
We want to know what was measured, how it was measured. For GNSS we want the information on the measurement quality, and we want to see your check measurements. 
And then finally, ask yourself, how you will defend the evidential value of definition, and verify the accuracy of measurements, if your required to.
The Cadastral Survey Guidelines, Content of a CSD page, gets into more specific detail, providing tables to illustrate the information that should be included in an electronic field information report. 
I encourage you to please refer to the guidance directly to see the specifics.
A final point from me is slightly adjacent to field information but can help support your evidence, especially around duty of care, and that is your methodology reporting. 
Rule 72(o) states your survey report must contain, a description of the type of equipment and methods used, to ensure compliance with accuracy standards in the Cadastral Survey Rules 2021. 
Your prompted to provide this information in section 7 of the automated report in Landonline and it’s in section 4 of the manual survey report template. 
A lot of surveyors are great at listing their equipment, including serial numbers, but the methodology could use some improvement. 
I would recommend using this section to maybe talk through your field information report, especially if it’s not a standardized one. Include information here that isn’t necessarily obvious in the field information. 
Please do not report just ‘RTK methods’, as this doesn’t give much information on how you are complying with accuracy standards. 
Time between the initial observation and check measurements is commonly mentioned. If you observe a mark and then rotate the pole 180° and take another shot, you could report that. 
If you have settings on your instrument in terms of what sort of accuracy you will accept you could include that. 
You could also note how you record your check measurements. Some surveyors include a check or ‘CHK’ code at the end of the survey mark name to distinguish, others use a set out option, however it isn’t always obvious. 
Whatever you do, detail it here and let the field information back up your statements. But just make sure it does. I’ve seen where the methodology stated check shots were at least an hour later, yet the field data showed 47 and 50 minutes.
Please make sure your methodology statement is accurate and true.  
A comprehensive methodology example is provided in the guidance, also on the Content of a CSD page, but further down the page under the heading ‘reporting on equipment and methodology’. 
Remember these datasets are a permanent record. We can go back and look at what surveyors recorded in the field 100 years ago. Think of the change in technology we have had even over the past 10-20 years and what surveyors might understand about our field information 100 years from now? So, while your report is written with technical surveyors in mind, you should still spell out the methods you are using to eliminate potential errors and meet the accuracy expectations.  
I’ll end on a reminder of where to find the guidance on field information. Cadastral Survey Guidelines, Content of a CSD page. 
If you have questions you want to ask LINZ about, a reminder you can lodge a survey information complex request within Landonline and our technical advisors will help if they can or refer you to an appropriate person. Just a quick note that the technical advisors cannot see your data within Landonline and can only see your supporting documents and plans if you have completed plan generation. Screenshots or diagrams of what you are trying to explain are very helpful to point us in the direction of the area you are asking about. Don’t just assume we can see what you are referring to. Chances are you have been working on this project a lot longer than our initial look at it so the quicker you can get us up to speed the easier it will be for us to respond. 
Lastly, if you have any suggestions on our guidance material or want to provide feedback, this can be done via the customer support email. 

Refer to:

Last updated