Hacker News Reader

Comment by Someone1234 | Hacker News Reader

The biggest difference between an official site survey and you (or him) doing it themselves is liability. It is pretty clear from the language on the site that they aren't accepting legal liability and are just a convenience over doing it yourself using Google Maps or a tape-measure.

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.

View on HN

I largely agree with you, but it may be a situation where a disclaimer on the plans themselves would assuage the professional board.

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...

I think that is asking too much. Absence of certification from a licensed surveyor should be enough.

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

I've no idea why you're getting downvoted, as your comment is spot-on. Currently going through a permitting process for small modification in my yard, and the town is very explicit about what needs a certified engineer's stamp and what does not need it. It is a very specific requirement and specific thing to produce.

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.

> 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).

>> it would be unconstitutional (first amendment; free speech) to restrict the act of "making a map"

Excellent point — go file an Amicus brief!

It is already one of the primary claims in the lawsuit

> I think that is asking too much.

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 think that is asking too much. Absence of certification from a licensed surveyor should be enough.

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.

When you say "that are fake -- he's not a land surveyor, he's not licensed to sell these" it seems to me that the fakeness is based on who is providing them, not on what he's selling. Have I understood your point correctly?

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?

Yes. A fake doesn't always mean "defective", it can mean a forgery, inauthentic source or unprotected chain. A "fake Rolex" for example, might be a perfectly fine functional watch, but if it's not actually from Rolex, it's a fake. Or A "fake License" can be one where you lied or tricked the government into giving you one (valid document, valid source, inauthentic chain of procedure)

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)

Is any other watch a fake rolex or any photo ID a fake license?

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.

> fakes and frauds happen constantly

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

It is and it isn't. While not technically required by what you said, it would be trivial for the business to add a small watermark at the bottom of the page, and would add an extra layer of CYA for the business.

It's not reasonable to see the disclaimer on the website and then conclude the opposite is true.

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.

the disclaimers must be on the digital and physical documents. not everyone who will ever handle them will know their origin, authenticity, or how to validate them.

Everyone who sees them that is expecting certified engineering plans or a surveyor’s plat will know this isn’t that as it won’t have the correct stamp on it. Adding a disclaimer is like writing “this is not a car” on a bicycle.

i wonder if you would notice a dollar bill that had slightly different wording on it, or was missing some words. even though you handle cash every day, even if you're a teller at a bank.

The correct analogy is if your job is to handle cheques and someone hands you an IOU lacking any account number or signature that wasn't even addressed to them or their electric bill.

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.

Yet, people buy mass numbers of bicycle-shaped-objects that they believe to be bicycles. So there might be a good way to apply to the bicycle analogy.

Your example is a poor one, since no reasonable person could confuse those two items.

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.

If I work in an office that requires plans to be done by a professional surveyor, it's my job to authenticate submissions I receive. If that requirement doesn't exist, then it doesn't matter. Your argument seems to depend on wholly imaginary future victims.

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.

Office workers approving applications are not the only people who will see these. Users may include (disgruntled) neighbours, and anyone who will at some point need to know what the measurements on a site are to do their job correctly, legally, and/or safely. The possibility for misinterpretation is clear, and the fix is trivial.

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.

Do you think it would be a good idea to make it a legal requirement for (almost) every map produced in the USA to contain a disclaimer? Or perhaps 50 disclaimers because each state might have its own requirements for exactly what needs to be disclaimed? But why stop at maps? Perhaps every kind of document should come with a 100-page booklet of standard disclaimers? That'll stop people from getting confused!

the law may very well be stupid, which is a different discussion.

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.

Site/plot plans are not maps...since your remark comes off as arrogantly dismissive of the fundamental difference between explicit dimensioned features and implicit qualitative scale in bad faith.

> It's not reasonable to see the disclaimer on the website and then conclude the opposite is true.

Unless the only context in which anyone will ever view those plans is on that website, I don't see how this is relevant.

I explained this in the third paragraph.

A disclaimer is completely unnecessary on the plans, as official maps by surveyors or engineers have their stamps on them. The absence of those stamps proves it’s not trying to pass as a surveyor’s map.

The guild cannot allow this type of tech to exist and foster lest it become normalized and somehow eventually displace thier exclusivity for certified documents. If I was a surveyor I would want this guy crushed.

> they aren't accepting legal liability and are just a convenience over doing it yourself

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".

Why not?

Because laws override contracts.

Yes, they do get to choose exactly that.

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.

You do not get to choose whether you are liable when providing a service or product. You can't just say "Sorry, not liable if this widget blows up." Otherwise, and I know this is a big brain moment: everyone and every corporation would "choose" to not be liable for anything.

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.

> You can't just say "Sorry, not liable if this widget blows up."

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.

In this case, the work product does not need to be generated by a licensed professional. Informal drawings are useful for a multitude of purposes. If the user of the drawing doesn't need it to be certified, and I can make one on a napkin, why should it be illegal for a third party to draw it on napkin for me.

What is exchanged for the napkin, though? That's generally where courts draw the line between helping out a friend, and providing a service.

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.

> That's generally where courts draw the line between helping out a friend, and providing a service.

The point is that it isn't the same service being provided and they are very upfront about that with the customer.

When you provide what is legally considered to be a service, it comes with legal guarantees. You don't generally get to escape by saying something doesn't count, no matter how upfront about it, that you are. Consumer protections exist, regardless of whether you say they shouldn't apply.

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.

As noted in many other places, the very lack of a mark is exactly why these cannot be used in places where they have to be certified. Anyone that accepts it in that case, is in the wrong.

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.

It kinda depends on whether you're charging money and how. I can express legal opinions all day, without being a lawyer. I can write a blog with my legal opinions. I can sit in a room with you and regale you with them.

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.

The entire tax reporting industry would like a word with you. :(

I am also not a lawyer, but I think states don't want there to be confusion between "licensed professionals" and people providing a service that could be mistaken for work done by a licensed professional:

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

It's somewhat interesting to use the disclaimer that one isn't a lawyer in a paragraph stating that such disclaimers are invalid.

In my experience, people generally believe that stating one isn't a doctor or lawyer protects against an accusation of practicing without a license.

> 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!

There's a difference, in that discussing the law and the implications of it are things we expect people to do constantly and not just by lawyers. For instance, I'm sure a lot of discussions in Wall Street around the contract Musk signed for Twitter were done by non-lawyers.

I do not think that such a disclaimer would help if we were talking about your, djoldman's, plea bargain negotiations.

> The rules to cut hair in NY are harder than the rules to be a computer programmer:

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.

It depends. You can’t just disclaim:

“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.

Dog food is regulated by the FDA, 'not for human consumption' doesn't get you out of food safety requirements.

Fair, I was thinking in the context of state/local regs…but you get my point.

And typically dog food is rated for human consumption anyway, simply so that when a baby eats the dog food and coincidentally gets sick, the dog food manufacturer can avoid expensive legal battles.

“I am not an electrician and will not accept liability for any house fires. Having said that, what do you need rewired in your kitchen?”

In that case you are selling the equivalent service (ie rewiring, which is regulated). In this case the service being sold is not the same (approximate versus legally certified maps).

He's not claiming to provide "regulated professional services", in fact quite the opposite. If the California statute or regulation in question says that it is, it's wildly overbroad.

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.

But it is perfectly normal to limit liability on the basis of known limitations of the product. And liability will often depend on the client working within certain constraints.

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.

> 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.

Seems like the big mapping companies you mention should file amicus briefs in his favour.

>will infringe on Californian's right to simply draw a map of their home or business

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 licensure has totally gone off the rails. But this doesn't strike me as the best example. Just get the license. Your 2nd paragraph has gone further off.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com