Activity Feed › Discussion Forums › Strictly Surveying › A way to avoid changing record.
-
A way to avoid changing record.
Posted by Bear Bait on January 10, 2014 at 8:14 pmI have seen this several times in the past but it came up yesterday on a plat I am retracing and I find it an interesting approach to avoiding changing record. Basic Idea – If you find existing Monumentation to be within the required tolerances (1:10,000 in this case) of record bearing and distance then that’s what is returned as found on plat. So – you do not plat what you actually found but perpetuate deed calls.
This allows a potential missed position found/record difference of say .5 foot on a 40 acre survey and still return deed calls.
I don’t do this but don’t see where it violates anything regulatory wise. Am I missing something?shawn-billings replied 10 years, 8 months ago 17 Members · 35 Replies -
35 Replies
-
I like putting my measured distances on my plat. It shows what I did and reports my measurements for retracing surveyors to compare to.
I wonder if you could put down you record measurement on the line as you suggest and add (xxx.xx as measured) in parentheses. ? Then have your primary record area written as the area. Perhaps only do it that way when you are in a situation where a minimum area is some kind of requirement and your “as-measured” distances would lessen the area.
I hate changing a good plat for political reasons only, but maybe that is a way to help your client and still show your survey data.
-
I generally don’t change record if I am within a tenth or so depending on accuracy required for area. That’s to say as long as closure is within required. In our rural areas the closure is 1:5000 and for BLM it is 1:2500 so there is potential to vary greatly from found and still hold record. I was just wondering if this is a common type of surveying practice. It seems to be a way of avoiding liability.
-
> I generally don’t change record if I am within a tenth or so depending on accuracy required for area. That’s to say as long as closure is within required. In our rural areas the closure is 1:5000 and for BLM it is 1:2500 so there is potential to vary greatly from found and still hold record. I was just wondering if this is a common type of surveying practice. It seems to be a way of avoiding liability.
When I create a plat, I generally put down my measurement between existing monuments as my primary distance, and the record distance parenthetically with an abbreviatio such as “rec” for “record”.
I write down both measurements even if they are within a tenth of each other or if they are feet out. This is not to claim the other distance is “wrong” but just to show my measurements.
I think I see your point (the requirement is to be within X:X000 and I got the same measurement within that precision).
My point is similary (The requirement is to be within X:X000 and I measured “X” which matches within that precision.) annotating my measurement shows the retracing surveyor that I matched the distance within the tolerance and it also gives them a number to compare to when they measure it.
I’ll be curious to see how others prefer to do this.
-
Our BOR asks us to report our findings to an accuracy of 1:10,000 (or as I like to do it, as close to actual as I can with what I have to work with)
When it does not show what the record shows, I do not actually worry about it as much as a lawyer or title person, if I worry about it at all because that is what I found.
This lawyer, title person or other has the choice to use whatever description they want, as they have proven to me, by doing just that after many new surveys are never to see the light of day in the records.
Most of what I survey and as others survey, are residue tracts that 50% of the measurements are to monuments that bound what is remaining and has never had a record call. Anything written in the margins or penciled in are deduced amounts and not record information.
I am in the progress of retracing a few original Headright boundaries from the mid 1800s that the monuments are there and my measured distances are not that close to original calls. They do match within a few feet from calls that were made when they were divided into smaller tracts in the early 1900s.
There are also a few record distances that were clearly deduced from what should be left and those distances do not match what is on the ground.
To end, I can not control the record, I can only report what I find to be there today.
0.02
-
> I have seen this several times in the past but it came up yesterday on a plat I am retracing and I find it an interesting approach to avoiding changing record. Basic Idea – If you find existing Monumentation to be within the required tolerances (1:10,000 in this case) of record bearing and distance then that’s what is returned as found on plat. So – you do not plat what you actually found but perpetuate deed calls.
> This allows a potential missed position found/record difference of say .5 foot on a 40 acre survey and still return deed calls.
> I don’t do this but don’t see where it violates anything regulatory wise. Am I missing something?Merely reporting measured and (record) on a record of survey doesn’t change the “record calls”. This usually only happens when one re-writes the legal description (most of the time unnecessarily so), and the re-write is used in a conveyance.
-
> I generally don’t change record if I am within a tenth or so depending on accuracy required for area. That’s to say as long as closure is within required. In our rural areas the closure is 1:5000 and for BLM it is 1:2500 so there is potential to vary greatly from found and still hold record. I was just wondering if this is a common type of surveying practice. It seems to be a way of avoiding liability.
This wouldn’t be changing ‘record’ it would be indicating a difference from record. I always show measured and record distances. In fact it’s an Idaho and I believe WA statute that you must show record distances that indicate something different that what you measured.
The only way around here to change the record would be via an updated legal description. Something like a legal description as a result of survey which would start out as being XXXXXX parcel of land….more particularly described as follows.
-
> Our BOR asks us to report our findings to an accuracy of 1:10,000 (or as I like to do it, as close to actual as I can with what I have to work with)
>
not any more. new rules don’t make any mention of precision. weird, I know. -
In this situation it is a subdivision creating new lots from existing. So it is an effort to carry over record calls into new lot descriptions.
My curiosity is how many surveyors allow 2 tenths 3 tenths etc. differences (fnd/record) because it falls in required accuracy before they start reporting differences from record on plats. -
Typically I would show “deed” or “record” distance along with my ” measured” distance.
-
> In this situation it is a subdivision creating new lots from existing. So it is an effort to carry over record calls into new lot descriptions.
> My curiosity is how many surveyors allow 2 tenths 3 tenths etc. differences (fnd/record) because it falls in required accuracy before they start reporting differences from record on plats.If it is a subdivision, then your “deed call” is the current subdivision plat. On the new subdivision plat, show measured and (record).
-
> > In this situation it is a subdivision creating new lots from existing. So it is an effort to carry over record calls into new lot descriptions.
> > My curiosity is how many surveyors allow 2 tenths 3 tenths etc. differences (fnd/record) because it falls in required accuracy before they start reporting differences from record on plats.
>
> If it is a subdivision, then your “deed call” is the current subdivision plat. On the new subdivision plat, show measured and (record).Forgive me if I’m wrong; but I think you are missing his point:
At what point do you start saying measured and recorded are different? 0.01 feet? 10 seconds? 0.10 feet? 10 minutes?
Some have a very high tolerance level; others don’t want to let anything that they didn’t find to be perfect, let slip by.
Doug
I hope everyone has a great day; I know I will! -
Perhaps I am reading this wrong
I thought a new subdivision was being created. It happens to fall within a previously surveyed tract with record distances and bearings. The measured distances/bearings vary a bit with record but are within “tolerance”. If you assign a new distance/bearing you also create a gore or gap with the adjacent, undistrubed properties that should coincide with the outer boundaries of the subdivision you are about to create. Uh, oh! Somebody’s got some ‘splainin’ to do. (As Ricky used to say.)
I see the question as being, why not use the record distances/bearings when they fall within “tolerance”?
Did I get that right or am I swimming in jello?
-
On that note, it changes in relation to the value of the land and the survey job.
After spending time laying out bolt hole locations and placement of machinery, I found that there is quite a difference price being charged for the amount of accuracy you were being responsible for providing.
I also learned to turn a deaf ear to anyone that was harping about what measured out to be insignificant amounts.
Some 30+ years ago a competitor began attacking my work in order to steal away one of my best ever clients. After a conversation with my client about my results of being different from another surveyor and what it was costing him in buying and selling property, I handed the man a quarter and said that this will cover any possible losses he has encountered from my work. He never said another word about that.
The location, price and requirements of surveys are reflected by the number of decimal places we charge for and how accurate we certify to.
B-)
-
Perhaps I am reading this wrong
In my opinion, it is not reasonable for others to expect the “same” record dimensions because we surveyors, and we only, understand that ALL measurements are imperfect to some degree. We know that numbers on a piece of paper are NOT likely to be exactly as measured on the ground.
When I see a plat that purports measurements the exact same as record, I am suspicious of the survey.
I have had very few problems with someone not liking my measurements being “different” than record, or changing record.
I state on the plat and explain that my measurements and the record are the SAME LINE ON THE GROUND.
-
Perhaps I am reading this wrong
>create a gore or gap
No way. There was and still is only one boundary. The deed or survey plat is just the “treasure map” to find the land on the ground, so show record and measured.
. -
Perhaps I am reading this wrong
Yes Holy Cow, you got the question right. Concise. Excellent point about gore or gap on adjoining property. It is very easy to get raped up with the piece you are surveying and forget about neighbors.
-
>
>
> I also learned to turn a deaf ear to anyone that was harping about what measured out to be insignificant amounts.
>
>
> B-)I agree with you in a big way. The older I get, the less I care about hundredths.
This is something that I was conflicted over for a couple of years. I just didn’t want to change my measurements at all. But over time I realized the utter futility of worrying about a couple of hundredths here or there. Unless were talking downtown Tokyo, very little matters at less than a tenth, and I am more apt to hold record for any measured differences less than that.
Stephen
-
Perhaps I am reading this wrong
I agree with you except on the point of creating gaps or gores. You are not doing that. The property still runs from iron to iron, whatever the distance. No gap. No overlap.
Stephen
-
Perhaps I am reading this wrong
> Excellent point about gore or gap on adjoining property.
I disagree. See my reply to Santa Vaca.
Stephen
Log in to reply.