first: wendell/angel, i'd ask that this stays here in the non-surveying area for reasons that may be obvious to some, not to others, or whatever. i don't personally have anything to worry about with this, and maybe nobody does, but, that said:
thinking it'd be fun to share what our most memorable/engimatic/notable/stupid/etc. surveys were. i don't know why, this thought came to me last night as i was on my run with the dogs, through this very plat (which is about 1/2 a mile from my house). this was one of the very first plats i signed as a registrant. i also personally did all the drafting on it. the first round took probably 6 weeks, from analysis and tweaking of the civil's cad files and lot layouts to the final product. then it got revised. probably 10 times. so another 3-5 days each time adjusting calls, checking for closures, yadda yadda. finally it gets recorded and about a month later i get a call from a CAD tech at the appraisal district. i'd missed changing ONE of the "L34" calls on the plat, blew the closure on the block, and the whole thing had to get re-filed. hahahahaha. anyways, this neighborhood is... well, i'm in texas: bless its heart...
here's a PUE i wrote for the adjoining retail section of the same development.
?ÿ
?ÿ
well never mind, i reckon...
Surveyors sharing mistakes? Not going to happen. Most I know are perfect.
?ÿ
A PLSSia mistake I recall:?ÿ Beginning at the southeast corner of the northeast quarter of the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter.
It was actually:?ÿ Beginning at the southeast corner of the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter.
Then a nicely dimensioned tract went from there.?ÿ By adding the extra "of the northeast quarter" things got moved to where they could not be as someone else owned that property.
Went through closing and filing of all documents.?ÿ It was the County Appraiser who was also responsible for mapping in those days who figured out what I had done.?ÿ Although it was embarrassing, to say the least, for a young surveyor to have to admit to the mistake, the cost to clean things up was minimal and everyone involved?ÿ behaved well.
I moved to Texas once...
that stuff i posted ain't a texas thing, as far as i'm concerned- it's an OVERENGINEERING thing. i ran that project for almost a decade. i don't think there's a square tenth out of the 700 acres that isn't encumbered by an easement or a setback of some kind.
1850 Deed reads the south 1.25 square Spanish leagues off the rancho, the north line to be perpendicular to the east line of the rancho grant (first ridge inland from the Pacific Ocean, about a mile inland).
There is an 1860 County Surveyor map, shows bearing of N30E, perpendicular bearing is about N40E.
1880s Deed of north adjoiner property calls for Smith's fence (our predecessor in title) and runs on a bearing of about N40E in about the right location. There is a fence out there.
So there is a gap between County Surveyor 1860 and Smith's fence.
1911 Q/C only on north side somehow tries to clear up the mess but doesn't involve Smith.
So adjoiner's surveyor shows fence as boundary, south line of his Deed (Smith's fence) running about say N43E of that (huh?)-this line becomes the split the baby settlement later. He says the Q/C covers the gap.
our expert, great guy, very smart, high opinion of himself, in my humble opinion, outsmarted himself on this one. He fell hard for the CS 1860 "line" which was just a bogus diagram in my opinion.
I think the confusion stemmed from the segment of Rancho line we intersected was about 10 chains longer than record, can't find any monuments nearby to prove it though. Found a very sketchy topo call 4 miles north (monumented by Clair Hill early 1960s) and a huge madrone 4 miles south with angle points in between. A lot of logging and burnover destruction.
We surveyed the 1860 line.
lawsuit.
eventually settled by other Surveyors line not the line.
I started the mess when I didn't really understand the problem, retired chief surveyor/expert swooped in as consultant and, well I don't blame him really, just an opinion.
upshot is I think the other surveyor was right for the wrong reasons. Throw away the bogus 1911 Q/C which did nothing, accept that 1880 m&b Deed was a survey and the fence was still there. The fence is the best evidence of where the CS actually walked in 1860, not his screwed up diagram. Voila there is no problem.
I learned a valuable lesson about H.I.'s. My 4 wheeler has a mount over the wheel and I located a field for a new campus. The H.I. is 4.3', well I imputed 3.4'. Had to pick up the cost for a redesign.?ÿ
Went looking for the answer to a very specific question.?ÿ The width of a road along a certain path.
Source A says 50', the same as the entry directly above on the same page
Source B says 60'
Source C shows 50'
Sources D and E show 60'
Note:?ÿ Sources C, D and E are by the same person who must have referred to Source A the first time and Source B the other two times.
The ultimate answer should have been stated in a different book but no one has been able to locate that book in over five years.?ÿ My guess is it has been misappropriated and sold a page at a time for profit.
Sources A and B are used routinely to answer such questions.?ÿ This is the first time I have discovered different answers to the same question.
