He is conspicuous in his absence.
He started the fire, then stepped outside to watch, it seems.
Come on back Carl. It would appear that you’ve been largely vindicated by your M & B brethren.
Hopefully he's out making a dollar.
I have it from a reliable source that he is still at the bank trying to sort out their muck up. Or maybe he's moved on and is now in a pitched fight with Verizon. Carl is just not all Surveying.
GO HOKIES!
I'm HERE!!!
I'm here!! I HAVE been busy drafting and doing research... Trying to make some $$$.
I've also been watching, reading and learning from people on both sides of the argument that are much smarter and more learned in these areas than I am (I'm being serious). I said what I wanted to, and knew why I did it, and stand by what I did, but had trouble fine-tuning the EXACT statements that I was trying to make. I thank Mr. Kent McMillan and Mr. Dennis Fenton especially in clarifying what I was trying to say, without being able to find the exact words... I kinda got gun-shy for a time, I will admit that.
But, I also thank everyone else that chimed in with an opinion, because most, if not all were at least heart-felt in their honesty and conviction.
If nothing else, I'm glad I got some people talking and thinking.
I hope and wish Mr. Williams (and Mr. David Ingram) will come back soon, I learn from him (them), as I do Mr. McMillan in some way shape or form almost every day.
How's that, Greg? 😉
Happy Thursday to ya!
I'm HERE!!!
Glad you’re back Carl.
He number of threads and posts generated by your seemingly innocent question “did I pincushion?” reminds me of the Stone v. Pipe thread started by Deral a year or so ago.
It is amazing how the opinions vary from different regions of the country. I attribute it primarily to the profound differences between PLSS and M & B systems. The posts generated by your initial question confirmed by belief that methods are quite similar throughout the M & B regions, with the possible exception of New England.
I'm HERE!!!
> Glad you’re back Carl.
Thanks Greg, thanks for asking.
>
> The number of threads and posts generated by your seemingly innocent question “did I pincushion?” reminds me of the Stone v. Pipe thread started by Deral a year or so ago.
>
That's EXACTLY what I've been thinking.
> It is amazing how the opinions vary from different regions of the country. I attribute it primarily to the profound differences between PLSS and M & B systems. The posts generated by your initial question confirmed by belief that methods are quite similar throughout the M & B regions, with the possible exception of New England.
That seems to be true. But, I also thought it funny that people that always bellow the "repeatable" or "reproducible" polygon argument also had no issue with me fudging numbers a few tenths... That one still has me stumped...
Anyway, I learn so much from this board that there is no way I could walk away from it... even after getting my buttt spanked a bit...
So, it's all good in my 'hood!!
I'm HERE!!!
Carl
It was a very thought-provoking post. Even with so many comments on that particular thread and other threads that followed, I'm sure there were even more people who spent their time listening, and not commenting.
Brad
I'm HERE!!!
Carl,
Glad you are still around. I have thought over this situation many times, on whether a pin or pipe (of known origin or not) set within a reasonable closeness is the actual right-of-way limit through which the right-of-way line bends or not. I have debated both ways on this issue.
However, when it comes down to it, when I am actually retracing a right-of-way line (and not every individual property adjoining that right of way) although I will generally look for and locate all of the property pins I find along the way, I do not show and describe a line that jogs at every lot corner. I come up with the retracement of that straight right-of-way line the best I can, and show pins along the way. It has kind of struck me that I don't really care if the pin is within 0.14 of my exact math or not. The property owner could cut grass to that point "inside" the right of way, if you want to call it inside, or not. What the highway department will most likely do, is build a fence a foot or more inside my straight line marks, and maintain inside that fence. the only time they will get outside the fence, is probably to maintain the fence itself.
0.14' is, for the most part, kind of the old clichè, "good enough for guv'ment work". I also think that is probably why you don't see real court cases resolving this issue. The pins are close enough, and I doubt I would ever set a monument 0.14 away from the existing one in that environment. Also, if there is not enough existing original right-of-way monuments, I would probably use that pipe in its position to help me re-establish the original right-of-way limit. So, although I don't show a bend in my right-of-way plat at every pin I see along the way, to a certain extent I am accepting of those monuments. In my mind they are generally withing that magic big fat line that makes up the right of way, and they generally fit to my published bearing and distance.
Now that may be wrong, but, at some level it is something that is just not worth it to me. I think of a section line in the same general thinking.....I don't necessarily argue with any property pins along a section line, but I don't draw a hundred little jogs between each and every pin that I find along the line.
I have seen private property pins set wrong before.....just misinterpreting the actual right-of-way math. To that I will object. But if I see no significant reason to think that a pipe was set "wrongly" I won't protest it. As someone else pointed out, the actual right-of-way monuemnt may have settled or adjusted that much since the pipe was set. It may have been set at a time when the old right-of-way monuments were closer to their original position. It may be an actual witness to the original right-of-way location.
Sorry for the ramblings. Glad (again) to see you are still here, and didn't take your ball and go home.
