thebionicman, post: 424420, member: 8136 wrote: So far nobody has given an example of things i dont encounter here. The only thing shown is that Texans lacked the ability to create a sensible cadastre that covered a good bit of their lands. Y'al get the braggin righrs on that one.
Well, we're just remarking on how easy it must be to survey in PLSSia, given the simplicity of the system under which things began. A poster has even pointed out that in PLSSia, any survey marker can become an "original" corner, so it would appear that the passage of time works to further simplify things if the standard procedure it to navigate to the vicinity of where a corner is expected to be and then lock onto any survey marker found anywhere either (a) nearby or (b) to which a fence has been constructed.
Warren Smith, post: 424336, member: 9900 wrote: Urban research in the PLSS States is going to be much as it is anywhere that the original patents have been subdivided so densely as to limit the area beyond which repose of title has constrained the use of precise math to overcome the settlement pattern - much as it is in Singapore.
This is a great quote. If more surveyors only understood this, it would reduce a lot of the havoc and embarrassment our profession suffers from pincushion corners, "breaking down the section" for the umpteenth time, etc. Bravo!
Kent McMillan, post: 424422, member: 3 wrote: . A poster has even pointed out that in PLSSia, any survey marker can become an "original" corner,.
Which poster posted this?
Kent McMillan is the only poster I know of that posted this.
Dave Karoly, post: 424434, member: 94 wrote: Which poster posted this?.
There was a poster who expressed the idea that :
"The established* boundaries are identical to the record title"
and it's hardly a stretch to say that where the boundaries of the record title were originally marked by monuments and when any survey marker may become an established monument, then any survey marker can become an original corner. He didn't say what would happen when the actual original monument described in the record title came to light, but presumably that wouldn't interfere with the process of moving the record title to some position inconsistent with the record title.
Kent McMillan, post: 424441, member: 3 wrote: He didn't say what would happen when the actual original monument described in the record title came to light, but presumably that wouldn't interfere with the process of moving the record title to some position inconsistent with the record title.
Without doing a lot of these myself, I think that this potential conflict you mention is exactly why public lands surveys can be so difficult and uncertain. You've got today say a 10 acre parcel that is legally described as being related to this relatively massive 1 mile squarish parcel that was roughly layed out with crude equipment. The "controlling" corners may be thousands of feet to a mile away, and the lines run were never straight. Then we have more modern surveys, do these surveys have it correct? has someone missed an original corner? At what point can one just accept them without having to prove they are right? when do the lines become established? It seems to me that the "established" lines will never be exactly where the sectional breakdown will be, so one is left with the question of determining exactly when "establishment" has happened and when it hasn't happened. Doesn't seem so black and white to me.
roger_LS, post: 424466, member: 11550 wrote: Without doing a lot of these myself, I think that this potential conflict you mention is exactly why public lands surveys can be so difficult and uncertain. You've got today say a 10 acre parcel that is legally described as being related to this relatively massive 1 mile squarish parcel that was roughly layed out with crude equipment. The "controlling" corners may be thousands of feet to a mile away, and the lines run were never straight. Then we have more modern surveys, do these surveys have it correct? has someone missed an original corner? At what point can one just accept them without having to prove they are right? when do the lines become established? It seems to me that the "established" lines will never be exactly where the sectional breakdown will be, so one is left with the question of determining exactly when "establishment" has happened and when it hasn't happened. Doesn't seem so black and white to me.
My conclusion would be that surveying in urban areas within the PLSS is simplified by the fact that the task evidently just amounts in practice to figuring out approximately where some corner ought to be and then just looking for the markers upon which any further subdivisions have been based. Otherwise, there would be no way to estimate how much time it would take to actually find the original monuments of the government subdivision, and that would necessarily mean that no ethical surveyor would ever take on a survey for a fixed fee within that scenario.
Kent McMillan, post: 424441, member: 3 wrote: There was a poster who expressed the idea that :
"The established* boundaries are identical to the record title"
and it's hardly a stretch to say that where the boundaries of the record title were originally marked by monuments and when any survey marker may become an established monument, then any survey marker can become an original corner. He didn't say what would happen when the actual original monument described in the record title came to light, but presumably that wouldn't interfere with the process of moving the record title to some position inconsistent with the record title.
Yes, that states a completely different idea.
An original monument establishes the location of the record title, big giant DUH!!!
I'm getting the feeling reading all those issues of Architectural Digest have warped you mind.
thebionicman, post: 424420, member: 8136 wrote: So far nobody has given an example of things i dont encounter here. The only thing shown is that Texans lacked the ability to create a sensible cadastre that covered a good bit of their lands. Y'al get the braggin righrs on that one.
When Texas joined the Union it was smart enough to keep most of it lands. The Republic of Texas allowed anyone that had land given to them by the Spanish or Mexican land grants to keep their land.
I am sure there was a discussion, on whether or not Texas should switch to the easy land system of PLSS, many of the Founding Fathers of Texas were from Virginia and Tennessee which are Metes and Bounds States.
I am sure someone said, we just defeated the Mexican army, we have all these Spanish and Mexican Land Grants, everyone here is tough and smart and knows how to survey with Metes and Bounds, there is no need for us to go the easy and simple route with surveying. We value our land and we should have the best surveying we can get, we can leave the easy peasy survey method to the other States, besides who wants to live in a square within a square inside more squares.
Dave Karoly, post: 424485, member: 94 wrote: An original monument establishes the location of the record title, big giant DUH!!!
And when an "established" monument is later discovered to not be in the same position as the original monument, what happens to your idea that the record title is exactly coincident with the "established" lines of the tract?
Kent McMillan, post: 424488, member: 3 wrote: And when an "established" monument is later discovered to not be in the same position as the original monument, what happens to your idea that the record title is exactly coincident with the "established" lines of the tract
The established* boundaries are identical to the record title.
I know it's seems infinitely difficult for Enginners to understand this simple concept.
*established is a legal term of art and encompasses all the facts and law necessary to make the determination.
Dave Karoly, post: 424609, member: 94 wrote: The established* boundaries are identical to the record title.
I know it's seems infinitely difficult for Enginners to understand this simple concept.
*established is a legal term of art and encompasses all the facts and law necessary to make the determination.
Why do I get the idea that you haven't thought through the implications of maintaining that some locally recognized, but wrongly located monument is identical to a mark of some original survey from which the lands are described? An established boundary falls into a grey category in that it cannot be proven to be original and may in fact be at great variance with other evidence of the original survey, with the prospect of everything that flows from that should it occur.
Kent McMillan, post: 424621, member: 3 wrote: Why do I get the idea
Heck if I know where you get your incorrect ideas.
Kent McMillan, post: 424621, member: 3 wrote: Why do I get the idea that you haven't thought through the implications of maintaining that some locally recognized, but wrongly located monument is identical to a mark of some original survey from which the lands are described? An established boundary falls into a grey category in that it cannot be proven to be original and may in fact be at great variance with other evidence of the original survey, with the prospect of everything that flows from that should it occur.
Frankly, I'm surprised to learn you move incorrectly located original monuments. Haven't you thought through the havoc this causes?
Dave Karoly, post: 424631, member: 94 wrote: Heck if I know where you get your incorrect ideas.
Well, you interjected your pet musing on establishment into this discussion and I'm simply trying to figure out why you thought them relevant to a discussion of the merits of fixed fee surveying.
The only logical conclusion that comes to mind is that you feel that trying to find established corners either (a) complicates or (b) simplifies surveying in PLSSia. If it simplifies, then I'd think that as long as fences show up on on Google Earth, fixed fees would be likely a winner for all concerned since the survey needn't progress any further than the nearest fence post in the vicinity of a PLSS corner. If it complicates, then I'd think that you're arguing that the level of research necessary to determine whether some corner has been established in a location at variance with the original survey will tend to increase the amount of time that will be required by an unknown amount.
Scott Ellis, post: 424487, member: 7154 wrote: everyone here is tough and smart and knows how to survey with Metes and Bounds,
Your fellow Texan, Kent seems to disagree with you on this one.
roger_LS, post: 424636, member: 11550 wrote: Your fellow Texan, Kent seems to disagree with you on this one.
I tend to think that most of the PLSSers would be in for a real shock if they ever learned how much more difficult surveying in a metes and bounds state was compared to PLSSia. By "here", I understood Scott to be referring to Texas.
Kent McMillan, post: 424637, member: 3 wrote: I think Scott was referring to Texas.
Yes, I understand. Texas is well represented on this forum. Just noticing that from two Texans I'm getting opposite views. You seem to suggest that your area is filled with crappy bottom of the barrel surveyors who's work could only be improved if they were disallowed from fixed fee contracts, while Scott is suggesting that Texans surveyors are some of the smartest and finest in the world.
roger_LS, post: 424645, member: 11550 wrote: Yes, I understand. Texas is well represented on this forum. Just noticing that from two Texans I'm getting opposite views. You seem to suggest that your area is filled with crappy bottom of the barrel surveyors who's work could only be improved if they were disallowed from fixed fee contracts, while Scott is suggesting that Texans surveyors are some of the smartest and finest in the world.
Both are true, but I'd add that the worst work of Texas registrants I've seen lately has been from folks whose offices are in states outside of Texas. Not merely worse than usual, but breathtaking failures.
