I'm confused

[Tom Adams]

I remember going to a talk by Gary Kent on ALTA surveys. He presented a plat in his talk, where he delineated the plat distances and bearings and showed found property pins “0.0x’N X by 0.0y’W” of the platted position. I specifically asked about that. I wondered why he wasn’t accepting the pin locations as the actual corner locations. He indicated he was, but was just also showing how much away from the platted position the monuments were.

My argument is (was) that it is confusing (even to another surveyor) whether or not he was accepting the corners. I said that it was my opinion that you should annotate the measured vs the platted distances to the monuments, and that way, it was more clear that the monuments were the focus, and you were just showing what your measurements were vs. what was platted.

I’m sure I didn’t convince him, but the point is that many surveyors probably are saying that they are accepting the monuments and just showing how close they fit the plat. (Some argue that they are just showing the plat and where the monuments are in relation to the plat, and that it’s not up to them to decide which is the actual corner. I consider that a cop-out).

[ridge]

[sarcasm]If you really want to know you need to get a judge to decide![/sarcasm]

[lmbrls]

Resofreakinglutely

[WA-IDSurveyor]

RADAR, post: 347959, member: 413 wrote: Does anybody here do this:

You do a survey in a small town in an old plat from Dec, 1908.
You show finding 2 brass monuments, 800 feet from your survey, on the next street.
You show plat dimensions, from these monuments, and that you found several rebar and caps anywhere from 0.4′ to 0.1′ from the platted position.

I don’t get it; what’s that supposed to mean? Are these found corners wrong and the plat dimensions right? 20 years from now, when someone else buys this property and finds these corners. Are they supposed to just know that these do not represent the property corner?

I see this kind of thing all the time and it’s all over the place, by lots of different surveyors. Is this some kind of way to CYA? Don’t hang your hat on anything; leave it up to the consumer to decide what’s in their best interest?

If this is standard practice where you work; please enlighten me with the reasons….

Thank you,
Dougie

A clear map makes those that follow in their footsteps much easier. Admittedly I dont have a problem with a surveyor not agreeing with the monuments he found…after all he is the professional and should have conducted proper research and made his determinations based on that. With that said, if you do not accept monuments you should explain why on the face of your survey. A survey without a narrative can be very confusing and bewildering. Why did he/she not accept the mon 0.2 feet from the platted position.

[BajaOR]

I’m not arguing against your point, but to make this post more educational, let’s say these several (say 3) found monuments are all along a single street frontage and: #1 is 0.4′ into the calc’d street; #2 is 0.2′ into the calc’d lot; #3 is 0.3′ into the calc’d street. They are off the calc’d lot lines by similar amounts. This is commercial property, having no property setback requirements (one can build right up to the lot lines and right up to the street r/w line. Where is the street R/W? Where are the lot lines at the 3 monuments? Would your answer be the same if the controlling brass caps were 50 feet from 2 of the 3 monuments? Would you accept a found monument 1.3′ away from it’s calc’d location if the controlling brass caps were a half mile away (same ratio as .4′ in 800 feet).

[Norman_Oklahoma]

Sometimes there are monuments that are not controlling, IMO, but just happen to fall exactly (or close enough thereto to be said to) at a corner. Which seems to be what Mr. Kent is doing. But I wouldn’t annotate them that way.

[a-harris]

IMVHO, that is the difference between a Surveyor with a license and someone that should not have a license.

I was taught and have been instructed to report what I find. When I find original monuments or monuments that I accept to be the corners of the property, I show what I measured between those monuments and show that as measured.

When I find a 3/4 inch iron pipe and my measurement results in it being 0.01ft north and 0.04ft east of call location, I will report that I found the 3/4 inch iron pipe at the called location because it is within the tolerance values of monument location according to my BOR.

0.02

[MightyMoe]

Sorry, I just don’t get that, if it’s an original then it’s 0′ x 0′ from the plat, if it’s an acceptable retraced monument it’s 0′ x 0′ also.

If it’s something else then the surveyor needs to resolve it.

[dmyhill]

This subject is one that is hotly discussed. Perhaps you could post an image of an example of how you handle such a thing.

In some cases, one might argue that measured vs calc or plat on a line could be confusing. As a surveyor, we work out what is meant by various means, hopefully directed by the narrative.

With the “0.1′ N x 0.2’E” note, things are very clear to me, the surveyor. But to homeowner Bill, he just wants to know where, on the actual ground his property resides. And for him, that note is not always clear.

---

-All thoughts my own, except my typos and when I am wrong.

[jhframe]

A Harris, post: 347997, member: 81 wrote: I was taught and have been instructed to report what I find…When I find a 3/4 inch iron pipe and my measurement results in it being 0.01ft north and 0.04ft east of call location, I will report that I found the 3/4 inch iron pipe at the called location

That sounds like a contradiction to me. Or do you not really believe your own measurements?

[warren-smith]

In the jigsaw puzzle that is the typical block retracement, do you feel comfortable calling found monuments off by such little amounts, based on holding two others? Another way to view this is how precisely do you set your monuments?

[ridge]

Found GLO stone for the NE Corner of Section 8.

Stone is 345.26 feet North and 125.74 feet East of the calc’d position based on the township corner and original subdivision plat.

The township corner is 15,352.45 feet South and 5,927.34 feet West from the calc’d position based upon Initial Point of the Salt Lake Meridian and the chaining therefrom.

The Salt Lake Meridian Initial Point is 1878.63 feet North and 1089.04 feet East of the Latitude and Longitude given for it.

Just reporting the facts! Your property corner is in the next town from here.[sarcasm] Sorry.[/sarcasm]

[Williwaw]

The end sum of the proverbial $300 survey. What really gets my goat is when the surveyor shows setting of monuments that represent the corners of some lot or parcel they’ve surveyed and provide nary a clue as to what they used by way of control to arrive at their conclusion, making it basically impossible for someone like myself following afterward to glean what and how they arrived at their conclusion. Without the underlying basis of their reasoning, conclusion and control held and rejected, that ‘found’ monument they state is .2′ away from the platted position, is utterly meaningless.

---

Willy

[Beer Legs]

RADAR, post: 347959, member: 413 wrote: Does anybody here do this:

You do a survey in a small town in an old plat from Dec, 1908.
You show finding 2 brass monuments, 800 feet from your survey, on the next street.
You show plat dimensions, from these monuments, and that you found several rebar and caps anywhere from 0.4′ to 0.1′ from the platted position.

I don’t get it; what’s that supposed to mean? Are these found corners wrong and the plat dimensions right? 20 years from now, when someone else buys this property and finds these corners. Are they supposed to just know that these do not represent the property corner?

I see this kind of thing all the time and it’s all over the place, by lots of different surveyors. Is this some kind of way to CYA? Don’t hang your hat on anything; leave it up to the consumer to decide what’s in their best interest?

If this is standard practice where you work; please enlighten me with the reasons….

Thank you,
Dougie

Well.. It’s better to be confused instead of cornfused….I guess..:-P

[Brian Allen]

RADAR, post: 347959, member: 413 wrote: Does anybody here do this:

You do a survey in a small town in an old plat from Dec, 1908.
You show finding 2 brass monuments, 800 feet from your survey, on the next street.
You show plat dimensions, from these monuments, and that you found several rebar and caps anywhere from 0.4′ to 0.1′ from the platted position.

I don’t get it; what’s that supposed to mean? Are these found corners wrong and the plat dimensions right? 20 years from now, when someone else buys this property and finds these corners. Are they supposed to just know that these do not represent the property corner?

I see this kind of thing all the time and it’s all over the place, by lots of different surveyors. Is this some kind of way to CYA? Don’t hang your hat on anything; leave it up to the consumer to decide what’s in their best interest?

If this is standard practice where you work; please enlighten me with the reasons….

Unfortunately, this appears to be “standard practice” in some areas. And as already stated, there is a difference between surveys made by professional land surveyors and those made by “others” that shouldn’t hold a license.

Do we really need to debate which controls, the “record data” on the plat (or in the description), or what the original surveyor laid out on the ground? Lets hope not……

[Rich.]

Brian Allen, post: 348062, member: 1333 wrote: Unfortunately, this appears to be “standard practice” in some areas. And as already stated, there is a difference between surveys made by professional land surveyors and those made by “others” that shouldn’t hold a license.

Do we really need to debate which controls, the “record data” on the plat (or in the description), or what the original surveyor laid out on the ground? Lets hope not……

Well to me the original poster wasn’t debating plat vs what the original surveyor left in the ground. I think he was debating plat vs found markers set by others retracing later on.

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

[Rich.]

RADAR, post: 347959, member: 413 wrote: Does anybody here do this:

You do a survey in a small town in an old plat from Dec, 1908.
You show finding 2 brass monuments, 800 feet from your survey, on the next street.
You show plat dimensions, from these monuments, and that you found several rebar and caps anywhere from 0.4′ to 0.1′ from the platted position.

I don’t get it; what’s that supposed to mean? Are these found corners wrong and the plat dimensions right? 20 years from now, when someone else buys this property and finds these corners. Are they supposed to just know that these do not represent the property corner?

I see this kind of thing all the time and it’s all over the place, by lots of different surveyors. Is this some kind of way to CYA? Don’t hang your hat on anything; leave it up to the consumer to decide what’s in their best interest?

If this is standard practice where you work; please enlighten me with the reasons….

Thank you,
Dougie

I don’t think anywhere says you need to accept found pins with caps unless they were set by the original surveyor during the original survey.

If they were pins set by someone doing retracement there is no reason you must accept them. To me it’s called a difference in professional opinion.

What if you had better evidence than him? What if he had found evidence you didn’t? Not all will come up with the same opinion and this is why I might show a pin found as being 0.3’N and 0.2’E.

Now, 0.04N 0.01E is on the money. That is getting reflagged and painted and shown as pin found at corner. Not that I don’t trust my measurements but a half inch is a half inch. Over a 4 setup traverse there’s enough random error that the precision of 0.04 would be silly to guarantee being more precise than another. At those ‘offsets’ the ‘true corner’ would still be on the plastic cap anyway!

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

[Brian Allen]

“You show plat dimensions, from these monuments, and that you found several rebar and caps anywhere from 0.4′ to 0.1′ from the platted position.
I don’t get it; what’s that supposed to mean? Are these found corners wrong and the plat dimensions right? 20 years from now, when someone else buys this property and finds these corners. Are they supposed to just know that these do not represent the property corner?”
I guess I‰Ûªm confused about the OP. I understood the OP to be a complaint about so called “surveyors‰Û exclusively using math and record data projected from distant monuments to apparently either reject found monuments or not being specific about if they are accepting the found pins or not. I may be way out to lunch, but if I find capped monuments a few tenths from a reasonable search position estimated from a 1908 plat, I‰Ûªd have to have a dang good reason to reject them, especially in favor of some mythical, non-existent “record position”.

[holy-cow]

I detest such precise numbers when the call is to an irregularly shaped stone of significant dimensions. Rounding to the nearest foot would probably still hit the stone in question. Of course, it’s simple habit as we are usually making a call to a tiny object compared to the massiveness of a 36″ x 26″ x 6″ sandstone that is missing some chunks and was found lying on its side. Sure hope we rolled it the right way when we set it upright.

[jhframe]

Holy Cow, post: 348083, member: 50 wrote: Of course, it’s simple habit as we are usually making a call to a tiny object compared to the massiveness of a 36″ x 26″ x 6″ sandstone that is missing some chunks and was found lying on its side. Sure hope we rolled it the right way when we set it upright.

It all depends on the situation. In San Francisco’s financial district, it’s not uncommon to see boundary dimensions expressed to the nearest 0.001 foot and multi-million dollar lawsuits filed over half an inch. By the same token, I can recall being relieved and delighted to find a 1″ pipe in a rural area bent over at a 45-degree angle and guestimating where its original plumb position was.