Activity Feed › Discussion Forums › GNSS & Geodesy › Something HAS to give
That may be, but he’s far more right than wrong.
I think that’s true of most people, even the ones you may have a serious disagreement on a particular boundary.
Actually, with most things in life too.
I am now reviewing surveys where the surveyor is disagreeing with himself. He measured the same line on three different surveys. The plat shows a GLO record distance, then he might show the measurement of that line by a different surveyor in 1965, then the slightly different distances he obtained on two of his own previous surveys and then the one for this survey. What gets really hairy is if he also shows the various bearings that were used in all those prior surveys compared to the one he now feels is best. You can see how this would drive the client and anyone else involved batty. Some say it shows how perfectly we can measure today. Others say it makes us look like fools.
Yesterday, I was reviewing a survey where the south section line had a bearing of so many degrees, so many minutes and 38 seconds for a half mile. Then the first boundary line ran north some distance, followed by a line that you know was intended to be parallel to the south section line that runs for 75.00 feet at the same bearing———-except it is now 37 seconds instead of 38 seconds. IN 75.00 FEET!!!
The difference would be 0.0003636 feet in 75 feet. That is less than a fly speck. Then why not show it agreeing with the bearing of the south section line. This sloppiness adds to the confusion of those who are not surveyors.
record dimensions rule
How can the record dimensions be held on adjoining parcels? The measurements are rarely perfect and won’t fit each other.
This area is mostly metes and bounds and the descriptions generally fit together relatively well. When they don’t, we track down senior rights and show overlaps and gores when we need to.
Do you hold record dimensions over natural and artificial monuments? How about extrinsic evidence or occupation?
Also, which record? It’s not unusual for a property I’m surveying to have 3, 4 or more records of survey over the years, all with different values for bearings and distances.
New York is not a mandatory recording state, so the most common record we have is the deed for the property. Maps are required to be filed for subdivisions, but are not regularly filed for property transfers. Once a parcel is created the deed description generally stays the same over time. Most deeds rely more on metes than on bounds, so called for surveys and monuments are few and far between. I would hold natural monuments if they are called for, but I have to evaluate most artificial monuments based on the record description, because I don’t know who set them or when. Occupation doesn’t get you very far in NY.
This is the direct opposite to what one would expect to read in the survey notes of a Texas survey. All four pages required to document the survey of an identical tract to the one above.
Do you hold record dimensions over natural and artificial monuments? How about extrinsic evidence or occupation?
Also, which record? It’s not unusual for a property I’m surveying to have 3, 4 or more records of survey over the years, all with different values for bearings and distances.
New York is not a mandatory recording state, so the most common record we have is the deed for the property. Maps are required to be filed for subdivisions, but are not regularly filed for property transfers. Once a parcel is created the deed description generally stays the same over time. Most deeds rely more on metes than on bounds, so called for surveys and monuments are few and far between. I would hold natural monuments if they are called for, but I have to evaluate most artificial monuments based on the record description, because I don’t know who set them or when. Occupation doesn’t get you very far in NY.
To add to this, New York also does not have a monumentation requirement outside of local rules for new subdivisions. It’s not uncommon to have to search dozens of parcels to find just a handful of unidentified monuments. A seeming side effect of this is that at least in the downstate area I work in, deeds generally agree with each other mathematically, it’s rare to find discrepancies of more than perhaps a tenth.
The state association is working towards legislation requiring monumentation for surveys, if it passes we may see surveying change to favor monuments over deed descriptions in the coming decades.
I spent 8 years of my career working in Texas, which is another non-recording state that did not require monumentation (at least not back then), and as others have said upthread, the deeds tend to be the best available evidence and a great deal of research had to be done to piece together the boundary puzzle.
I cannot remember more than a handful of cases (out of hundreds) where all the adjoiner deeds matched bearing & distance of the subject parcel deed exactly, and there were no physical monuments at all to measure from/to. If there were physical monuments marking the boundary, it was very rare for our measured B&D to match exactly with the record.
Now, if there is literally nothing left but the record B&D to use for a particular line, that’s one thing.
But that’s different than “record dimensions rule”, which implies that we are blowing off existing monumentation that has been relied upon by landowners, in favor of record B&D.
“…people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think.” -Neil PostmanMany moons ago I introduced the infamous “0.04′ issue” because the very next surveyor (a friend of mine) chose to introduce that minute change to his new adjoining description compared to my existing description for a tract created a couple of years earlier. That had to have happened prior to 2000.
The difference would be 0.0003636 feet in 75 feet. That is less than a fly speck. Then why not show it agreeing with the bearing of the south section line. This sloppiness adds to the confusion of those who are not surveyors.
I was asking about these types of circumstances when I first started posting and digesting this board.
A surveyor I was working under explained to my question of “How do you decide which data to hold when reviewing previously filed plats?”
He walked me through the process of evaluating the data, the age of the plats, the use or not use of GPS and when it was used chronological to the previous or recent data. I found this to be very enlightening and also depending on the circumstances very limiting too. Huge props for him taking time out to expand on his rationale so I could learn and understand what you Licenses are doing and what I’ll eventually be doing myself.
This site rocks!
I have a copy of his book. I’ve read it and find myself in strong agreement with most of what he wrote. I always try to make a decision on a monument before I check the bearing and distance. If a previous surveyor (don’t flame me but even a property owner-if he’s splitting his own property) set a corner; I have no authority to “correct” his measurements and set new corners. I have followed some of my dad’s surveys from the 1960’s. Sometimes he was “off” by a foot on a 100′ lot. His customers built houses and fences based on those monuments. They are forever fixed in my mind. I understand that monuments get moved; but, that’s illegal and I don’t think it should govern our thinking.
Let me know if you want to read Mr. Lucas’ book. I’ll drop it off next time I’m close by.
I have Jeff Lucas’s book and I read it, but it is very much another text book and I did not get much new info out of it.
In my part of Upstate New York the record dimensions rule, so we show the monuments refenced to the record.
You’re going to tell me more about this, because it sounds like the survey would have a call to a point, and then cute little language like “North 0.53′, East 0.87′ from a found steel rod”.
I am violently opposed to doing that, and in fact, if I voiced my full opinion in this forum, I’d get a lifetime ban.
Something like that, but it is usually parallel and perpendicular ties from the lines at the corner.
Sort of like showing ties to a fence post or some other object near a corner or along a line.The ties hardly ever get called out in the description, the monument just gets omitted.
I’m sure you would not like the way we do it, but I also know that the attorneys that order most of the property transfer surveys locally would quickly find a different surveyor if every survey showed different bearings and distances than the deed description.
I have Jeff Lucas’s book and I read it, but it is very much another text book and I did not get much new info out of it.
In my part of Upstate New York the record dimensions rule, so we show the monuments refenced to the record.
You’re going to tell me more about this, because it sounds like the survey would have a call to a point, and then cute little language like “North 0.53′, East 0.87′ from a found steel rod”.
I am violently opposed to doing that, and in fact, if I voiced my full opinion in this forum, I’d get a lifetime ban.
Something like that, but it is usually parallel and perpendicular ties from the lines at the corner.
Sort of like showing ties to a fence post or some other object near a corner or along a line.The ties hardly ever get called out in the description, the monument just gets omitted.
I’m sure you would not like the way we do it, but I also know that the attorneys that order most of the property transfer surveys locally would quickly find a different surveyor if every survey showed different bearings and distances than the deed description.
Screw the attorneys. That’s not surveying and anyone doing that should have their license revoked. If the attorneys want to survey, they can get a license themselves.
You know, there are EXCEPTIONS to everything
You’re going to tell me more about this, because it sounds like the survey would have a call to a point, and then cute little language like “North 0.53′, East 0.87′ from a found steel rod”.
I am violently opposed to doing that, and in fact, if I voiced my full opinion in this forum, I’d get a lifetime ban.
If I had SET that rebar, and the Farmer set a Treated Power Pole Post ON TOP of that rebar, and stuck the rebar back in beside the big new post, you’d find me doing exactly what you describe!!
Ok, back to your regularly scheduled tea….
N
attorneys that order most of the property transfer surveys locally would quickly find a different surveyor if every survey showed different bearings and distances than the deed description.
That’s not a property survey. It’s a plot. Let them find an expert plotter.
I am violently opposed to doing that, and in fact, if I voiced my full opinion in this forum, I’d get a lifetime ban.
easy Leonard, go easy….If Hartman finds us in the latrine after lights out we’re going to be in a world of $H!T….
The ties hardly ever get called out in the description, the monument just gets omitted.
I’m sure you would not like the way we do it, but I also know that the attorneys that order most of the property transfer surveys locally would quickly find a different surveyor if every survey showed different bearings and distances than the deed description.
The correct term for a surveyor who drops the math on the ground is “deed staker” or “deed plotter” or “button pusher”.
The correct term for any licensee who subordinates their professional responsibilities to the goal of making money is “negligent”.
Screw the attorneys. That’s not surveying and anyone doing that should have their license revoked. If the attorneys want to survey, they can get a license themselves.
Amen.
Can we get this on the SurveyorConnect logo?
“…people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think.” -Neil PostmanI lived and worked in New York State for over 20 years. What ars-mine-surveyor has stated is not true for any surveys I encountered or representative of the work done in the area by the surveyors I knew.
The correct term for a surveyor who drops the math on the ground is “deed staker”
I absolutely detest this form of surveying. It cause more problems than it solves IMO.
Log in to reply.