Activity Feed › Discussion Forums › Strictly Surveying › Virtual Pin Cushions
-
ppm, post: 392052, member: 6808 wrote: I think it is important that we distinguish between ‘prior’ and ‘original’ surveyor.
We (in the PLSS states) have talked about the stubbed in center of section. Just because that surveyor set what he thinks is the COS does not mean I have to hold it.You can’t make a wedding cake out of a pile of crap. 😉
Just remember that whenever a surveyor sets something like a Center of Section or a 1/16th corner, he was not there to only set that. It is probably a controlling corner for other property corners he is setting. If he is the first one there to set it, and other properties (possibly “original” properties) are being set based on his Center, then you are opening a can of worms when you “reject” it. You certainly need to review how and why he set it. What were the original corners he used to set it from etc. Your disagreement on the location of that COS might be based on the fact that you didn’t find his controlling corner. ie: a wedding cake has most likely already been made from that corner.
-
Holy Cow, post: 392059, member: 50 wrote: Let’s not reopen the center of section can of worms in this thread.
The key topic here applies to those cases where the plat shows specific monuments as not being at whatever the signing surveyor has determined to be the true corner. There are cases where this makes sense and other cases where it does not.
I think that the same principles apply for section breakdown work, as do in original metes-&-bounds work and subdivision work. There are original monuments involved in all, there are “first surveys” involved in all, and there are retracement, non-original corners involved in all.
-
Oh, but the quickie dickie guys like to ASSUME a perfect center of section for whatever they are doing at wherever they are in the section. Surely we wouldn’t want them to actually have to go searching for monuments that apparently NEVER fall at their point of mathemagical perfection. A few quick RTK shots at the quarter corners and BAMMMMMMM they’re off and running. (Starting to sound too much like Kent…………….must go away now……………..)
-
Holy Cow, post: 392063, member: 50 wrote: Oh, but the quickie dickie guys like to ASSUME a perfect center of section for whatever they are doing at wherever they are in the section. Surely we wouldn’t want them to actually have to go searching for monuments that apparently NEVER fall at their point of mathemagical perfection.
…and isn’t that exactly what we are talking about in this thread only for subdivision corners?
-
I’m working on a good one right now. Surveyor A starts a survey of Parcel A in 1987 and it’s finally recorded in 2013. A lot can happen in 29 years and happen it did. Surveyor B surveys parcel B (next door) and records in 2007.
Surveyor B found Surveyor A’s bolts and used them. Even though the bolts were not referenced by any document, there was nothing else around. He held them. I suppose he didn’t have to hold them but he did and a deed was written and the map was recorded with it. 6 (six) years later, surveyor A’s map is recorded with a new deed and description. They don’t agree.
With no explanation, surveyor B changes his map to conform with survey A and gives it to his client. Now she has two maps with conflicting information. It would have been better to just add a line to the original map, give it to her and say, “You might want to hire an attorney.” He didn’t.
An action to quiet title has been filed. “Found” points are responsible for this gaff. I’m not sure yet exactly who set the points because surveyor A only states that a roof bolt resides at the corner: No “set or “found.” Holding a point you find and perpetuating it can ripen it into a valid monument. You may not like it but that’s the way it goes. The only point I would ever consider changing or removing is one that I installed myself. All others get located and considered.
As stewards of the boundaries, we have a heavy load to carry and a responsibility to the public to be honest, thorough and to the point.
-
Tom Adams, post: 392067, member: 7285 wrote: …and isn’t that exactly what we are talking about in this thread only for subdivision corners?
No
I don’t think so at all.
The OP was very clear.
Other issues have corrupted the thread.
The post was about depicting corner location on plats without setting a monument but a reference to
An existing monument.
Least that’s the way I read it -
Tom Adams, post: 392062, member: 7285 wrote: I think that the same principles apply for section breakdown work, as do in original metes-&-bounds work and subdivision work.
I think Tom brings up a good point here:
There will always be a FIRST surveyor. But who is he/she? Around here, there’s lots of deeded property that has never been surveyed; is the first surveyor the one that first tries to put it on the ground? Is it the original owner? I’ve even seen “paper plats” that never had a survey on the ground. Lots of unrecorded plats; the lots are recorded as meets and bounds, based on the plat, and neither has ever been surveyed on the ground. Clarence Dayton Hillman created several of these bogus plats; there’s one in the Algona/Pacific area that’s off over 100′. To top it off; there was a mayor of one of these towns that decided he needed the intersections monumented. He had city crews go out, split the pavement and put a shiny brand new brass there. Is Mayor Dumass the first surveyor?I did a survey for a guy from out of town; he purchased a piece of property that had been a part of a divorce settlement, several decades ago. The husband got the east 400′ and the wife kept the rest, with the house on it. Both parcels had gone through a few ownership’s when my client got it. The west line of the east 400′ cut a corner off the house, about 19′. Am I the first surveyor? There is no record of the property ever being surveyed; not even the parent parcel. We all know that the intent was not to run the line through the house, but do I have the authority to make that call and adjust the 400′ measurement until it missed the house? Should it miss the house by the current setback requirement?
Like [USER=1333]@Brian Allen[/USER] said; you don’t have to accept it, but you better have evidence of a good reason not to. And no, math isn’t a good enough reason, you documentation to back it up.
I hope everyone has a great day; I know I will! -
One thing I’ve learned from Jeff Lucas and his review of court cases, there is not set amount a pin is off before it should be rejected or accepted. Some places maybe a pin off 0.10 feet should be rejected, other places a pin off several hundred feet should be accepted. A pin that is off 1.5 feet should be rejected or accepted? I’d probably say I would accept a surveyors answer either way in this situation.
-
Robert Hill, post: 392071, member: 378 wrote: No
I don’t think so at all.
The OP was very clear.
Other issues have corrupted the thread.
The post was about depicting corner location on plats without setting a monument but a reference to
An existing monument.
Least that’s the way I read itCorrupted? The topic is about “virtual pin cushions”, hasn’t this thread been following that topic? I feel like pin cushions has been the central thread throughout, including ‘how close is close enough’, and many of the what-if scenarios where people are saying what about in this situation. I think ppm was saying that we should distinguish between ‘prior” and “original” surveyor who set the pin you found and the center section as a scenario when the corner you found wasn’t the original.
-
[USER=7285]@Tom Adams[/USER]
I’m in full agreement with Robert Hill this time.
I was trying to keep the focus of this thread on what the original poster presented. While similar, in a way, the center of section and other issues others have tacked on to the original topic, are different issues.
The center of section issue goes back to what Kent calls the “COOKBOOK” for the PLSS. That is a completely different circumstance for arguing existing versus something else.
This topic was focused on the statements/notes put on plats indicating where found monuments for common surveys do not match someone’s particular idea of perfection of measurement based on their own dream of what is true.
-
Brian,
So are you going to answer the two questions I put to you or not?
1. Are you going to remove the pin you set wrong years ago or leave it in and say I cant touch that pin because its “original”?
I’m really looking forward to your answer here as I know a few surveyors who have had to pay for improvements constructed over the years for pins their crew set wrong. If by your reasoning all original pins are good and there is no error, these guys should be getting their money back.2. At what distance do you no longer hold a original pin?
Respectfully,
Jim Vianna -
In all the years I’ve been surveying, I have yet to measure ‘exactly’ record. Really, really close? Sure. Exactly? Nope, never, nada. Doesn’t happen. Does this create an ambiguity in my mind? No. I tend to take a more practical approach to accepting or rejecting a corner. Were the original measurement close enough to lead me to find the evidence, the monument, occupation, the intent? Before I go rejecting something that others have relied upon, I better have a darn good reason and be prepared to defend it. That said I don’t go about rejecting too many corners and when I do, good chance they were recently set in close proximity to the original found to be mathematically inferior by some number crunching button pusher. 😉
Willy -
James Vianna, post: 392083, member: 120 wrote: Brian,
So are you going to answer the two questions I put to you or not?
1. Are you going to remove the pin you set wrong years ago or leave it in and say I cant touch that pin because its “original”?
I’m really looking forward to your answer here as I know a few surveyors who have had to pay for improvements constructed over the years for pins their crew set wrong. If by your reasoning all original pins are good and there is no error, these guys should be getting their money back.2. At what distance do you no longer hold a original pin?
Respectfully,
Jim ViannaOK
#1: IF I am the original surveyor for that parcel and all adjoining parcels, and IF there has been no reliance on the erroneous position, and IF all interested parties are notified and IF they all expressly agree with correcting the location of the corner, then I will correct it.
The determination of “where” the boundary is located and whether or not someone is liable and responsible for damages, are TWO SEPERATE ISSUES.#2: Distance, very rarely comes into play in the determination of the location of a property corner while performing a retracement survey, usually only when proportioning. But, as we all should know, proportioning is a method of LAST resort.
Bearings, distances, and measurements can either be tools or evidence, depending on what we are doing. I use them as tools to put me in the vicinity of where the corner may be located so I can begin my search for the corner. Sometimes they are evidence, such as recovering passing calls, or ties to objects, and aids in re-establishing obliterated corners. When they are the only evidence used, that is called proportioning, and as stated earlier, is a method of last resort, ie, when all else fails.
The relevant evidence and the applicable boundary laws dictate where, on the ground, in my professional opinion, the boundary is located.Now, will you go back and answer all of the numerous questions I have posed?
-
[USER=50]@Holy Cow[/USER]
I don’t think that issue is exclusive to a “common survey” (I don’t know if I’ve ever seen a “common survey” for that matter 😉 ). stating how much the monument you found misses your idea of the ‘perfect’ location where you think the monument should be definitely applies to the misconception of where the “true” center of section falls vs. a found monument.
I see the relation, but I respect your opinion and I won’t worry about discussing 1/4 corners any further in this thread. Sorry for the tangent.
-
Tom Adams, post: 392061, member: 7285 wrote: Just remember that whenever a surveyor sets something like a Center of Section or a 1/16th corner, he was not there to only set that. It is probably a controlling corner for other property corners he is setting. If he is the first one there to set it, and other properties (possibly “original” properties) are being set based on his Center, then you are opening a can of worms when you “reject” it. You certainly need to review how and why he set it. What were the original corners he used to set it from etc. Your disagreement on the location of that COS might be based on the fact that you didn’t find his controlling corner. ie: a wedding cake has most likely already been made from that corner.
I agree. The reason I brought it up is because there are some surveys that you may have to hold it as the COS, and some that you would have to reject it. Maybe even in the same section. That is kind of why I mentioned it.
-
David Livingstone, post: 392074, member: 431 wrote: One thing I’ve learned from Jeff Lucas and his review of court cases, there is not set amount a pin is off before it should be rejected or accepted. Some places maybe a pin off 0.10 feet should be rejected, other places a pin off several hundred feet should be accepted. A pin that is off 1.5 feet should be rejected or accepted? I’d probably say I would accept a surveyors answer either way in this situation.
I think this is a good point for this thread. Thanks for mentioning it.
-
Brian Allen, post: 392089, member: 1333 wrote: OK
#1: IF I am the original surveyor for that parcel and all adjoining parcels, and IF there has been no reliance on the erroneous position, and IF all interested parties are notified and IF they all expressly agree with correcting the location of the corner, then I will correct it.
The determination of “where” the boundary is located and whether or not someone is liable and responsible for damages, are TWO SEPERATE ISSUES.#2: Distance, very rarely comes into play in the determination of the location of a property corner while performing a retracement survey, usually only when proportioning. But, as we all should know, proportioning is a method of LAST resort.
Bearings, distances, and measurements can either be tools or evidence, depending on what we are doing. I use them as tools to put me in the vicinity of where the corner may be located so I can begin my search for the corner. Sometimes they are evidence, such as recovering passing calls, or ties to objects, and aids in re-establishing obliterated corners. When they are the only evidence used, that is called proportioning, and as stated earlier, is a method of last resort, ie, when all else fails.
The relevant evidence and the applicable boundary laws dictate where, on the ground, in my professional opinion, the boundary is located.Reply to 1. Why go through all that if it is in the original position, according to what I interpret you as saying it holds right or wrong. There would be no reason to move it back.
Reply to 2. So it is possible under certain situations that you would not hold an original undisturbed pin say 1.5′ from calculated
The point I have been trying to make in this thread is that where one pin is grossly out from other pins set by the same surveyor at he same time it may be considered a “blunder” and therefore may not be subject to holding. I am not advocating holding the plat math over field evidence found in all situations. But there are some situations where it would be appropriate. Why should a pin set wrongly by a surveyor after the plat has been accepted and recorded control. An error is error is an error. Once again which came first the plat or the pin. This question needs to be examined before rendering a final opinion.
-
James Vianna, post: 392098, member: 120 wrote: Reply to 1. Why go through all that if it is in the original position, according to what I interpret you as saying it holds right or wrong. There would be no reason to move it back.
Apparently you haven’t read all that I have posted. An original undisturbed monument always holds – well unless it doesn’t. Knowing when it does and why and when it doesn’t and why is what separates the professionals from the technicians. The reasons why or why not lie in the evidence and the law, and neither of these will be found on your data collector or your CAD screen. This very topic is not (from my observation) taught very well in our surveying schools.
James Vianna, post: 392098, member: 120 wrote: Reply to 2. So it is possible under certain situations that you would not hold an original undisturbed pin say 1.5′ from calculated
The point I have been trying to make in this thread is that where one pin is grossly out from other pins set by the same surveyor at he same time it may be considered a “blunder” and therefore may not be subject to holding. I am not advocating holding the plat math over field evidence found in all situations. But there are some situations where it would be appropriate. Why should a pin set wrongly by a surveyor after the plat has been accepted and recorded control. An error is error is an error. Once again which came first the plat or the pin. This question needs to be examined before rendering a final opinion
My point is that the answers to these questions lie in the law – boundary law – which has been laid out quite nicely for centuries by our courts. Did you even read the quotes from the Tyson case?
In previous posts you specifically stated what should and shouldn’t hold, and have specifically defined words, and advocating holding plats over the position of original monuments if they are “out” too far, based on whether they are “older” or “modern” surveys.
Who cares which came first, the plat or the pin? The courts have repeatedly told us “In the event of a discrepancy as to subdivided land lot lines, do you go with what the original surveyor intended to do as shown by the plat or do you go with what the original surveyor did by way of laying out and monumenting his survey on the ground? Surprisingly, because of surveying principles based on established surveying practices, the correct answer is that what the original surveyor actually did by way of monumenting his survey on the ground takes precedence over what he intended to do as shown by his written plat of survey.”
Yes, I agree, you apparently need to examine this principle in detail. Do you have any sources that contradict what the courts have said? -
James,
As to blunders, what you said was:
James Vianna, post: 391932, member: 120 wrote: To me, a blunder is a pin not in conformance with other pins set at the same time by the same surveyor and within the tolerance shown by the surveyors other pins.
You left no wiggle room of “may” or “may not”. Where did you come up with your definition of “blunder”? When does reliance/acceptance ever enter into your formula for accepting or moving? Or does it? How do you determine the “tolerance” level on each survey? Does it differ from survey to survey? What is your legal rationale for determining the “tolerance” level for each survey?
As to older vs modern, what you said was:
James Vianna, post: 391965, member: 120 wrote: I agree with what you copied for older subdivisions not most modern ones.
Apparently the courts disagree with you. Are you comfortable performing retracement surveys in direct opposition the legal principles the courts have laid out for us for many decades? Do you have an authoritative source for your statement or not?
-
This thread has gotten a little too complicated! If the position of the monument is VIRTUALLY the same as where you’d calculate it to be based on other points in the area, you should probably just accept it.
Log in to reply.