paden cash, post: 424212, member: 20 wrote: We here in Oklahoma should award Kent a license ...
This is blackmail, right? How much will it cost NOT to receive an Okie license?
Kent McMillan, post: 424222, member: 3 wrote: The most ethical way to proceed is to give an estimate for the cost of doing the research in order to be able to estimate the level of effort that the field work will require. If a client is scared off by paying a thousand for research, chances are they won't be able to afford a survey and will end up paying one of the fixed-price train wreck firms to come make an even bigger mess than exists.
Am I understanding you correctly that you believe most if not all firms that give fixed price fees are "train wreck firms"? Forgive me if I've misunderstood but you've said the same thing over and over but in a different way each time, so it's hard to tell if in your mind you are the only competent surveyor in Texas, or if you are the only Texas surveyor that is competent.
thebionicman, post: 424206, member: 8136 wrote: Im proud of you. Thats a record for how long it took to make it a PLSS issue.
Well, there's a reason why surveying in a metes and bounds state like Texas is much more complex than surveying 40s in PLSSia inside a system that maintains records on the PLSS corners that would in theory control the 40s. I just spent a good bit of time figuring out where four certain tracts of land in East Texas were most likely located on the ground as described in a recent conveyance.
The descriptions in the instrument were by metes and bounds, without any mention of source of title, and contained so many discrepancies that the Appraisal District apparently just gave up an guessed some of the locations in on their maps. It turned out that the descriptions dated from 1935, 1941, 1946, 1984, and 1987 and each depended upon the descriptions of other lands of which they were parts or adjoined, going back to the late 1890s. To unscramble things required abstracting the titles to several tracts back to the turn of the century to get the names of adjoining landowners at various times and rectify scrivener's errors.
The indices to the deeds were alphabetical by first letter of surname, with no subdivisions of the As, Bs, Cs, and so on. The only geographical clues in some cases were that the acreage stated in the deed was noted as well as the fact that the, say, 2 acres was somewhere within an original land grant containing about 1500 acres. PLSSia should be a breeze by comparision and that's just the research. Never mind what the field work would require.
Kent,
You are aware that once Public Lands were patented, they became subject to the same vagaries of subdivision and of description, and subject to retracement principles outlined by State stare decisis as anywhere else (except, perhaps, Singapore), right?
Kent,
You are aware that once Public Lands were patented, they became subject to the same vagaries of subdivision and of description, and subject to retracement principles outlined by State stare decisis as anywhere else (except, perhaps, Singapore), right?
TXSurveyor, post: 424224, member: 6719 wrote: Am I understanding you correctly that you believe most if not all firms that give fixed price fees are "train wreck firms"? Forgive me if I've misunderstood but you've said the same thing over and over but in a different way each time, so it's hard to tell if in your mind you are the only competent surveyor in Texas, or if you are the only Texas surveyor that is competent.
I'd put it this way. Invariably the train wrecks that I see mapped bearing the seal and signature of a Texas licensee are the product of a firm that specializes in mass-production, fixed-price surveys. They took the work on for a price developed by some faulty method, probably using appraisal district GIS or something similar, and trimmed multiple corners in research, in the field, and in the office to produce results that were an expensive mess for all concerned.
Warren Smith, post: 424229, member: 9900 wrote: You are aware that once Public Lands were patented, they became subject to the same vagaries of subdivision and of description, and subject to retracement principles outlined by State stare decisis as anywhere else (except, perhaps, Singapore), right?
Warren, to take Okieland as a case in point, I'd be willing to bet you that more than half of the tracts outside of the few urban areas that exist are described as regular parts of the PLSS. So, what the Okie scenario likely amounts to is whether the boundaries as fenced and used upon the ground should control the description by reference to the government survey in the actual record title.
Kent McMillan, post: 424233, member: 3 wrote: Warren, to take Okieland as a case in point, I'd be willing to bet you that more than half of the tracts outside of the few urban areas that exist are described as regular parts of the PLSS. So, what the Okie scenario likely amounts to is whether the boundaries as fenced and used upon the ground should control the description by reference to the government survey in the actual record title.
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.
paden cash, post: 423920, member: 20 wrote: Case in point: I was performing a topo for an engineer and my PC had been newly introduced to estimating his and his crew's time on the job.
If I let my 30 year experience PC estimate his time on the job and quoted using his estimation I would go out of business.
Here, for example, is a general aerial view of rural Oklahoma showing how extensively the PLSS fabric has been altered or ... not. Don't be fooled by the circles. Those are the patterns made by pivot irrigation systems, most likely.
Dave Karoly, post: 424234, member: 94 wrote: The established* boundaries are identical to the record title.
Except when they aren't. This is the rule that governs the practice of land surveying in Oklahoma, for example:
(8) Referencing surveys.
(A) Surveys based on the United States Public Land Survey System shall be referenced to original or properly restored corners. The appropriate Bureau of Land Management Manual of Surveying Instructions shall be used as a guide for the restoration of lost or obliterated corners and subdivision of sections into aliquot parts.
(9) Where evidence of inconsistencies is found, such as overlapping descriptions, hiatuses, excess or deficiency, or conflicting boundary line or monuments; the nature and extent of the inconsistencies shall be shown on the drawing.
Kent McMillan, post: 424226, member: 3 wrote: Well, there's a reason why surveying in a metes and bounds state like Texas is much more complex than surveying 40s in PLSSia inside a system that maintains records on the PLSS corners that would in theory control the 40s. I just spent a good bit of time figuring out where four certain tracts of land in East Texas were most likely located on the ground as described in a recent conveyance.
The descriptions in the instrument were by metes and bounds, without any mention of source of title, and contained so many discrepancies that the Appraisal District apparently just gave up an guessed some of the locations in on their maps. It turned out that the descriptions dated from 1935, 1941, 1946, 1984, and 1987 and each depended upon the descriptions of other lands of which they were parts or adjoined, going back to the late 1890s. To unscramble things required abstracting the titles to several tracts back to the turn of the century to get the names of adjoining landowners at various times and rectify scrivener's errors.
The indices to the deeds were alphabetical by first letter of surname, with no subdivisions of the As, Bs, Cs, and so on. The only geographical clues in some cases were that the acreage stated in the deed was noted as well as the fact that the, say, 2 acres was somewhere within an original land grant containing about 1500 acres. PLSSia should be a breeze by comparision and that's just the research. Never mind what the field work would require.
And this is based on how many years surveying in PLSS States? I'm betting zero as your statement reflects the most complete ignorance ive seen in quite some time. The only thing to rival that is your insinuation that i (or anyone else not in Texas) lacks the integrity to make things right and follow through if and when they do make a mistake.
I treat my clients well and get paid well for it. When someone shows me a valid business or ethical reason to change I'll do it in a heartbeat. Nothing on this thread comes close.
thebionicman, post: 424246, member: 8136 wrote: And this is based on how many years surveying in PLSS States? I'm betting zero as your statement reflects the most complete ignorance ive seen in quite some time.
Would a fair paraphrase of your statement above be that in your view the PLSS is essentially non-existent in the Western States where you practice and that you've never found the organization of land records by reference to the PLSS to be a significant part of surveying there?
From a Texas perspective, the ability to organize land records by reference to the PLSS is an obvious simplification. The tract conveyed as the SW/4 of the SW/4 of some certain section falls into a much, much different category than a typical metes and bounds tract that has been conveyed since 1920 using some description that required considerable research and plotting of surrounding conveyances just to plot its location. In PLSSia, the USGS has already obliged with that.
Kent McMillan, post: 424231, member: 3 wrote: I'd put it this way. Invariably the train wrecks that I see mapped bearing the seal and signature of a Texas licensee are the product of a firm that specializes in mass-production, fixed-price surveys. They took the work on for a price developed by some faulty method, probably using appraisal district GIS or something similar, and trimmed multiple corners in research, in the field, and in the office to produce results that were an expensive mess for all concerned.
Putting it that way, it would be good idea in my opinion not to lump the masses in with the couple of outliers. I realize their are probably more of the survey factory train wrecks near the metro areas like Austin but not so much for the rest of the state. We have one "train wreck" in my area out 12-15 survey companies, he also has an office in DFW. Fixed price isn't bad way to go and I have no problems telling someone if you want this done right the price just went up X after my initial work or I can walk away and you owe me A or sometimes I even tell them I will wash my hands of this mess and not charge you a dime but please understand when you spend cheap money SOMETIMES you get a cheap product
TXSurveyor, post: 424257, member: 6719 wrote: Putting it that way, it would be good idea in my opinion not to lump the masses in with the couple of outliers.
Actually, I'd be willing to wager that fixed-price surveying has a much higher incidence of conspicuous failures. My estimate of the failure rate would be higher than 50%, possibly approaching 75%. It's a predictable result of rational economics.
The obvious reason is that the surveyor who has opted for a fixed fee arrangement has constructed a time budget for his activities that must be met if he or she is to make any money on the project. Unless he or she has already surveyed the property once and is completely familiar with it or the work is entirely routine, that's going to mean that the work will tend to get cut to fit the budget with predictable frequency. Add in the plausible deniability style of practice that seems to be the norm in offices with dispersed operations and it's no surprise what gets produced.
Kent McMillan, post: 424259, member: 3 wrote: Actually, I'd be willing to wager that fixed-price surveying has a much higher incidence of conspicuous failures. My estimate of the failure rate would be higher than 50%, possibly approaching 75%. It's a predictable result of rational economics.
The obvious reason is that the surveyor who has opted for a fixed fee arrangement has constructed a time budget for his activities that must be met if he or she is to make any money on the project. Unless he or she has already surveyed the property once and is completely familiar with it or the work is entirely routine, that's going to mean that the work will tend to get cut to fit the budget with predictable frequency. Add in the plausible deniability style of practice that seems to be the norm in offices with dispersed operations and it's no surprise what gets produced.
Your estimation would be entirely incorrect then. You mistake fixed fee pricing with shoddy work. I only know if one surveyor that does that. I'm not about to put my hard earned license on the line to make a little more profit, just won't happen.
Retracements within Rancho Grants, Donation Land Claims, Swamp & Overflowed Lands, and Partition Estates quickly make reconstructing the interface with Forest Reserves, Military Reservations, BIA lands and the like every bit as challenging as the Railroad Grants and 'see for forever ranches' in Tejas.
QUOTE="Warren Smith, post: 424261, member: 9900"]Retracements within Rancho Grants, Donation Land Claims, Swamp & Overflowed Lands, and Partition Estates quickly make reconstructing the interface with Forest Reserves, Military Reservations, BIA lands and the like every bit as challenging as the Railroad Grants and 'see for forever ranches' in Tejas.
So, you want to consider the Mexican land grants of California as a typical feature of PLSSia? I wouldn't think them to be a regular feature of the checkerboard that largely covers the Western US.
TXSurveyor, post: 424260, member: 6719 wrote: Your estimation would be entirely incorrect then. You mistake fixed fee pricing with shoddy work. I only know if one surveyor that does that. I'm not about to put my hard earned license on the line to make a little more profit, just won't happen.
Okay, I'll bite. How did you go about figuring your fixed fee on that lot you were asking about in an 1860s subdivision in Houston, the one on N.S.B.B.?
Kent McMillan, post: 424268, member: 3 wrote: Okay, I'll bite. How did you go about figuring your fixed fee on that lot you were asking about in an 1860s subdivision in Houston, the one on N.S.B.B.?
Wrong person buddy. You couldn't pay me enough to survey in Houston. I did enjoy a leisurely stroll in downtown Houston a few months back while in between some meetings with clients. I spent most of my time trying to find block corners that were either X's in concrete or PK nails. Actually spied more than expected
