I usually approach these from two perspectives and document how the two relate to each other. The record, deed or subdivision, is some version of a ‘perfect world’, where the monuments and physical evidence on the ground would match the record perfectly. But that’s fantasy and in real world everything is less than perfect to varying degrees. I try and approach the survey with the intent to document how well the two relate, or don’t and how I reached those conclusions. The end result is only a professional opinion based accepted practices and case law. The end result should be sufficient for another professional to follow how I reached those conclusions and be sufficiently documented to remove questions on how those conclusions were arrived at. Showing record and measured is just one part of it. The resulting product should answer the questions and not create an entirely new set of questions. That’s the goal anyway. With boundaries it’s never a straight forward math exercise.
@holy-cow it amazes me that many Surveyors don't understand the difference between the descriptions that we write, sign and seal and the actual deed. A deed is a legal document and we are not lawyers, only an Attorney can prepare a deed and the smart ones simply plagiarize our descriptions in the preparation of their deed documents, thus, you never see our signature and seal on a deed, only a reference to our surveys.
I do things similar to you but with a twist. When I am resolving a survey I will plot the deed and subdivision outbounds in a title survey situation. If I have no requirement to work in State Plane or subdivision plan coordinates, I'll work in assumed coordinates and rotate/translate my assumed points into my plotting and take it from there moving my points to the best fit solution to my plotting.
There are a ton of things to consider when it's not an "easy" survey and when found monuments do not agree with the rest of the discovered evidence, I don't plant a new one a foot or two (or less away), I send my resolution off to my survey techs to draft and note the offsets to what was found and not in agreement with by determination.
BTW, I work in a Colonial state.
Is this standard everywhere or just my company?
That sounds mostly standard to me. Except this has me wondering a bit...
So if a found monument is off from what they determine the boundary to be from other monuments, they will show it as such.
That's fine if they want to reject a monument but hopefully they are explaining their reasoning in a narrative and also setting a monument in the spot they've determined to be correct.
There might be one case in a few thousand where the person typing up the deed included reference to a survey. That's here. May be different elsewhere.
after being passed around like a biker chic at Sturgis I've seen several other ways to do things and it's been a true challenge to ascertain (.10 werd for you other crew chiefs ) what's up what's down what matters and what is required.
it's a process. communication is the way, just don't fiu.
https://krcmar.ca/resource-articles/1993_Summer_Survey%20Plans%20and%20the%20First%20Running_1.pdf
Please keep in mind that I am speaking from a Torrens based title system. The hierarchy, and the decisions on what matter most through research and field work, are what help form the "professional" part of the profession IMO. There's no cut and dry answer. If you are calling a monument on/off, you need to be able to justify that. How much evidence you need to do that is the rub.
Reminds me of this post that I never got back to.
https://rpls.com/community/gnss-geodesy/something-has-to-give/
