I find it very interesting Kent..
>...It may well have been set in 1906.
True. It also may have been re set in 1936
I find it very interesting Kent..
> > Yes, obviously they are. But which map prior to the 1924 map of Tract No. 7895 purports to actually run a line between the corners on that common line? None?
>
> True. Have you also noticed that from that ancient iron pipe heading east that common line of 21 and 57 is jumping up and down?
No, there's absolutely no indication of that on either of the adjoining plats from the surveys made in 1924 by two different surveyors for tracts to either side of and adjoining the common lot line. The "jumping up and down" does look as if it is more of a modern thing as a result of surveyors not attempting to retrace the line, but to calculate up some mathematical theory of it in relation to something other than the best evidence.
> What this all boils down to for the other surveyor is he is being adamant about that 30 feet. He is holding math over physical evidence and cannot prove that he is correct in doing so. There are just too many unknowns.
If you think about that, you'll realize how unconvincing it sounds. You have the ancient 1 in. iron pipe that has a history of acceptance as marking the angle point on the north line of Lot 21 since at least 1924. The 1982 survey in which you place blind faith also evidently accepted the same pipe as marking that corner.
So, you have one controlling monument, presumably, and you haven't bothered to look for the East corner of Lot 21 or anything that perpetuates it, I take it. Likewise, you haven't bothered to get a copy of the instrument that severed the 30 ft. strip to see how it was actually described in the deed of conveyance, but you think that you have convincing "physical evidence". :>
I find it very interesting Kent..
>.. You have the ancient 1 in. iron pipe that has a history of acceptance as marking the angle point on the north line of Lot 21 since at least 1924.
If that is the same pipe and has not slid around
I find it very interesting Kent..
> in which you place blind faith
Blind faith is one thing I do not have Kentie
I find it very interesting Kent..
> >...It may well have been set in 1906.
>
> True. It also may have been re set in 1936
Just ponder the logic of your position. You have blindly accepted the 1982 surveyor's work without any real investigation. The 1982 surveyor's construction of the boundary of the tract subdivided as Tract No. 40968 is based upon his judgment that the 1 in. iron pipe correctly marks the angle point on the North line of Lot 21. You now want to take the position that you think that the 1982 surveyor may have been mistaken, but all of the markers placed under that mistaken theory of construction are nonetheless completely correct? Bzzz. Wrong answer.
I find it very interesting Kent..
> >.. You have the ancient 1 in. iron pipe that has a history of acceptance as marking the angle point on the north line of Lot 21 since at least 1924.
>
> If that is the same pipe and has not slid around
So, do you think that it "slid" uphill 0.50 ft. since 1982 while the 1982 surveyor's pipes remained locked in position?
I find it very interesting Kent..
> Bzzz. Wrong answer.
Kent..any answer I give will get buzzed, everyone knows that.
Well, I am staying with the 2"/lath pipe. The CR is filed. If the other surveyor wants to call it off then let him. It's happened before and will keep on happening..thats how the surveying profession is, some use common sense and think about the whole thing, others want to prove every other surveyor is wrong...
I find it very interesting Kent..
> Blind faith is one thing I do not have
Well, your position is extraordinary, then, if it is not based in the most extreme faith in the abilities of the 1982 surveyor to solve all those real hard boundary-type puzzles that no mere land surveyor could figure out without an engineer to work it for him.
I find it very interesting Kent..
> Well, I am staying with the 2"/lath pipe. The CR is filed. If the other surveyor wants to call it off then let him.
Yeah, once the CR is filed, the best thing to do is to post cranky notes to internet forums mocking surveyors who find your work in error. I mean, the CR has been FILED!
I find it very interesting Kent..
>mocking surveyors
Now there is the pot calling the kettle black...
I find it very interesting Kent..
> Now there is the pot calling the kettle black...
Not really. You've basically got no rationale for what you did other than you didn't want to spend much time on it and felt that you had to just completely rely upon the 1982 engineer's work even though you were on notice that another surveyor had determined that one lot corner marker was in gross error. If you ever catch me working that negilgently, please let me know.
I find it very interesting Kent..
> > Now there is the pot calling the kettle black...
>
> Not really.
Kent, you mock everyone that disagrees with you, but that doesnt bother me like it used to, that's just the way you are..
Anyway..If I was to run 21 I would go to the NE Corner of Lot 21 of Tract No. 8251
The sideline intersection of the city walk and Devoto (Silverwood) would be the best evidence on the east. It has been perpetuated by the city over the years.
There is a slim and none chance that going east beyond this intersection would yield any evidence of 21's North line because it was resubdivided.
Question for Paul?
I see several maps that show at least three different iron pipes (set in the 1920's) that proport to be on the same line, east of the ancient 1" iron pipe. Yet your 1982 map does not find them any of them and they resort to a calced solution for the ne corner. From the copies of the "lath survey" that you posted I do not see how the line east of the ancient 1" pipe was established. Did they find any evidence or other corners on that line....?
I find it very interesting Kent..
> Kent, you mock everyone that disagrees with you, but that doesnt bother me like it used to, that's just the way you are..
Actually, what I find problematic in a surveyor is a capacity for self-deception. If you want to make a reasonable argument in favor of not doing a very thorough job, fine. You had quoted a fee that wasn't adequate to provide the service and you needed money. Okay. Not admirable, but honest. But to suggest that some younger colleague who evidently did a better job than you were willing to try to do somehow should have covered for you is hardly in the best tradition of the profession.
Question for Paul? - Dane
> ... Yet your (the civils) 1982 map does not find them any of them and they resort to a calced solution for the ne corner.
I'll admit that the 82 survey appears to be lacking as far as tying down the North line of Lot 21 that lies east of the ancient 1" pipe, but that does not mean that a search easterly of his calculated position was not performed by him.
> From the copies of the "lath survey" that you posted I do not see how the line east of the ancient 1" pipe was established. Did they find any evidence or other corners on that line....?
No other corners were shown on the "lath survey map" east of the ones shown in Area 3.
The 'lath survey map' should have extended the search to the intersection of the SW sideline of Silverwood Drive (originally Devoto Drive)and the NW sideline of the 8' wide walk as shown on both Tract No. 8251 (surveyed in 1924) and Tract No. 25337 MB 743 pgs 65-67, surveyed in 1965. That intersection is the best evidence that can be readily found or re established inasmuch as it is a city right of way intersection that has been perpetuated since it's creation by the City of Los Angeles Engineering Division via thier centerline monuments.
http://survey.dpw.lacounty.gov/landrecords/Tract/MB0743/TR0743-065.pdf
Like I have said, going beyond that intersection for 1924 monuments would probably be a waste of time since there was grading for the extension of Silverwood Drive easterly for Tract No. 25337 and lot development grading and improvements which would have destroyed any of the monuments for 21's north line that are shown on the 1924 maps.
I find it very interesting Kent..
>
> Kent, you mock everyone that disagrees with you, but that doesnt bother me like it used to, that's just the way you are..
>
>
That's just who Kent is. I too used to think, well maybe he has a point, but not so much any more. He has played all his cards and I now know where he sits, behind his narcissistic glasses.
Oh Kent will argue with you, and at times he thinks he's being clever with diversionary tactics. But the fact of matter he is who he is, take it or leave it; much like a grain of salt.
I find it very interesting Kent..6TH
>... He has played all his cards ....
Yea. I have heard the same song and seen the same play for years. It's easy to tell the next chorus and predict the next act...same ol same ol
> ... But the fact of matter he is who he is, take it or leave it; much like a grain of salt.
It's a shame he does not know how to be a friend. Maybe he just does not want any.
Paul- do not get me wrong
My purpose is not to nit pick or find fault, it is just to learn something from your experience. This type of question occurs on an everyday basis,which two corners truly mark the line? The lath survey appears to be weak without offering a more complete picture as to the establishment the line for lot 21. I agree that the 82 survey most likely searched and did not find any of the 2" pipes and that is why they resorted to calced position. I happen to like explaining what I did and I would put that on my map, but I have had a local agency ask me to remove searched for not found comments. I find that odd, why leave it to guess work. From the city ties you have very good evidence of the likely position of the east end of the line in question.... odd no one considered it till you?
Thanks so much for posting this....
Dane
> My purpose is not to nit pick or find fault,
I knew that from the start Dane.
Retracing takes common sense. Each one is different.
Some surveyors just feel the need to prove a point and in doing so, screw up the whole area by filing records calling this tract corner off or that lead/tag offset off..
This 30 foot width for example is no different than a 30 foot deed length. Some guys will hold the 30 feet and call out a 2" IP as being off 4" that has been around for 28 years. Others realize that surveying is not a profession where every piece of the puzzle fits like a glove and will just accept what has been and in doing so will not create confusion by filing a kids record.
What I find interesting is the other surveyors statement in his email to me . which says...
>Paul:
Thanks for the copy of your corner record. I would have set up the lot the same way. I believe the tract you are in set that 2"ip that I am calling south of our line, but I would be obligated to hold it's position for any survey in the tract you are working in. My parcel map will give the surplus to the lower tract to close the gap, but this does not invalidate your survey by any means. Thanks again for contacting me.
Common sense, thats what needs to be taught in Land Surveying
What this guy seems to be missing is where he says ...
>My parcel map will give the surplus to the lower tract to close the gap
Sorry folks, that dog wont bark. My Tract stops at my tract corner. It does not go north 4", never has and never will. If he would have just accepted the damn pipe his client would have gained 4" and believe me, that 4" would help up there with the driveway that's being built.
This was a good experience.
There are no gaps, just bad survey decisions.
My Take So Far
Rule of thumb with early 20th century plats like this (non-rectangular) I always map all adjoiners, and sometime further, to determine the most solidly record monumented positions with harmony to occupation, not rediculous as to math.
Then I have some idea of what the math tells me about the early measures to adjust my foot to that ratio. If occupations are currently settled, find the mons that prove same and hold them in any way possible.
As to the 1" ip AP in the N line of 21, if it fit occupation and math within tme brim of your Filson, I would hold it for sure.
