Perhaps I am reading this wrong
> Excellent point about gore or gap on adjoining property.
I disagree. See my reply to Santa Vaca.
Stephen
Perhaps I am reading this wrong
I state on the plat and explain that my measurements and the record are the SAME LINE ON THE GROUND.
How do you state on the plat “SAME LINE ON THE GROUND”?
I would be interested in reading your statement and maybe copying it if you don’t mind.
I generally put record as found on a line if I feel I am within my surveying tolerances. I stay well within regulatory tolerances but I don’t try real hard to achieve excellent closures on most of my products because I don’t think it’s necessary or practical. I have not extended the “go with record” past a 0.2 even on bigger surveys where it would be well within tolerances, because I felt compelled to represent the position of monuments at the time I did the survey. I believe monumented boundaries are the same as meanders in that they define a line that moves over time due to different circumstances so I should record their new positions. I do list found and record on lines that I differ from. I find it hard to figure out what boundary decisions have been made for "set corners" on a plat if only found numbers are listed on a plat.
Perhaps I am reading this wrong
Bear,
I've tried every way known, as has everyone, but a few years ago I started using this statement - the criteria being I have a monument at each end of the line - :
"( ) - denotes record data depicting the same line on the ground as retraced by this survey".
I have yet to be accused of "moving the boundary" with this statement, by title companies, landowners or lawyers!
"The older I get, the less I care about hundredths. "
:good:
Oh boy, that and a whole lot of other things, right?
Don
Who cares if you change "Record"
We are hired to report the difference between measured and record, very small or very significant.
No Attorney on earth is going to tell me otherwise, period.
Around here, there is always a difference, mostly small, but sometimes a big difference and sometimes a huge difference.
It is our duty to survey on the ground and prepare a plat and description of our findings no matter what the "record" shows.
If not then we might as well just be hired to find the corners, flag them up, knock on the door and say "There you go sir all done, that will be $50 please."
My 0.02
Randy
I change record on almost every boundary survey I perform, except in well established subdivisions where my measurements fall within the error budget for my instrumentation. I report what I measure. They already have a deed, they need a survey.To me,those that show record are doing a disservice to their client and usually have trouble explaining why their measurements do not match record. In my experience, usually its a title person or attorney complaining to them that their survey does not match record and how this causes them trouble. I explain how my procedures and measurements strengthen and verify the record measurements. To me, updating and improving records is part of what we do.
Let's define record.
I would think "Record" is what is on the deed or original subdivision plat. No matter how many surveyors report slightly different numbers later, the "Record" values should not change. The legal description should not change with each re-measurement.
Except in Texas
There they apparently do a rewrite on every survey. That is they report that they surveyed something of the dimensions, bearings and monuments listed which may or may not actually be the same something as currently described on a deed with different dimensions, bearings and (sometimes) monuments. Basically, a listing of how I am the superior expert measurer. Well, at least, that seems to be what some of our Texas buddies have been telling us over and over all these years. Apparently, no one has ever been able to actually survey the same piece of ground and get the same results in the history of the State of Texas and its predecessors. Or, maybe Texas boundaries are like rattlesnakes and just keep on moving even after their heads are removed.
Except in Texas
> There they apparently do a rewrite on every survey. That is they report that they surveyed something of the dimensions, bearings and monuments listed which may or may not actually be the same something as currently described on a deed with different dimensions, bearings and (sometimes) monuments. Basically, a listing of how I am the superior expert measurer.
Actually, amazingly enough in Texas the emphasis is on actually describing the shape and location of real property and not simply some fictitious something that will keep a message board for surveyors occupied into the 22nd century. Being able to keep boundaries stable necessarily involves replacing missing monuments and leaving a record of that fact that is within the chain of title.
As for the fact that with modern surveying instruments and methods it is possible to describe the shape and location of a tract of land much more accurately than could have been done in prior eras, that seems oddly unremarkable. Why would it be a big surprise that two section corners that were reported as being 1900.8 varas apart in 1881 might be found to be 1921.035 varas apart in 2013?
Well....in the Public Land States, I would submit that most of what we do falls into one of the following categories.
1. Original Survey (probably within the limits of one or more existing surveys)
2. Retracement (of an existing survey)
3. Retracement AND Resurvey (of an existing Survey)
As near as I have been able to determine, the first truly definitive Definition of later two terms in the GLO/BLM Manual shows up in the Edition of 1894.
Manual of Survey Instructions 1894
Page 71:
EXPLANATIONS OF THE ARTICLES ON PAGES 72 to 78, WITH GENERAL DEFINITIONS OF A "RETRACEMENT" AND A “RESURVEY.”
Paragraph 6:
In order to prevent any misunderstanding relative to the modus operandi indicated by the terms “retracement” and “resurvey,” the following definitions of the same are here presented:
Paragraph 7:
The retracement of a township boundary, or other line of survey, consists in the determination of the True bearings and distances between the successive corners along the entire length of such line; and the data thus obtained will be embodied in the field notes together with the detailed particulars of the methods employed. (emphasis added)
Paragraph 8
The resurvey of a township boundary or other line of survey consists of a retracement of such line accompanied by the reconstruction of defective original corners and the establishment thereon of all the necessary new corners, and the detailed particulars of the entire operation will be embodied in the field notes. (emphasis added)
When properly executed, none of the above procedures alter the limits, or boundaries of the existing lands, parcels, or Sections.
Just my two bits.
Loyal
Except in Texas
So that difference is why you report record and measured. Does Texas have rules saying that "Record" is what the last surveyor reported as his measured values, or does "Record" remain what was first recorded?
Except in Texas
well IMHO the record refers to any prior deed or survey. Should the record reflect changes in measurements and new monuments set? Absolutely. Take for instance the last boundary survey I performed. The record deed was from 1911 and likely compiled from various other sources (deeds, old surveys, etc). So I prepared a new boundary survey that found existing monuments (some differed by record by several hundred feet, others by mere tenths of a foot) I set tie points along the river and calls along mean high water. The river has changed a great deal over the years (should I just use record along the river??) About 600 acres of this survey had well marked, blazed lines and old stone monuments(accepted by landowners and called for in these poorly written deeds for years but differing from record by hundreds of feet on some lines and very inconsistent..20 feet to 345 feet differences.Should I hold record?? I reported my measurements, tied the whole thing to grid and prepared a new schedule A for inclusion in a deed. They will likely reference the old deed and include my description as a more particularly described as....You are creating a new or rather "updated" snapshot in time. You have better tools and these should yield superior results. There is nothing wrong with the record, but you need to leave your own record, which reflects conditions when you did your work.
Except in Texas
So if the legal description is rewritten in a new deed, then yes, it becomes the record. I would take "Record" to mean "latest deed or (possibly amended) approved plat".
But just because some surveyor files a record of survey with different numbers, I wouldn't take those numbers (no matter how good they were) as defining "Record" without the new deed description.
Except in Texas
> So if the legal description is rewritten in a new deed, then yes, it becomes the record. I would take "Record" to mean "latest deed or (possibly amended) approved plat".
>
> But just because some surveyor files a record of survey with different numbers, I wouldn't take those numbers (no matter how good they were) as defining "Record" without the new deed description.
"Record" means a value of some element of survey data such as bearing, distance, monument description, or area as reported in the public record. Since boundaries in Texas are created by the original conveyance that severed a tract from common ownership, the description in that conveyance provides the original, and typically most important, record. Subsequent conveyances based upon descriptions from resurveys provide a history of record shapes and locations as subsequently found that can provide important evidence.
It also can happen that the last conveyance was based upon a description from a faulty survey. Perhaps RTK was used, which is to say: "was used inappropriately". The purpose of comparing record survey data in that situation is to show that the RTK survey was simply incorrect and to demonstrate the basis upon which the faulty description was corrected.
Except in Texas
Surveyor A creates a tract using a specific basis of bearings in which he sets numerous monuments with specific related descriptions, each separated from the next by a distance measured to a tolerance.
One month later, Surveyor B comes along and surveys what he believes to be the same tract created by Surveyor A. He uses a different basis of bearings. His description now lists "Found" monuments instead of "Set" monuments that may have slightly different characteristics listed than those provided by Surveyor A. The distances between said monuments are shown as having been measured to a different tolerance. The area enclosed within said boundaries may also be shown to a different tolerance. Meanwhile, Joe Layman is trying to discern if North 4 Degrees 14 Minutes 15 Seconds East and 20.0 feet to an iron pin set is the same boundary as North 5 Degrees 15 Minutes 18 Seconds East and 19.96 feet to a "Found" #4 iron rebar 24 inches in length, slightly leaning. Especially if the tract area by Surveyor A was 13.4 acres and the tract area by Surveyor B is 583703.811 square feet. Remember, this is only 30 days after the production of Surveyor A's plat.
Perhaps I am reading this wrong
There is no gap just because measurements don't precisely agree. Unless measurements are the only information given. But what surveyor would do that? Consider that measurements are low on the list of dignity of calls behind intent and monuments. It seems prudent that a competent surveyor will emphasize these. And if the intent and monuments agree between surveys then there is no discrepancy.
