Accept the monument?

Thanks for posting this Mighty...

As Brian and others have commented, this has generated one of the best discussions of serious retracement issues that we have had for some time.

Loyal

Many Unknowns

> ... I really doubt if I accepted any goat stakes along the way. If I did what can I say? The.goat made a good survey.

:good:

edit/ps. Some guys hate that anonymous posters don't give their names and try to claim what they say isn't valid. Me, I wish I knew who some of these guys were only because they seem to be some of the wisest surveyors I have ever (not) met.

Thanks for posting this Mighty...

> As Brian and others have commented, this has generated one of the best discussions of serious retracement issues that we have had for some time.
>
> Loyal

:good:

I agree (obviously). This is one of the most serious discussions for surveyors in my opinion. Sometimes we don't think about the long-lasting effect of our boundary work, and the turmoil it might cause accordingly.

Many Unknowns

I've finally painted myself into a corner and have to decide to accept or reject a found W1/16 corner on the south line of a Section 21. The SW Section and S1/4 corners are resurveyed (prorated) BLM brass caps cira75. The 1/16 corner had to have been set after the resurvey and looks like this:

I'm not buying someone setting this to see if they stayed off state lands.
Actually, in this case, there are a number or reasons they would want to avoid the state. And they might well want a more stable mark than just a lath. There were a series of exploration projects right there and there are permitting issues with public vs. private lands. Avoiding the state land in this situation might be very important. But, they have an extensive coordinate list of everything they located and this doesn't show up on it, or in the files of their land people.
The above is the information we know, as provided by Mighty Moe.
I can appreciate Brian's discussion above, but I do not feel it applies in this case.

Here is a graphic of what Moe has explained- it may not be oriented correctly, but fits what he was described well enough for this example.

I believe it points to the fact that the dome bolt was set by someone not intending it to be the permanent corner.

1- It appears to have been placed after the BLM completed their retracement survey. Both the adjoiners held title to their property prior to this.

2- The timber company apparently had survey resources to complete surveys and when they did, they set standard identifiable corners. Whether they completed the required public documentation hasn't been determined, but their inhouse-documentation shows nothing about this corner. Why would they set an unmarked non-standard object for their "corner"? MOE discussed this above. Does that make it the corner that everyone, including the State of Wyoming, is bound by?

3- The state of WY. has the wherewithall to mark their corners according to law, and it should be presumed that if the PTB wanted to officially mark the corner, then it would be done IAW state law.

4- The BLM retraced this line- and apparently didn't note finding anything at this location, nor did they officially monument the position. Did they plunk the dome bolt in the ground as a traverse point as they ran the line, or maybe as the corner, since they were in the AO? Who knows. I'd be interested in knowing if there were some way of determining what was set during the BLM Traverse..., but I wouldn't be suprised if some enterprizing BLM survey tech didn't acquire some misc bolts and spikes while they were in the vicinity.

Bottom line- the only fact you have here is that the dome bolt was placed in the ground for some purpose. That IT WAS set as the 16th is just one of the possibilties and realisticly, not that probable.

What you say is true Rankin but also the inverse is true. No land owner has said that it is not the corner. We do not have any contrary evidence to say the mark is a goat stake.

In fact we have evidence that it does mark the point. By way of our math and the subsequent search area that led us to find this mark. Two pretty strong reasons to accept a point, in my opinion.

I'm not saying it's not a goat stake but this brings up the more pressing question.

Just how close would it need to be to have been accepted without another thought? The mythical 0.04', 0.40' or 4.00'. In this case 1.5' feet. Not knowing the terrain nor the exact date and methods used to set this point obviously gives me a lot of wiggle room when I decide to accept this point.

That said, even if it was set to mark the point and now we can measure so much better and have multiple ways to insure our positional accuracy, I see nothing wrong (if no one seems to have any evidence of reliance) with yanking this point and setting one in the 'perfect' spot. Please do not take that lightly by me but if no one relies on it and you know you can place it more accurately then I see no harm in that.

Consider a point you set years ago and now you find a small error or blunder on your part. You would have no problem yanking and fixing your point, as long as no one has used it for further subdivision nor on reliance to build fences, barns, driveways and such.

Rankin

Whew! That is a bit of work, putting all that together.

Had to chuckle about the timber Co.

This country isn't pretty like the Flathead and there are no timber Co.s around.

Here is where the corner is on a photo:

This is GPS heaven.

628 is the monument, 5502 BLM brass cap at the section corner, 24 is a GPS control point. You can sit on the section corner and look right at the 1/4 and the 1/16 corner. It's as flat as anything gets in these parts.

Mighty Moe

I asked this of you yesterday, but never got a reply.

Mighty:
Where is this located, Twp, Rge, etc?

I assume it is somewhere in Wyoming and just wanted to check my records to see if I was ever in that area. I wouldn't have set that monument, but am just curious as to where it's at.

>
> That said, even if it was set to mark the point and now we can measure so much better and have multiple ways to insure our positional accuracy, I see nothing wrong (if no one seems to have any evidence of reliance) with yanking this point and setting one in the 'perfect' spot. Please do not take that lightly by me but if no one relies on it and you know you can place it more accurately then I see no harm in that.
>

But what if....

one day, old man Higgins passes away at a ripe old age of 98. His widow donates all his old survey junk to the local survey society.

In reviewing their catch, they find in his old records, a plat showing the setting of a timber spike at the 1/16th in question.

And even more significant, it shows a tie to his finding of the section and/or 1/4 corner. You know, the ones BLM proportioned in.

By yanking this unknown point and not noting its existing in your survey record, you have just destroyed evidence of the existance and location of the original.

This mark was set by someone for some purpose, unknown to us. To yank it will destroy its intention, whatever they may have been.

Better to note its existance and disagree with it, then to simply yank it and walk away with a smile.

Charles

Charles, pretty sure you weren't in there. It's not a Wyo survey.

The company I'm working for probably wouldn't want too much info on the interweb.

Bit of a fine line there.

Actually just got a lead today on some more surveys in the area. I'll be talking to him later this week.

clearcut

Better to note its existence and disagree with it, then to simply yank it and walk away with a smile.
Are you saying that is not what is expected of all surveyors, it is the norm here.
Reject it, explain why and provide the location along with a good description of the rejected item for all who follow, they can then choose to honor your rejection because they agree with you or be stuck but disagree because of reliance on the new monument. Sometimes you find two sixteenth corners, one fits well on one side of the line and the other fits well on the other side, both having been relied on, thereby justifying two monuments where one was ideal and the intent, not the case here. No reliance and no record, only leaves personnel opinion backed up with nothing but speculation. Sometimes you hold them, sometimes reject them, requires on site professional judgement and one size does not fit all.
jud

Charles

Thanks, so now I know that any of the records I have from my own surveys, Jessie Speilman, and L.C. Bishop won't benefit you.

Many Unknowns

> No where in the law I've read, has it been held that a monument must be presumed to be an errant monument, approximation, or even a goat stake until relevant evidence is found refuting that assumption. The opposite is true. In the law, we have presumptions, not assumptions.

Not trying to disrespect you on your opinion about the matter, but it appears you have already elevated the metal object found to the status of a monument. I haven't the information to make that claim yet.

If you take the approach that the opposite is true, then any object that has the slightest resemblance to a monument is supposed to be held just because no one knows the origins of the object found.

So, hypothetically, if I were to come into a corner from three different monuments in three different directions all of which resolve to a search area of about a foot (purely mathematical solution). I happen to find a metal object three feet away. The metal object has no pedigree, matches none of the other monuments found, and none of the current owners were aware of it. After extensive contacting of others involved in the property (surveyors, prior owners, caretakers, etc...) I find no one to take credit for placing the object.

Are you saying that by law, I am required to honor that object as the corner solely based on the fact that I have no evidence (beyond not matching the deed calls -as appears to be the original post) to refute the object as being a monument to the corner?

That sounds kind of sketchy to me considering how many pipes, posts, rods, and stones I have seen and used to do things as non-boundary related as pitching a tent, hanging a hammock, winching a four wheeler, and as noted before how many people place objects thinking this is the corner without consulting their neighbors.

jud

I'm just disagreeing with Deral's statement regarding yanking them.

I disagree strongly with yanking monuments of unknown origin.

Reminds me of Kent's arguement about yanking "2-bit rebars".

So, no it is not the norm for some.

Again, I disagree strongly with yanking monuments, whether its a 2-bit rebar of unknown origin or most otherwise. Even if it was one I set, it is better to note the movement to a corrected location, then to just move it. You don't know who relied on it. Reliance does not always present itself for all to see.

I can always make comments! But if you want my "expert":)

> First off, it seems to me that surveyors have/are using any kind of scrap metal including 2 bit rebar with no caps for corner monument and have not/are not recording these corner monuments.

Yes, but unless they are tied to original subdividing monuments in some way, they do not control. There must be some evidence. With the little

> Second, it seems to me that measuring the dimensions of a deed is becoming paramount and if the piece of iron does not fit exactly, it is ignored and simply referred to as a goat stake.
>
> So, there is misconceptions or misunderstandings in both the above statements and errors in both concepts.
>
> The land survey world would be much improved if in fact legitimate corner monuments with caps were filed in the official records and that land surveyors would in fact give more thought and understanding to a found piece of unrecorded iron and accept it, if it has been used, been there for many years, etc. etc.
>
> And that is easy to say, but my opinion has been and remains that measurement only, does not make it in the real world and I have repeatedly made negative statements about technicians and their measurement abilities.
>
> If in fact land surveying was only about measurements, it would be a technical exercise and would not require a license to do it.
>
> Does it not seem probable that when a piece of iron is found at or near the exact measured record distance, that it should be looked at with a serious thought in mind?
>
> Obviously, some will jump on this as requiring all pieces of metal should be accepted and that is not what I am saying or believe.
>
> Further, I have come to think that the measuring technicians are depending on their sole use of measurements to lessen their liability and I believe this is really an erroneous concept because of the fact that if their survey/resurvey ends up on court; the court will come down on the side of acceptable monuments being used, rather then only measurements. This is more than just an opinion as the courts do not hold with measurements only. (A court case could be cited if this is not a fact)
>
> Land surveying should be a professional concept to preserve accepted boundaries that have been in place for many years and may well have been established by the land owners, AND NOT BY A SURVEYOR!
>
> It has been posted many times that only a land surveyor can establish boundaries and I have yet to see any acknowledged treatise or court case that states that.
>
> And that is my opinion.
>
> Keith

No comment David?

> I posted my opinion!
>
> Keith

And, I appreciate it!

I am pretty sure none of my comments will change any minds on this board. I try to learn from what I read, and sometimes I get sucked into an argument about things that I suppose myself to be expert about.

Many Unknowns

> > No where in the law I've read, has it been held that a monument must be presumed to be an errant monument, approximation, or even a goat stake until relevant evidence is found refuting that assumption. The opposite is true. In the law, we have presumptions, not assumptions.
>

Jon, you have mis-read my post. What I'm saying is that an object that appears to be a monument, possibly occupying a corner, found in the vicinity CANNOT be presumed to NOT be the corner. You need to presume it is the corner until you find evidence that it IS NOT the corner. In other words, generally the object is the corner until you find enough evidence to reject it. The law does not presume an object is NOT the corner until you prove it is.

> Not trying to disrespect you on your opinion about the matter, but it appears you have already elevated the metal object found to the status of a monument. I haven't the information to make that claim yet.
>

I didn't elevate the status of the object, the law did that long before I arrived on the scene. Yes, it may be the monument you are looking for. You cannot reject it out of hand because you cannot immediately verify it, you do not have enough information yet to reject it as the corner.

> If you take the approach that the opposite is true, then any object that has the slightest resemblance to a monument is supposed to be held just because no one knows the origins of the object found.
>

No, it is not supposed to be held, no matter what. If you find evidence that it is NOT the corner, then you can and should reject it.

> So, hypothetically, if I were to come into a corner from three different monuments in three different directions all of which resolve to a search area of about a foot (purely mathematical solution). I happen to find a metal object three feet away. The metal object has no pedigree, matches none of the other monuments found, and none of the current owners were aware of it. After extensive contacting of others involved in the property (surveyors, prior owners, caretakers, etc...) I find no one to take credit for placing the object.
>

If all that is true, then it sounds like the monument may not have been set as representing the corner, no one has represented it as the corner, and no one has relied it as the corner. You have gathered all the evidence you can find and, if in your professional opinion that evidence leads you to the conclusion it is not the corner, then have a conversation with the landowners, if they agree with your conclusions, thence remove the object and place your monument where (based on the evidence) you decided where the corner is, document what you have done, collect $200, pass go, and roll again.

> Are you saying that by law, I am required to honor that object as the corner solely based on the fact that I have no evidence (beyond not matching the deed calls -as appears to be the original post) to refute the object as being a monument to the corner?
>

That is why you need to gather evidence from all sources, landowners, recorded and unrecorded documents, highways, railroads, etc, etc, etc, so that you can make an informed and substantiated decision. You have to find evidence that it is not the corner, and generally mere measurements are not enough evidence to do so. Measurements alone do not make an object the corner, nor do they solely make it a "goat stake".

> That sounds kind of sketchy to me considering how many pipes, posts, rods, and stones I have seen and used to do things as non-boundary related as pitching a tent, hanging a hammock, winching a four wheeler, and as noted before how many people place objects thinking this is the corner without consulting their neighbors.

If that is what the objects were used for, and you have evidence of that, reject them.

"No comment David?" Kieth, if you are asking...

If you are asking for my opinion, I will give it, too. But, my experience is less than most on this board. But if I reveal my ignorance, perhaps it will be an opportunity to learn!

My opinion?

From what I read from the original post, I would not feel comfortable holding the found marker in absence of any additional evidence. In my area of practice, most likely the surveyor who called it a timber line marker or something like that is right. In other places, I do not know.

If I found any evidence at all that it was a monument set by the surveyor I was retracing, I would consider it to be the actual corner until proven otherwise.

If I found that it was a monument of a parole agreement, I would note its relation to the survey or mathematical line of the deed on my survey plat. But since I am not allowed to create or move boundaries here in the state of Washington, I would not change the boundary's bearing nor distance on my survey map/plat. Nor would I place on my survey map a legal description that was worded differently than the statutory warranty deed.
_{(When subdividing, of course, I seem to create boundaries and move them about, but even then, I am only monumenting boundary lines that are created by the owners. My monuments define those boundaries, but any authority for creating those divisions that I posses comes from the owners.)}

To sum up:
If I had evidence from all the land owners that none of them considered it a corner, and found no mention of it in any record, then I would pull up this misplaced piece of junk and set my own.

If I had evidence that it was the monumentation of the original subdivision that created the parcels I was surveying, or that it was meant to replace a decaying or obliterated original monument, then I would give it the great honor and care it deserves.

Many Unknowns

Haven't you figured out who linebender is? Got a long history, goes back to when I owe him a "stake dinner" in a lost bet. Of course I wasn't LRDay back then. Not sure I should have give up my former self, but I sure took a lot of crap for being a (non)anonymous poster. Of course this place has a throttle where the old POB was a mad house where anything went. It was a huge challenge to learn things back then because you couldn't always cut through the attacks but linebender was one of my teachers.

Many Unknowns

Careful there Ridge, you could give a fellow a big head. It has been a blast watching your understanding of surveying evolve. I learn from you now. I have a job as do many where I need to be a little PC and I don't mean point of curve. It's nice to be able to come over here and tell it the way it is. I've had a few handles along the way. I started off as Boot Five with some Deed Reading. Mixed in. My current handle was chosen to needle those straight liners a little. Those of us who have been around a while know that those who we follow had a challenge walking on a straight line. 😉 quite frankly all these explanations of why you can't accept a nice mark off line by some amount are a little silly.

Many Unknowns

Some day I hope to pay off that stake dinner in person. How's the little deed doing?