Ok, so about twenty minutes ago I get a call about a survey on a half acre lot in a very exclusive neighborhood that I did a couple weeks back to inform me that my survey was wrong by "almost three inches". Confused, I told them I would call them back. I then pulled up the drawing, looked at all the research and data again and called the homeowner back explaining that I was convinced my map was correct and that the corner in question was an original corner. She then gave me the number of the surveyor who said my map was wrong and I called him. He immediately began to tell me that he had surveyed half the block (so had I) and that his traverse closure was near perfect and that he had performed a least squares adjustment. He further explained that the 0.23' in question was clearly his clients (an attorney no less) and that I would need to correct my map and pull up the iron. I asked him had he bothered to notice that four of the five irons (one of which is the corner that's "out") in the rear of these lots were all identical, all buried over 1.5' and that they all had the exact same ancient flagging on them, all of which he acknowledged. Confused yet again i asked him why he had come to the conclusion the corner was out and he said that he prorated some distances and that his position was the correct position. When I then asked how far did his "correct" position throw the bearing off on that line from the front he stammered and said it didn't matter. Well that was the end of that conversation because I informed him that had he held the bearings the corner was only off by approximately 0.04' from record. Why in the world are there expert measurers in land surveying to begin with?
> Why in the world are there expert measurers in land surveying to begin with?
I agree with everything you said, and the 'engineering' mentality that determined the monument off. But I am positive that I, and many of our colleagues, started out with the same mentality. It has always "appeared" to be a science of exact mathematics and trigonometry.
> Why in the world are there expert measurers in land surveying to begin with?
Because we have allowed this travesty to begin, grow, and now nearly completely consume our profession. Doubt this? Read the course descriptions and requirements for education to become licensed. Read many of the threads on this board. If we can't measure repeatedly within a miniscule error ellipse for every measurement we take, we cannot survey, and are a disgrace to the profession. Besides proportioning is so much more "fun" than performing the menial tasks of actually gathering all the relevant evidence and properly applying the law to the situation at hand.
Too bad we cannot remember what our job really is.
Day v. Stenger, 47 Idaho 253, 274 P. 112 (1929).
"The purpose of a resurvey is to ascertain the lines of the original survey and the original boundaries and monuments as established and laid out by the survey under which the parties took title. Bayhouse v. Urquides, 17 Idaho, 286, 105 P. 1066; Wing v. Wallace, 42 Idaho, 460, 246 P. 8. Parties cannot be bound by any survey not based upon the survey as originally made and monuments as erected. Id."
Please note the date of this decision. Yes, it is still being held as "good" law, and probably not only in this state. I'd bet if we actually took time away from admiring our residuals generated by Star*Net, and actually read the law, we'd find it is the law in every jurisdiction.
If I understand your post correct, this surveyor prorated from the nearest original corners and wanted to move the original corner 0.23 feet. I suppose if you are at an original corner and you prorate to find it's position it moves. Shouldn't have been prorating at all.
Sorry to hear it. Surveyors sometimes forget that our duty is to retrace previously established property lines, not invent new ones based on what our calculator tells us what to do. As was said previously, the science of measurement gets a little too ingrained sometimes, and as was also said previously, the resulting practice is a travesty. Sounds like you have successfully retraced a previously established property line, and the other guy has done an excellent job of calculating.
ww CO PLS
>Why in the world are there expert measurers in land surveying to begin with?
The problem isn't expert measurers. The problem is poorly educated land surveyors.
If a surveyor has failed to educated himself to property perform the legal related tasks of boundary retracement, I doubt that surveyor has educated themselves to the level to be called an expert measurer. The fact that someone's defense is "his traverse closure was near perfect and that he had performed a least squares adjustment" leads me to believe that he has as little real knowledge in precision measurement as he has in boundary retracement.
Call a spade a spade...these people aren't expert measurers, they're bad surveyors. Calling these morons "expert measurers" and blaming a measurement, engineering mindset is insulting to they guys here like Ralph Perez, John Hamilton, Scott Zelenak, et al. who actually are expert measurers.
Another expert measurer (arguing with other surveyors)
I feel your pain and frustration. And I agree that a lot of surveyors cannot see past the end of their own nose.
Arguing with another surveyor is a losing battle that only dilutes any confidence the public may have in us a profession. The idiot that wants to call me up and tell me "I'm wrong" is only putting his ignorance on public display.
For the life of me I have never been able to figger out why some of us "attack" a survey with the predisposition that unless we find some great "wrong" by another survey we haven't done our job. I guess it is the professional version of "building one's self up by belittling those around us". Such behavior is immature and most definitely unprofessional. It merely shows a low level of aptitude and a complete lack of knowledge of some of the most basic procedures we're bound to work under.
Don't let it get under your skin. Take the high road.;-)
"Why in the world are there expert measurers in land surveying to begin with?"
Because our State Boards give away licenses to people who have absolutely no clue what they are doing, and then don't require continuing education. This is done under the guise of "protecting the public."
The ability to measure is infinitely more simple to teach than boundary surveying. The plain and simple truth is, we've done this to ourselves.
You cannot adjust your business model to eliminate mentoring then complain that nobody is mentoring any young surveyors. I suppose you could but it will not wash with me.
Understand this post is not directed at any particular person but rather the Profession as a whole...
To me this other surveyors real failure is his failure to call you up and discuss your differences before issuing his report to the client. The Oklahoma board is particularly active in this area.
I'd bet if we actually took time away from admiring our residuals generated by Star*Net, and actually read the law, we'd find it is the law in every jurisdiction.
When you get to court you better have those ellipse reports-they will really want to look at them;-)
I sure want to go to court and say I'm 95% confident:-(
As the great Lubos Motl said "95% is just an insignificant hint":-D
Clearly, the wrong questions are being asked during the testing phase of the licensing process.
:good:
A competent surveyor will understand precision AND accuracy in the context of the law. James nailed it.
I'm not so sure I'd agree with "engineering mentality". When I designed integrated circuits, each layer was created by aligning the current mask to the wafer and exposing the wafer to untraviolet light. The latest mask was aligned to the alignment structures created by previous steps in the process. This is very much akin to holding monuments rather than math.
Exactly Mr. Fleming.
As posted, the root of the problem has absolutely nothing to do with measurement ability. It has to do with poor analysis of the evidence and applying a principle (prorating) incorrectly.
The continued derogation of measurement (an integral part of ALL surveying), hurts the profession just as much as the folks who are not being mentored to properly apply the principles of boundary retracement.
When dealing with civil engineering structures building to design can be critical to public safety. When dealing with boundary survey "problems" some civil engineers fall back to fixing everything to match the original design. These "expert measurers" frequently ignore gross errors in the perimeter survey of a subdivision in favor of the values of the "designed" lots. They ignore the legal precedents and senior rights in favor of the perfection of the design.
EDIT: I agree with other posters that "expert measurer" is wrong. However, "bad surveyor" may be just as wrong. Some working more with civil engineering projects have limited boundary experience and must satisfy the supervising civil engineer with perfect solutions. I have worked in this environment and it was difficult to stand my ground defending proper surveying practice.
> Clearly, the wrong questions are being asked during the testing phase of the licensing process.
agreed, but that is tough to do with multiple guess machine graded exams.
Experience requirements? The threshold is very low in many places, and not well vetted.
proportioning/proration is always a Last Resort!
it should not be taught to undergraduates, and should not be an option in licensing exams.
Yes, it is an important element in Public Lands surveys, but you know what I mean. 🙂
> proportioning/proration is always a Last Resort!
Except of course, where you are statutorily required to always prorate
The contrary can always be shown 😉
District of Columbia Official Code 2001 Edition
Division I. Government of District.
Title 1. Government Organization.
Chapter 13. Surveyor.
?§ 1-1324. Deficiency or excess in measurement of square.
Whenever the Surveyor or a registered land surveyor shall lay off any lot, or any parts into which a square or lot may be subdivided, as provided in this chapter, the Surveyor or a registered land surveyor shall measure the whole of that front of the square on which said lot or part lies, and if, on such admeasurement, the whole front of the square exceeds or falls short of the aggregate of the fronts of the lots on that side of the square, as the same are recorded, the Surveyor or a registered land surveyor shall, except in that portion of the City of Washington included within the limits of what formerly constituted the City of Georgetown, apportion such excess or deficiency among the lots or pieces on that front agreeably to their respective dimensions; and in that portion of the City of Washington included within the limits of what formerly constituted the City of Georgetown, the Surveyor or a registered land surveyor shall allow such excess or charge such deficiency to the highest numbered original lot on that front of the square, or apportion such excess or deficiency among any lots into which such highest numbered original lot may have been subdivided: provided, that wherever in the former City of Georgetown a square or block of land is intersected by the division line between 2 original additions to said City, the excess or deficiency found between the street lines and said division line shall be applied to the highest numbered original lot on each side of said division line, or apportioned among any lots into which such highest numbered original lot may have been subdivided.
I guess this post left me a little confused my first read through. Since when would any competent surveyor wish to prorate and move an existing undisturbed original corner. Personally I'd be thrilled to find such a corner and have it check so well against record. My work is done. The level of precision of his survey is completely superfluous in context of the original corner's position.
Sadly, James is spot on.
Just because I'm paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get me.