Approximate Corners

I'm not a huge fan of such a thing. The exception might be for a construction project where you know the corner will get knocked out and its just there temporary.

I don't think we would discuss that very long down here. As far as I'm concerned, that's a big no-no.

If you can't figure out where the corner is actually located, for chissake call a surveyor.

in what context are these corners being placed? I have done something similar for placement of laterals in a new subdivision.

If it's a target for clearing or general viewing in an unfinished development it's fine. Without context it's impossible to say...

Aaron, Thank you for bringing this discussion to the national forum.
A question was posed about the context, with the most questionable use of
these stakes is while doing a corner search and, not finding one or
more corners then staking out to a pre-calced position or measuring to a distance-
distance intersection with a long tape.
It is my personal feeling that in this context an "approximate" corner stake does
not serve the client nor the profession well.

Scott

Illegal in Arizona

older residential subdivision. Not for clearing or construction.

ya if it was for that I would think "clearing Limit" would be a better term.

I agree. It could lend itself to confusion and possibly court, between neighbors if a different location was reached, monument set, and a survey filed.

Thinking that's where it is headed here in Oregon, as well.

Bad practice. What if the "approximated" spot is actually on the wrong side?

Raises some interesting questions for me. I do a lot of utility work and frequently road side corners have been disturbed or disappeared and I'm asked to set a stake at the approximate location for a designer/engineer. I'm not being paid nor do I want to accept responsibility for replacing every single corner that comes up missing. What I would have serious issue with is someone setting a durable monument at a location that is 'approximate' which I have seen. Context is everything.

In Arizona the SBTR takes the position that your responsibility for an approximate corner is the same as a good one.

I can think of a handful of instances where this would have some value. It appears this is something different. Are you saying there are people doing this as a practice?

:good:

That's the way a lot of people look at it.

Even though you and the client both know it's not really the corner, who's liable when a clearing contractor uses the stake and clears 10' too much?

never a good idea imho

This is very similar to a situation that came up several years ago in the Eureka, CA area and the stakes look similar also. You may want to check with members of the Humboldt Chapter of CLSA or the Humboldt County Surveyor Dave Ryan for more info.

Unless it is clearly defined for very specific purposes where the situation demands a temporary nature, BPELSG does not consider this an appropriate standard of practice in California for marking property corners.

:good:

That is where I have some problems with "thou shalt never......." or "thou shalt always....". As usual - it depends!

IF we are "professionals", we should be able to make the decisions of when certain things are appropriate and when they are not.

Obviously, if someone is representing the "approx." stake as something it isn't and/or if someone is relying on the "approx." stake for something it isn't, then there will probably be problems - it depends......

Construction Surveyors here use 'Extent of Works' or 'Designed Fence Line' to effectively mark the same thing without crossing that line....

Putting an 'Approx. BDY CNR' mark over here would end with you receiving a strongly worded letter (and fines and follow up) from the Board.

There is NO SUCH THING. Corners are not approximate. Monuments might be depending on the circumstances. I get asked to do this by realtors all the time and the answer is always no. This type of stuff is just like pin cushions....