I'd have to say "YES". because, the plat shows where found monuments actually are, after time, and frost, and water, and everything settles the monument. And, a set survey marker, is shown on a plat in it's intended position, not "Where it landed".
I consider this, when determining what monuments are probably more stationary.
I have seen somebody pounding a survey marker, and when through, the pounder says "That's good enough".
I have heard a surveyor once say "It's a miracle if my set rebar are within a tenth, of where I intended to set them".
Happy Friday to all.
Welcome to the "new forum".
Nate
I understand your reasoning about set monuments and the care with which they are set and environmental impacts over time, but once the monument "lands"- it's 100% accurate....( the contrary may be shown :-/ insert boiler plate disclaimer here)
If you mean the reported position is closer to true the answer would be yes. Whether one is better evidence than the other is a completely different matter...
Only inasmuch as the measurements have a better chance of being of a higher order. Past that, if the set monuments are original marks, then it makes little difference.
Yes, that is what I mean... positional tolerance.
1. Monuments are set by Surveyors so that the property owners may know where their boundaries are located.
2. Having a survey is an act of good faith.
3. Surveyors and their monuments are not set perfectly.
4. Property owners have a right to rely on the monuments.
Imagine going to get a prescription. As you start to take a pill the pharmacist shows up and yells WAIT STOP!!! You can't rely on that prescription!
Nate The Surveyor, post: 323160, member: 291 wrote: I'd have to say "YES". because, the plat shows where found monuments actually are, after time, and frost, and water, and everything settles the monument. A...
Let me state it in a different way. Suppose you had a map and report of a control network, with coordinates for the monuments. Over time, some of the monuments get torn out. You are hired to restore the control network. Do you a) set out new monuments in the general vicinity of the old, measure and report new coordinates, or b) stake out and install new monuments at the old coordinates and call them good?
Along the same thought, but not quite a hi-jack, I have a question:
How long does it take a "survey point" to ripen to a boundary corner?
example: Surveyor A sets a property pin with an inherent blunder that places said pin 5' from a "proper" location. Later, surveyor B "finds" the blunder and feels it should be corrected. Did the pin (placed with a blunder) become a boundary corner the instant surveyor A tied the knot in the flagging?
paden cash, post: 323229, member: 20 wrote: Along the same thought, but not quite a hi-jack, I have a question:
How long does it take a "survey point" to ripen to a boundary corner?
example: Surveyor A sets a property pin with an inherent blunder that places said pin 5' from a "proper" location. Later, surveyor B "finds" the blunder and feels it should be corrected. Did the pin (placed with a blunder) become a boundary corner the instant surveyor A tied the knot in the flagging?
Excellent question! I have always been taught that a monument becomes a "corner" as soon as it is relied upon. Unfortunately, I have never been taught "who" has to rely on it for it to ripen... Seems to me that the surveyor who set it relied upon it or he wouldn't have set it. He wouldn't testify the following day that he didn't set it where he thought the corner was! So what does "relied upon" mean? Should it be the land owner(s)? What if the land owner(s) never relied on it?
Jim in AZ, post: 323231, member: 249 wrote: Excellent question! I have always been taught that a monument becomes a "corner" as soon as it is relied upon. Unfortunately, I have never been taught "who" has to rely on it for it to ripen... Seems to me that the surveyor who set it relied upon it or he wouldn't have set it. He wouldn't testify the following day that he didn't set it where he thought the corner was! So what does "relied upon" mean? Should it be the land owner(s)? What if the land owner(s) never relied on it?
Plus 2! I have wondered about this.
I think both property owners would have to rely on the corner to give it any significance. For example, surveyor A busts the corner 5', and owner A builds a fence. Did owner A rely on the corner? Yes. Is the incorrect location binding on owner B? No!!
This difference went from a tenth to five feet pretty quick. I get the impression that if it's out a tenth it might as well be out five feet.
paden cash, post: 323229, member: 20 wrote: Along the same thought, but not quite a hi-jack, I have a question:
How long does it take a "survey point" to ripen to a boundary corner?
example: Surveyor A sets a property pin with an inherent blunder that places said pin 5' from a "proper" location. Later, surveyor B "finds" the blunder and feels it should be corrected. Did the pin (placed with a blunder) become a boundary corner the instant surveyor A tied the knot in the flagging?
If I am the original surveyor, that rebar and cap becomes the corner in about the time it take for the ink on the signature to dry.
Then, the most accurate way to determine where the boundary is = that rebar and cap.
dmyhill, post: 323271, member: 1137 wrote: If I am the original surveyor, that rebar and cap becomes the corner in about the time it take for the ink on the signature to dry.
Then, the most accurate way to determine where the boundary is = that rebar and cap.
I agree with this, if the monument lies on the interior of the parcel that is being subdivided.
A new monument set on the exterior or adjoining boundary would be different. You can't 'gain ground' by subdividing, even if you blunder a monument into the ad joiner.
One size does not fit all. If it were a simple checklist or flowchart we could all go home and turn it over to the clerks.
Contrary to popular belief the 'original surveyor' presumption is limited to just that, the original GLO Surveyor. If you intentionally depart from proper methods and there is no reliance your corner monument can and should be rejected. I'll go one further and say the offending Surveyor should pay to clean it up..
Back to the original question, I have always found it easer to measure to a point than to set a point exactly where I want it. Example would be building control hubs. You set them perfectly then set on another corner of the building and check back and find 0.02'. Now you have to wonder if the carpenter will find the 0.02' and is the error in a good direction or bad. On the same issue this is why I don't punch my property corners. I figure the 1-1/2" cap is plenty close enough for defining most property corners and when the next surveyor comes along let him punch it, then he can feel good that all his stuff fits together perfect, if I punch it he might call me off 0.04' to fit his perfect world. My 2 cents, Jp
thebionicman, post: 323288, member: 8136 wrote:
Contrary to popular belief the 'original surveyor' presumption is limited to just that, the original GLO Surveyor.
I'm not sure that I understand your position. Please explain.
IMVHO, every subdivision is two surveys. One, a retracement of the exterior boundary. Two, an original survey of the new parcels to be created.
Here is an example of how the OP would be applied.
I tie into another surveyor's survey. He shows ties to several found old subdivision pins. And, then he sets several new pins, to further subdivide the subject property. I wish to tie into his survey. Tying the monuments he shows as FOUND, are usually going to yield a better tie into his system, than the ones he shows as set. His set pins are theoretical locations, or target locations. Where he MEANT to set them. (Of course, KENT Mc is the exception to this concept... his target locations, and where he sets them are always 100% identical). Where's he at anyway? 🙂
ScottySantaFe, post: 323296, member: 9477 wrote: I'm not sure that I understand your position. Please explain.
IMVHO, every subdivision is two surveys. One, a retracement of the exterior boundary. Two, an original survey of the new parcels to be created.
In the PLSS States it is well established that Corners set by the GLO are correct. This is the foundation of the 'original surveyor' statement as used in these States. While it is true that monuments set by a subdividing surveyor have great weight, they are not established as legally correct simply because they exist. If they were established by intentional departure from the plan of subdivision and have not been relied on they can and should be corrected.
I realize this does not directly connect to the initial post. Sorry for the hijack...
Original monument, YES. Any other type of monument probably no.
It is not possible to be certain that a set monument is exactly where the original monument once stood.
Using the most precise survey measure possible and with any attempt to have the least possible error, a fine hair is still hard to define.
Close enough, yes.
:plumbbob:
no comment
follow thread
done