I have never read of "accuracy standards" for the acceptance of existing monuments?
Please post.
Keith
Acceptable methods but not accuracy.
That has been the thrust of the BLM over the years.
You do it by the book but have some chaining or other errors then the corner still stands, whether Senior (original) or junior (subsequent).
My only argument is that a lot of shortcuts were done to fill in the later subdivisions such as stubbing in a corner from one direction which is a no-no to the BLM but was perfectly accepted by the land owners at the time.
Deral
What do you do when the monument is 17' off line but the appellate court in 1972 said it's the original quarter corner but the superior court judge in 1973 said he thinks there was skulduggery by the landowner's surveyors that identified it as the original quarter but the Foresters run their compass line of pink "TIMBER HARVEST BOUNDARY" flagging through the woods and naturally correct up to line every time they see a monument (in this case not hard to miss because it's a concrete monument sticking up 2') and the subsequent settlement of the case ignored the existence of the monument?
Mr. Williams
I have previously explained to you the provisions of Chap 6 of the '73 manual that sets forth the process for tract segregation and document reformation. Those principles will be part of the 2009 manual if you simply look for them.
How many times must you be told the same thing before something sinks in?
Remember, surveying is a profession and the limitations set forth in section 5-13 or 6-11 of the '73 manual do not apply to private surveyors not under contract to the BLM.
Legal principles that you have no experience recognizing are routinly controlling for private surveyors.
You could not afford the fee I would have to charge just to give you an outline of the magnitude of your ignorance.
The above is not meant as an insult, merely a clear statement of your limitations.
Richard Schaut
I like Jim Frame's succinct explanation the best
A junior corner set during the course of a competent survey is a witness to the location of the senior line. Using it to restore the location of the senior line seems like a slam dunk to me.
If a competent surveyor was their before you and set a monument using adequate accuracies and procedures for the time and equipment he was using how can you ignore his monument? For all you know, his monument was on line at the time it was set and the "senior" corners are no longer in their original position. I think it reaches a point where it has equal weight as the senior corner, if it was set by acceptable standards. That "witness" to the original line is often some of the best evidence you have.
Mr. Karoly
Your problem would indicate that Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, US Supreme court was right in his 1984 'Report on the State of the Judiciary' when he said that the US legal system was 'no longer acceptable for a civilised society'. That report is a good read, I suggest every surveyor might want a copy.
Richard Schaut
The next OBVIOUS step...would be to read 7-24:
“This procedure is not advisable where the junior corner was not established by an obvious careful resurvey or retracement, evidenced by its recovery far off line....”
How “far” is “too far?”
I dunno...IT DEPENDS!
🙂
Loyal
Mr. Schaut
Courts follow the first rule of the Consulting Business, "Never solve the problem because then you no longer have a job."
so I get it.
If an "expert measurer" did not set the Jr. Corner than it can't be used.
😉
Thznks, Loyal
Richard
Sometimes you are just too funny for a response.
I would think you could do us all a favor by posting those accuracy standards that you use to accept existing monumentation.
Those standards ain't in no BLM Manual.
Keith
Loyal
If Richard would post the accuracy standards that he talks about, your question would be answered.
Keith
Richard
Get off your insults and answer the damn questions.
Keith
As usual,
NOTHING!
If Richard would post his accuracy standards
that land surveyors can use to determine if they accept the found existing monumentation or not............we could continue this discussion!
If you can't do that Richard, quit stating you have such standards.
Keith
Williams
I really sympathize with your inability to understand that my 'accuracy standards' that you so stupidly rant about are very important to you but this discussion deals with BLM practices.
You apparently will not attempt to understand that you, as a BLM contract surveyor, are specifically prevented from dealing with legal considerations that private surveyors must obey.
Therefore, my accuracy standards or any other private surveyor's accuracy standards would be useless to you.
As I have consistently pointed out to you, da w's post regarding bona fide rights laws cited a 1988 Nevada Fed. Dist Court's affirmation of a 1939 BLM resurvey that gave an example of inaccuracy that were dealt with by converting aliquot part descriptions on existing patents to tract numbers with a M&B boundary shown on the official plat. That would show you what level of inaccuracy was deemed important to the BLM. Of course, this seems to be the product of a functioning BLM office which would seem strange to you as you seem to have been 'trained' in a dysfunctional BLM office.
Richard Schaut
Schaut
In other words, your accuracy standards for accepting monuments, do not exist!
And of course again, if surveyors are doing INDEPENDENT RESURVEYS, they could pay attention to your constant referrals to Nevada case.
Keith
Williams
I have already quoted the section of Chap 6 that allows for tract segregation in dependent as well as independent BLM resurveys, you merely prove your ignorance of the provisions in the manual that I have consistently and accurately explained.
Try reading the manual slowly or have a high school kid read and explain it to you.
Richard Schaut