Stephen Ward, post: 390923, member: 1206 wrote: Any ideas on how someone could make this goof?
The ways of the blunder are many, and varied.
It's the end lots, next to roads, that worry me.
Is there any possibility that the curve on the corner lot could have made this happen if the calculation was bungle. This would be a case of laying out the front line, then laying out the far southeasterly line, then going back and heading northwesterly laying out the back lines by starting at the lot corner set for the back of the end lot shown.
Mark Mayer, post: 390966, member: 424 wrote: The ways of the blunder are many, and varied.
The Blunder. That was the name of our newsletter at the Purdue student chapter of ACSM/ISPLS about ten thousand years ago.
Stephen Ward, post: 390923, member: 1206 wrote: .... I kicked up all four corners .... I'm positive that these are the original undisturbed pins....
Slam dunk.
Are all of the side lines supposed to be parallel? Could be that someone calculated the angle from the front line to the side line bearing and they actually did set up on each front stake to stake the rear. If they kept using the same wrong angle each time, it would produce this error.
I agree with Mark, if the stakes are original and they've been relied upon already, it may be tricky to dispute them. Having said that, this would seem to rise to the level of blunder which could negate them if the error can be identified and the stakes haven't been relied upon.
Shawn Billings, post: 390953, member: 6521 wrote: Poor RTK procedures could actually be the culprit..
So you're in agreement with Kent?
hmmm..interesting 😉
In the early days of GPS, a fellow surveyor at a different firm told me he had a problem. They had a project next door to one they had done a couple years earlier. Their old distance (using a total station) and their new distance (using GPS) was about eight feet different between the same two pins. He asked me which distance was the correct distance. I told him to reshoot it both ways. And, I added, it was possible someone had moved one of the pins since the original job.
paden cash, post: 390981, member: 20 wrote: So you're in agreement with Kent?
hmmm..interesting 😉
I'm just making an effort. 🙂
I think that it's unlikely to be RTK. Part of what I do with my "other gig" (tech support) is to try and autopsy problems users encounter. I try to consider all possible avenues that might produce the negative result and then systematically mark them off the list. I can see, vaguely, how RTK might produce this, but it's pretty unlikely given that at least two stakes are shifted by the same amount. A different base coordinate being used from front staking and back staking is the only plausible scenario I can come up with for an RTK induced error. I'm laying odds on it being a stake out with the total station from front to back using a bad calculated angle.
I am thinking when they layed out the Lots, they set up and layed all the rear lots lines out with a total station, they either went 71.70 feet instead of 75.70 or the control point was 4 feet off and they didnt catch it. Its hard to bust an angle twice when the lines are different lengths and still end up on the same rear line.
If all are original pins then what's the problem? The how or why no longer matters.
Stephen Ward, post: 390962, member: 1206 wrote: FWIW, I've spoken to the original surveyor (no longer with the same firm due to the economy) he doesn't have access to the files and doesn't remember any re-plats or redesigns that could have set the stage for an error like this.
That, as far as I'm concerned, is the larger point that should give the surveyors who are just signing and sealing for salaries or wages pause for consideration. Original surveyor is presumably on the hook for some blunder and yet has no records related to any part of the work for which he or she is professionally responsible.
Any surveyor working under that arrangement by which someone else has total control of all documentation related to a service for which the licensee is responsible may want to rethink their life choices. I'd go so far as to require any surveyor who applies his or her seal and signature to a product of professional surveying work to maintain records documenting the representations made. Unless there is a statute of limitations, that would mean that the term should be until the death of the licensee.
SOL is 4 years here, original corners hold over math, even blunders particularly if the corners are being used, monuments are king for a reason.
MightyMoe, post: 391008, member: 700 wrote: SOL is 4 years here, original corners hold over math, even blunders particularly if the corners are being used, monuments are king for a reason.
The obvious question, though, is who ended up with a lot that is 4 ft. narrower than is shown on the plat and what the surveyor who represented otherwise may owe them for damages. It's one thing to agree that original, undisturbed markers shown upon a subdivsion plat control the corners represented on the plat. It's quite another to fast forward ten years once many or most of said markers no longer exist and then to have a dispute break out.
In Texas, an amended plat would be the remedy. Who would you expect to pay for that if not some surveyor who was ultimately responsible for the mistake?
Kent McMillan, post: 391009, member: 3 wrote: The obvious question, though, is who ended up with a lot that is 4 ft. narrower than is shown on the plat and what the surveyor who represented otherwise may owe them for damages. It's one thing to agree that original, undisturbed markers shown upon a subdivsion plat control the corners represented on the plat. It's quite another to fast forward ten years once many or most of said markers no longer exist and then to have a dispute break out.
In Texas, an amended plat would be the remedy. Who would you expect to pay for that if not some surveyor who was ultimately responsible for the mistake?
And deeds of correction. In VA
Could they be corners for adjoining lots behind these, not common? The house does look like it is parallel to the plat lines. Any fences?
MightyMoe, post: 391008, member: 700 wrote: SOL is 4 years here.
Does the four year limitations period begin to run upon discovery, though?
What (and when) is discovery in a situation like this, is the current survey the discovery?
Does repose start ticking from the initial staking or the discovery?
Kent McMillan, post: 391013, member: 3 wrote: Does the four year limitations period begin to run upon discovery, though?
I'm not a lawyer, but from what one has told me it doesn't.........
The question didn't arise related to anything I had done or was involved in
How could someone make this goof you ask?
Perhaps the field work should have been checked by the PLS prior to stamping the plat.
Perhaps the field crew was working late into the evening.
Perhaps the field crew did a quick job and didn't close their work.
I agree that this likely is a case of too many coordinates on the worksheet which resulted in the field crew using the wrong point numbers for staking.
However, you can be assured that this screw up is the fault of the lowest person on the totem pole; the draftsman.
These things happen when checks and balances are not in place to prevent them. We all learned procedures to combat blunders like this but we get lazy or get a false trust that our mechanics and equipment will alert us to these types of issues. I don't know how others work but I run everything by my partner and he does so likewise. We are not error free but we celebrate together more often than we commiserate.