I am retracing a triangular piece basically 228 ft 73 ft 221ft per deed all bearings to degree except on line is to minutes. I have tried every trick i know but it doesn’t close buy 10 ft or more. On the ground its as if the 73 ft side is completely wrong with evidence and an adjoining deed that pushes that line closer to 120 ft yet that deed does not close by 4 ft. Bigger lot makes since to me. Would you hold the evidence and adjoining info and just ignore the 73 ft common line to the 120 ft. As far as i can tell so far. Doing more field work starting tomorrow as i have some other research now to look for as this has been more recently surveyed as of 1952 vs 1940 but most definitely some row changes because the road is in a completely different location but newer info just copied the description from as far back as 1940. It is up the side of a mountain so I understand that the measurements may be off vs today’s technology. Its more of this discrepancy between the two deeds. I think going with adjoining deed as it make’s since on ground and evidence is correct just asking the experts.
The proper key here may be history.
Find out the first iteration of those 2 deeds.
If it was 10 yrs ago, somebody knows.
If it was 50 yrs ago, well, maybe nobody knows.
But, often the seller does not care, cause he's "getting out" of the problem.
But, the buyer does care.
Maybe a seller generated deed. And, they got their GIS tech to write them.
Or, they asked for help from the tax office, and they cooked this up.
Many deeds are "right in concept", and wrong in most everything else.
Tell this client 2500 to 5000 and wait.
For some projects, it's just best to "fish on the other side of the boat".
Nate
@nate-the-surveyor Thanks Nate. Its a puzzle. The last time anything was surveyed was 1952. After that its just been willed down the line. In the 70’s a bunch of smaller lots were combined i. A will to make larger lots. The best evidence so far is creek road and identified the larger trees on an anjoiner that were left the last time it was timbered which makes for a fairly decent line for 3 parcels that joins me per the old plats. No blazes. I do have an old chimney and a stone thats an adjoinier and he said that was his corner which lines up with the trees left from last time it was timberd and sorta fits on on my line. I am going to look for some corners across the road as this subdivision use to lie on that creek but road was changed sometime between 1940 and 1952 so now those will be opposite but atleast maybe find something to get me back. This one has me scratching my head for sure. I got some additional research Friday and read it this morning so a hemlock was called for so i will be looking for that. Fun fun.
The text book says 2+2 = 4. Surveyors are not so sure about that.
Sometimes you have to dig back much further than you ever dreamed would be necessary to determine what MAY have happened.
Research, research, research.
@holy-cow Thank you. So would any of you give credence to large tree’s diameter that is apparent left from parcels being timbered. To me most everything is 18 to 24” diameter mix of hardwoods and not many pines but other softwoods. Yet after walking the lines along this steep mountain side we many along an apparently close to the property lines are all 48” and larger very easy to spot them. One of the things i have discovered in the subdivision where my lot is. Many lots were along a creek. Creek is 20 ft deep and 50 ft wide. The 1940 plat shows all these lots deed as well and these lots are many and like 25 ft wide. This is plat and all i was given to do the survey. Once on site it didn’t take long to see the road is now next to the creek and plat showed it on other side. Now also. After doing research Friday talking to neighbors one who was a youngster born in 1942. Said i saw you down there and heard me talking to my help something is off we have a 70 ft wide trailer on a lot that’s supposed to be 35ft wide. tge old timer told me where the road use to be and i was able to find gravel under the grass in enough spots to make it out. I also went back up and down the mountain side to see those trees forming lines east west and north south for some adjoins to me and others in subdivision. I read more deeds and will books that the lots as they were willed to family were combined over time to the last man well in my lot last woman standing. I am thinking when i go back. And i will be doing some more research as i have some deeds to pull from reading the research i have now. And the old plats which are great for shape but most you can’t read the distance or bearing period. I might have to survey all 10 lots which use to originaly be 24 lots. On other side of road as everyone i went and talked to had copies of deed and there plat which was the 1952 plat all said no markers anywhere. These were older wiser folks. The one young person didn’t know what a deed was he just bought the place. The trees larger ones make the plat look good. I found a couple soundings in cl road that line up as well. I found a deed for the subdivision across road opposite side of creek that has some set iron pins 1988 plat and called for irons that could still be in and be one side of my old subdivision plat from 1940’s. I feel like this may also be a case of surveying more than usual for a lot thats being bought to condemn. But being a triangular piece that has many adjoiners that all will be staying in there homes i want it as right as possible. Many adjoiners come in onto my little small tract. A few calls on subdivision itself like a stone one I found and hemlock tree. A stump. Mind you all in the 1940’s. I will be going back further as i just did what i could friday morning as fast as i could as i had to finish setting some corners on a different lot. Before the 6 hr ride back home.
The text book says 2+2 = 4. Surveyors are not so sure about that.
2+2=5 for very large values of 2.
It is up the side of a mountain so I understand that the measurements may be off vs today’s technology.
Did you look at slope distances to see if things fit a little better?
This got me thinking about using .MAPMODE in Starnet. You could enter the deeds, specify an error for the bearings and distances and see how they all fit together.
I never used the option myself but I knew it existed. You might then be able to input your field coordinates and see how everything moves around to fit. Might give you a new idea of resolving the lines or a new plade to look for more evidence.
I tried a dummy file and I was able to put 3600 seconds in the error settings for direction.
@gary_g I did because during my studying for va exam and some research I did on another job that was done in poles and i went to that site and said no way they reduced to hz and it was done before the regulation of reducing to hz around 1936 ish and the way it was worded and such a short distance like two poles exact. It matched the slope distance spot on but hz was way wonky. I am going since this week is technically the beginning of this survey. Last week was supposed to be a drive by and i pushed pretty hard to get to the site as I don’t get the chance to do field work on boundary surveys much and was looking forward to it. I grabbed my set of chaining pins and i am going to try walking that slope to see better than my pacing i did last Thursday night. Today when i keyed in the deeds and it didn’t close by 10 ft I tried the bad bearing direction arc tangent of the error pointing to bad line. But the one line common to adjoiner is 120 ft my deed sais 73 ft. Now holding my bearings and that adjoining distance its much closer in closure. Almost all the lots close around 2.5 to 4 ft. Which for what’s given doesn’t bother me to much. But the 10 ft seemed a lot off. Compass and rag tape from a stone ought to answer a lot next week. But the possession lines are so distinct and shape out like the plat of whole subdivision and the adjoining sections. Some other stones are called for but after talking to all the owners to let them know what we were doing and getting permission to get on the property i ran out of daylight. Some of these people were salt of the earth. Thanked me for letting them know we got fresh sweet tea and were told to sit down on porch and cool off. I said yes maam. We had already been hard at it for 9 hours on other job 45 minutes away. So i was running around like a chicken with his head cut off trying to flag up dig up anything i could to make this week easier. I still have to map everything driveway sheds ditch creek roads house well and all. My gut sais i know about where everything is supposed to be. Now to nail it down. So i cause no gaps or overlaps. But that slope thing has been sticking into my brain. Maybe someone didn’t get the memo in 1940. And its just been the same in 1952. You could have solved all my issues lol. Thanks again. Love this. Makes you look at all options.
Ok i have just discovered something. A number on the bearing is upside down and backwards. Didn’t years ago some people drafted upside down and if so maybe the transposed a number would this be a type of blunder in that era. So n45w could be n54w for example. That might swing that bearing out just enough to close as well as the other lots when i hold that other distance. I don’t know why i didn’t see that earlier today. Taking pics of plats on a phone sometimes is not the best. Lol. I never drafted upside down but seems I remember people who did and they talked about it.
@holy-cow I always start by digging back to the same point. The point in time when the boundary I am surveying was created.
@aliquot Following the footsteps. The original survey is without error. I have traced this one back with my limited knowledge and experience to where the boundary actually changes from a road being on one side of the whole subdivision to the other side. Somewhere between 1940 and 1952. I do have something that is in one deed that references something older around 1890 s i will be looking into that this week. When I surveyed out west in the 90’s and we pulled glo notes and such. The field folders were always in oldest to newest. So I started from the oldest records and worked towards the present. Darn if i had not stopped learning back then and ran off to the Marines i would be so much further along. I don’t regret the Marines but man on surveying boundaries its cost me some learning time for sure. Sometimes I wish i could legally contract myself out to many firms to do nothing but boundaries and get more mentorship and learning and experience in. But i have made myself a note about your statement of going back to the original. Thanks for posting. I need all the help i can get for sure.
In the east the work done in the mid 19th century was often better than the work done in the mid 20th century. If it was easy everybody would be good at it. Lol
Transposition errors are common in deeds or on maps.
You may need a full chain of title for your parcel and adjoiners to conduct a correct retracement when things dont agree.
It can also be important to conduct research of historical survey archives for records in private hands.
Good luck!
@la-stevens Thanks. My boss showed up this morning and i went over my findings and the additional research i found. He had the same issues with deeds not closing and what my first determination of how to fix he came to same conclusion. I told him about seeing the upside down number so he is going to fiddle with that some today as i ride down. But every lot doesn’t close by 2.5 to 4 ft or any other deeds in same subdivision adjoiner etc. he said we will fit it in the best we can. He will probably look over my research and maybe see something I missed that might shed some light. I have a list i made of additional information i need to pull and he is getting the row information from dot as i have not done that yet. Thanks for the knowledge for sure.
