Hack, post: 413272, member: 708 wrote: If you would take the time to read the entire thread you would realize that nobody was rejecting it "merely because the math and measurements".
Now run along your starting to get on my nerves.
Petty insults? Really?
From another thread (thanks Tom).
"In every Profession there are 4 levels of competence.
We all start unconsciously incompetent. We have no clue how much we don't know.
We begin to learn when we become consciously incompetent. We realize we just don't know much. We either begin to learn or change careers. This used to be entry into head chairman duties.
Over time (provided we put effort into learning) we become unconsciously competent. We are getting pretty good but don't realize it.
In the final stage we become consciously competent. This often coincides with death. If we are fortunate we repeat the cycle over and over as we progress in our duties and position. "
Which level are you at? I'd bet you are long way away from the final stage..........
I think I'm done with this thread. I'll be the first to admit that nearly everyone on this venue is smarter, more experienced and better looking than me.
And for the record: I have many times in the past held uncalled-for stakes, and most likely will again - many times. Just not in the instant case.
Brian Allen, post: 413268, member: 1333 wrote:
A sign hangs on the wall above my computer screen, just to help me break old bad habits that were taught by "mentors" and reading too many industry "treatises". It simply says:
Boundary surveying is NOT a measurement problem, it is an evidentiary problem.
Having the sign above your desk doesn't help much when you're in the field and find something that doesn't work perfectly, then forget again and slam another pipe next to an existing one. May want to consider a sign in the truck or on the sledgehammer too.
Brian Allen, post: 413268, member: 1333 wrote: Boundary surveying is NOT a measurement problem, it is an evidentiary problem.
Nice...but it can be the path to Survey Manicheaism: too much emphasis on measurements or evidence can blind one when measurements are evidence.
James Fleming, post: 413297, member: 136 wrote: Nice...but it can be the path to Survey Manicheaism: too much emphasis on measurements or evidence can blind one when measurements are evidence.
I'm definitely accepting the work of the Top Hatted Surveyor.
No need to get your HACKels up. It's just a thread on discussing boundary on a surveyor's site.
Tom Adams, post: 413301, member: 7285 wrote: No need to get your HACKels up. It's just a thread on discussing boundary on a surveyor's site.
A little HACKeling never hurts
The best rule is an existing monument is presumed to correctly mark the corner it is intended to represent unless there is a good and substantial reason to reject it. Good reasons are not necessarily strictly logical reasons. If two monuments mark a line and accepting them as correct over the called distance would cause a building to be encroaching while holding the distance would not then that is a good reason to reject the monuments. Even where monuments are called for Courts may disregard them in favor of the distance called if the circumstances warrant. Rules of priority are not rules of property, they are rules of construction to be used as an aid to ascertain the intentions of the parties to the Deed Contract. Where a monument marks a corner upon which other properties in the vicinity are dependent and have been established based on it for a long period of time then rejecting it and setting a new monument in a new position merely because of precise geometric fit is not good practice.
Dave Karoly, post: 413441, member: 94 wrote: The best rule is an existing monument is presumed to correctly mark the corner it is intended to represent unless there is a good and substantial reason to reject it. Good reasons are not necessarily strictly logical reasons. If two monuments mark a line and accepting them as correct over the called distance would cause a building to be encroaching while holding the distance would not then that is a good reason to reject the monuments. Even where monuments are called for Courts may disregard them in favor of the distance called if the circumstances warrant. Rules of priority are not rules of property, they are rules of construction to be used as an aid to ascertain the intentions of the parties to the Deed Contract. Where a monument marks a corner upon which other properties in the vicinity are dependent and have been established based on it for a long period of time then rejecting it and setting a new monument in a new position merely because of precise geometric fit is not good practice.
Couldn't say it better myself.
James Fleming, post: 413297, member: 136 wrote: too much emphasis on measurements or evidence can blind one when measurements are evidence.
I agree, We probably all start surveys with measurements looking for evidence. After adding evidence, back to measurements with a new possibilities or refined locations. Finally back to measurements when acceptable evidence is not available.
My litmus test for acceptable is, can I make a defendable argument as to location. Evidence from land owners can be useful but taken with a grain of salt especially from those with a biased interest.
In this case having an adjoiner dig up a buried pipe that is in his favor, seems a little suspicious.
Dave Karoly, post: 413441, member: 94 wrote: The best rule is an existing monument is presumed to correctly mark the corner it is intended to represent unless there is a good and substantial reason to reject it.
Yes, but does having a land owner tape across his property and approximatey set a so-called monument move the corner? I have seen many land owners set post, pipes, rebars ect., by measuring from what they believed was a boundary line, to later have a surveyor find the corners several feet away. If one or more corners are not recovered, a measured location is still better than the point the land owner set unless it becomes an adverse or acquiesced issue.
I guess it's not a question of accepting a found monument but, is it really a monument or a piece of junk found in the approximate vicinity.
Finally, the prohibition against parol or extrinsic evidence being used to modify a written Contract does not apply in location
billvhill, post: 413522, member: 8398 wrote: Yes, but does having a land owner tape across his property and approximatey set a so-called monument move the corner? I have seen many land owners set post, pipes, rebars ect., by measuring from what they believed was a boundary line, to later have a surveyor find the corners several feet away. If one or more corners are not recovered, a measured location is still better than the point the land owner set unless it becomes an adverse or acquiesced issue.
I guess it's not a question of accepting a found monument but, is it really a monument or a piece of junk found in the approximate vicinity.
if the boundary is not physically established then they aren't moving it, they are establishing it. In one case it was 500'. The parties to a Deed established the boundary and the Court refused to move it to where it was supposed to be located.
Sergeant Schultz, post: 413281, member: 315 wrote: I think I'm done with this thread. I'll be the first to admit that nearly everyone on this venue is smarter, more experienced and better looking than me.
And for the record: I have many times in the past held uncalled-for stakes, and most likely will again - many times. Just not in the instant case.
What?..not clever enough to participate in a contest of arrogance? 😉
Or just smart enough not to?
