Process question: Once you have pulled records for subject parcels and adjoiners, how do you analyze the data on the desktop/computer? Assume you have good aerial photography to compare occupation evidence...
One way to do it is to scan the plats and import into CAD, use image overlay to put all the metes and bounds in CAD, then fit the pieces of the puzzle together to make a first pass on agreement of the deeds/plats, then go back to subdivision of parent parcels if the pieces of the puzzle don't fit, then go to the field.
Curious as to the process others use....
I actually plot every deed, and put them together in a mosaic. That includes the record plats. All computed and put together like a puzzle. Using different color, I can differentiate between properties as well as junior and senior rights where needed. The mosaic is oriented to aerial photography and put on grid +/-. I do a lot of annotations with calls and owner information as well and thought son possible jssues. Sometimes thing are really messed up ND I provide noted such as, look 10ft N and W of point D123.
Usually points are uploaded to a data collector and using GPS one company I work for starts to look for corners.
On smaller jobs, I would just use posession and try to recover a few points. Using the values from the music I would rotate/translate to the mosaic system and start stakingout and searching for missing points.
This I completely seperate from an actual traverse to tie in corners and evidence for a bboundary determination.
You are treating this task as a mathematical exercise. When I read deeds I'm looking for calls for bounds and controlling monuments, direct or implied.
What about when the records have significant conflicting evidence? North half of a two acre tract shown subdivided and conveyed on one survey, but not another, platted but not improved streets....? The math part of metes and bounds is easy. Where I struggle is when the math doesn't work, and you have to go further back in the chain of title to figure out where someone missed something. Representing the different chains of title all in one place so you can compare... That's why the method I laid out above puts everything in one (drawing) place so I can compare. Looking for more specifics like GaryG's 'mosaic' response above. How do you work the puzzle?
After trying every shortcut I could think of, I eventually learned the value of organizing my data from the beginning in a manner that would allow any reasonably intelligent PLS to pick up my work and run with it. If there’s any step in my boundary research that would require my personal knowledge to decode, then I’ve failed. So, my first step is to grab a screenshot from the GIS tax map and create a deed key. The subject tract will be given number 1, the abutter to the north is labeled #2, and then I number the abutters sequentially moving in a clockwise direction. As I start downloading deeds (I’m spoiled in NC, they’re almost all free), I rename the PDFs with the corresponding deed key number and parcel details, e.g., “3 Smith to Jones 1.4ac 2016 DB-543_Pg-235”. This would reflect the abutter labeled, “3” in the deed key. As I continue backward in the chain, additional deed PDFs might be labeled, “3 -1 Brown to Smith 1.4ac 1996 DB-401_Pg-557”. The, “-1” implies that it’s back one in the chain from the current deed. With splits or recombinations, I’ll add letters (3a Miller to Brown 0.7ac 1981 DB-359_Pg-225”).
The initial deeds pulled, I then begin sketching them in CAD making sure my layer names correspond with the names I use for the PDFs. I’ll also give each layer a unique color and draft them well away from the state plane coordinates in a giant circle labeled, “Original Deed Orientation”. I print and label the deeds with their number and as I am sketching the deed in CAD, I have a highlighter and colored pencils close at hand. I match the pencil colors with the CAD layer colors, and I mark or highlight monument calls, easements, or anything else that I can foresee as having the potential to impact my boundary determinations. After everything is drawn in CAD, I copy the deed sketches out of the big, Original Deed Orientation circle, and start fitting them into a georeferenced image (again spoiled, our orthos are free in NC and routinely updated). If any of the deeds or plats that I download have a grid tie, I cement that parcel and piece the others around it. If there’s no grid tie, I tend to use roads. I’ll then create points along the subject tract’s boundaries being careful to note what the found corner consists of, e.g. pipe, .75in pipe, planted stone, capped rebar, etc.. I require my field crews to store a point coded, “not found”, so I can prove to others that we looked for it. Typically, all the points and lines get moved once the field crew scares up a few monuments. My crews are instructed to take georeferenced pictures of all found and set monuments along with encroachments and any other notable evidence. Besides helping me stay organized and picking up a long dormant project without too much review, this process makes it easy to share deed research with attorneys and helps to protect myself from unscrupulous attorneys trying to paint me or my organization in an unprofessional light. I've witnessed how an attorney can make a good, but unorganized, PLS appear negligent and I recall the emotions I felt at that time whenever I consider skipping or short cutting my process.
Understanding the history of a given area’s land use is just as important as staying organized and digging deep into the deed chain. I can’t match a local PLSs knowledge of the personal histories of the landowners. I can, however, learn about common land uses during specific time periods and this has helped me solve complicated boundary issues more than deed math and maybe even possession lines.
I draw out all of the deeds and records of survey on a layer called 0-Record, label the linework and then create a group of the linework which I set aside as a sort of block for that record.
When I get the field data I import that and make a copies of the record groups and snap/rotate them onto the points to get a general idea of how well the found monuments fit the record.
Then on a layer called 0-Measured I draw pin-to-pin linework between the monuments I'm accepting/planning to show on my survey or between found monuments and calculated corners that I'm resetting, and this is the boundary linework my drafter ends up getting.
I don't really use google earth at all. I have my crews topo roads, fences, tree lines, hedges, anything near the boundary that indicates occupation, etc the same time they're mapping monuments so I have actual conditions on the ground instead of some warped 3rd party imagery that is of limited use to me.
What about when the records have significant conflicting evidence?
I try not to view evidence as being in conflict in the early stages of a boundary. During the fact gathering portion of a survey, evidence is neither good nor bad, it's not conflicting or in harmony. Evidence just is, Dude 🤔 . I find evidence, then evaluate it while trying my best not to allow my biases to influence my decision. A mistake I made much more often when I was first licensed was to go into surveys with a predetermined outcome in mind. I still fail on this one more often than I'd like, but at my best, I gather up the easy evidence, use it to get the harder evidence, then when I'm satisfied that I've made a reasonable effort to get everything that can be got, I look at it all together and make notes on the appropriate CAD deed layers. A note might be, "Found .75in conduit pipe that matched others, presumably set by Bob's Discount Tires and Land Surveying, but was leaning, very loose, and right next to a utility pole". Again in CAD, I force myself to write down my thoughts on a, "Boundary Determination", layer and this could be, "Found conduit at utility pole not held due to suspected disturbance from power company. Held next iron in that line as there wasn't any evidence of it being disturbed".
Thanks for the input! Some great ideas. Hoping to be a good surveyor one day. 😉
We map each and every deed, survey, plat, etc.... in our project area. Each document gets it's own drawing with a name coincident with the file name such as ROS 12-34. We have database folders such as 33N 2E and then within that folder we have all 36 sections. Each document we create is saved based on location in this manner. This eliminates a ton of redundancy and has been a great benefit in areas we conduct a lot of work in.
We then insert each drawing into our base file similar to what others have described above. Each drawing is placed on it's own corresponding layer and search coordinates are established for monuments. There is alot more to it than just math, but to start....just math works for monument search.
The "Boundary Survey Research Procedure" outlines the steps to accurately define property boundaries, including data collection, mapping, and legal verification.
@gary_g Similar to what I've done in the past when I was an actual surveyor and not a spreadsheet pusher (not surprising - it's the central Maryland way). One thing I've always done is label the lines exactly as they are in the deed. So, my CAD labels may say "N 24-30-00 W 330.00'" for computing convenience, but underneath that I may type "Running with a portion of the 13th line of Wilson to Smith, reversed, N 24 1/2 W 20 perches). That way I have all the information I might need from the deed description, including an idea of the precision of the way the measurement was originally performed from how it was expressed, in one place
Yea, I have done that depending on what I find as i read and plot out the deeds. In TPC I can add a rotation value to each deed so when i rotate and translate the deeds to fit together I can add an adjustment so the actual bearing in the deed is displayed. If you pull a tie between two points you would get the actual bearing between the coordinates but the deed plot prints with the actual bearing in the deed.
I go back and forth using this depending on the property involved.
I do the same thing. Instead of inserting or copying the drawings, I 'xref' the drawings into one search drawing. Keeps everything a little cleaner and I can align the references easily. When I get it pieced together use the 'NCOPY' command to extract the desired lines from the referenced drawing.
@john-putnam We used to do that but then we ended with way more layers than we wanted. It certainly works but was more cumbersome for us.
Great timing for me for the thread!
I am a construction surveyor for my day job but still have some desire to learn more about boundary and maybe sit for licensure some day, I have a LSIT that has been sitting on my resume for so long that people might start to look at it funny.
In the past few years my proficiency with CAD has really grown as I regularly process design, construction and mapping data at work.
I have had the idea that I would try my hand at drawing up some boundary to expand my horizons a little and settled on the project of researching and drawing up lots that were at one point owned by some relative of mine.
Last sunday I sat down and went the recorders office and pulled a couple plats and went to work.
I was pretty quickly humbled in what it takes to lock in a boundary, the cad work was easy enough but settling on how to lock in the plat itself had me stumped pretty quick. I have been rattling the thing around in my head all week and think I will have another crack at it this weekend schedule permitting.
I am on the run this morning but will come back to the thread on Sunday and try to compose my thoughts on my little project and maybe one of you guys can look over my shoulder on this on a little.
Thanks all for the input. I especially like @murphy's method. Have a great weekend!
Great timing for me for the thread!
I am a construction surveyor for my day job but still have some desire to learn more about boundary and maybe sit for licensure some day, I have a LSIT that has been sitting on my resume for so long that people might start to look at it funny.
In the past few years my proficiency with CAD has really grown as I regularly process design, construction and mapping data at work.
I have had the idea that I would try my hand at drawing up some boundary to expand my horizons a little and settled on the project of researching and drawing up lots that were at one point owned by some relative of mine.
Last sunday I sat down and went the recorders office and pulled a couple plats and went to work.
I was pretty quickly humbled in what it takes to lock in a boundary, the cad work was easy enough but settling on how to lock in the plat itself had me stumped pretty quick. I have been rattling the thing around in my head all week and think I will have another crack at it this weekend schedule permitting.
I am on the run this morning but will come back to the thread on Sunday and try to compose my thoughts on my little project and maybe one of you guys can look over my shoulder on this on a little.
something I do and I am very weak in cad. But I have my compiles very similar to the mosaic mentioned above. I use the group command in Carlson for each parcel as I am using dealing with many. I look at the distances and play angles and do some inversing between the found mons along the route and diagonally. And compare that to the plats deeds. I can visualize the error ellipses so I take that group of one parcel and move it to one of my best two points that are as far apart yet good called for mons. Draw a line to those on corners and another on the compile. Set at mid of each rotate starting evaluating. All others. Lines etc mons. Keeping in mind the year and methods used on each one am I within that error ellipse does this affect the adjoiner. How do the several pins fit that are all along this one line that’s supposed to be straight am I less than a dime I am not breaking each line. It’s a several times I am doing these you can almost as you add adjoiners see where another LS held vs another LS in their decisions . Some work great others you get say all ROW side to fit but backs are way off yet all backs fit together it’s trial and error and say well the math got me to these and well it’s a diffences in their measurements than mine and you might have to get that best fit and others hold the monument exact so a bearing changes slightly or distance. To make subject and adjoiners all work together with the intent of all. I am learning everyday as I am lucky to have 3 LS that I can pick their brains. What would they do. What’s funny is they all go about some things differently but we they all fall on the same rod. Of course this for rural vs city requirements are a little different. I been doing this and they do the same parcel and we compare they ask me questions. So I learn to defend or learn I was way off in my decision. I been very lucky to be able to get mentored like this for sure. I am way slower doing this in a cad system I can do it all much faster in TBC. But I am getting there.