Cadastral Problem - Opinions wanted.

If point "A" wasn't originally set on a line of the original boundary, it's still not on the line today. Although the monument at that location may be the best evidence of the location of the original line.

From just reading what you've posted, I agree that the solution will involve reconstructing the original R/W. I'm sure this could take a great deal of effort and may or may not reach a successful and tidy mathematical solution.

A old gray-haired guy I paid to listen to once said, "The answer rarely lies in the math". This may be one of those situations. Retracing older boundary work from descriptions usually requires more shovel and less calcs. Good luck with your investigation!

> Now I've come up with a best fit for the position of the original/longer road using the plan dimensions and available fencing which agrees well at about 5 points along the length of the road with a scale factor. I've found 2 out of 3 marks from the second survey and when combining the two, this is the situation:
>
>

So, there are two separate retracement problems if the later survey was only indirectly tied to the 1894 survey. The first questions that come to mind as to the retracement of the 1894 survey have to do with the terrain and the expected accuracy of taping of the day. That is, were the surveys made at that time generally executed with such great care that one would expect distance measurements to be very consistent, apart from possibly errors due to temperature, tape calibration, or tension? Or does one typically find distance errors of more than, say 1:2,500 between original marks and no perfect consistency at that?

Is the terrain so flat that taped measurements were probably made with the tape flat on the ground or were slope measurements made and reduced either by clinometer readings or vertical angles measured by transit?

What are the ages of the fences? Do they likely date from a time when the marks of the 1894 survey remained in existence? If so, do the laws in your jurisdiction consider them to be acceptable evidence perpetuating those marks in some way?

One would think that the centerline of the road was the line that was actually traversed and pegs set from it. If you use the evidence of fencing, were fences typically offset from road lines or built right on them, as in post dead center on line?

If this were in Texas, I'd usually treat the reconstruction of the road as a problem of reconstructing the centerline and would not insist upon greater accuracy in the original survey than was expected for the day.

> If point "A" wasn't originally set on a line of the original boundary, it's still not on the line today. Although the monument at that location may be the best evidence of the location of the original line.
>
> From just reading what you've posted, I agree that the solution will involve reconstructing the original R/W. I'm sure this could take a great deal of effort and may or may not reach a successful and tidy mathematical solution.
>
> A old gray-haired guy I paid to listen to once said, "The answer rarely lies in the math". This may be one of those situations. Retracing older boundary work from descriptions usually requires more shovel and less calcs. Good luck with your investigation!

Thanks Paden,

The investigation is pretty much done. I'm sure there is no more to be discovered.

The area consists mostly of original crown grants from which absolutely no original cairns, pegs, stakes or bearing trees survive. The fencing for the original roadway is often not on the boundary, and it is obvious where it isn't. Where it is I've used it for my boundary fix, as did the second road plan. So it's my fencing 120 years later which fits well in places with the original bearings and distances, or the fencing from 50 years after the original. The bending of the original road in the middle to fit the second survey seems just too arbitrary for my liking.

It's in the middle of nowhere and if I present a plan with either solution they will both likely be registered with no problem. I just wanted to see how widely opinion varies on a little problem like this.

> > Now I've come up with a best fit for the position of the original/longer road using the plan dimensions and available fencing which agrees well at about 5 points along the length of the road with a scale factor. I've found 2 out of 3 marks from the second survey and when combining the two, this is the situation:
> >
> >
>
> So, there are two separate retracement problems if the later survey was only indirectly tied to the 1894 survey. The first questions that come to mind as to the retracement of the 1894 survey have to do with the terrain and the expected accuracy of taping of the day. That is, were the surveys made at that time generally executed with such great care that one would expect distance measurements to be very consistent, apart from possibly errors due to temperature, tape calibration, or tension? Or does one typically find distance errors of more than, say 1:2,500 between original marks and no perfect consistency at that?
>

I've not followed this surveyor's work that I'm aware of but by the time this survey was done in this part of the world we generally don't see really bad work. This particular survey is along an undulating road which would be fairly easy to chain reliably with little error. The distances are reported to 0.1 link but no statement is made on the plan as to what instrument was used for turning angles, though theodolites were well and truly in use around here by the 1890's.

> Is the terrain so flat that taped measurements were probably made with the tape flat on the >ground or were slope measurements made and reduced either by clinometer readings or vertical >angles measured by transit?

I'm guessing a theodolite was used and distances were properly reduced to horizontal, though I can't confirm this as the field book number is not on the plan face so I can't get a copy, if it even exists.

>
> What are the ages of the fences? Do they likely date from a time when the marks of the 1894 >survey remained in existence? If so, do the laws in your jurisdiction consider them to be >acceptable evidence perpetuating those marks in some way?

Fences are almost certainly not 100+ years old and probably have been replaced at least once since. A farmer once told me fences often get replaced around when the next generation takes over the farm. Occupations (fencing) are certainly acceptable as evidence as to the position of the original boundaries and sit high in the hierarchy of evidence if they can be reasonably dated back to the time of the grant. Older fencing may often still be the best evidence.

>
> One would think that the centerline of the road was the line that was actually traversed >and pegs set from it. If you use the evidence of fencing, were fences typically offset from >road lines or built right on them, as in post dead center on line?
>
Fences are more often than not, according to years of my width comparisons, built on the boundary line with post centers cut by the boundary lines. But during replacement sometimes new fences are apparently built parallel to the old one then the old one pulled down. If the fence is old enough it is almost impossible to find evidence of this.

The road would have originally been a track that saw horses and carts but the centreline has been well changed since fast cars and bitumen. I know this in certain sections for a fact.

So, given all that, what would prevent you from simply extending the later survey's lines to intersect the road as the later plan likely shows was clearly intended? The quantity of land involved would appear to be negligible.

In your jurisdiction would the call for adjoiner with the older road line implied by the plan ever be given control as a statement of intention when marks of the survey are at minor variance, as would appear to be the case here?

> So, given all that, what would prevent you from simply extending the later survey's lines to >intersect the road as the later plan likely shows was clearly intended? The quantity of land >involved would appear to be negligible.

My interpretation of the later plan is that "A" was to be on the actual corner; a bend in the original survey. "B" was arbitrarily set by the later plan so the mark holds. "C" was most probably the intersection of line "B"-"C" with the original road. You are right, the quantity of land is not even worth mentioning around here, but I'm interested in peoples interpretations of the situation.

The second survey showed length comparisons between posts and the original dimensions of between 0 and 2 links.

>In your jurisdiction would the call for adjoiner with the older road line implied by the plan >ever be given control as a statement of intention when marks of the survey are at minor >variance, as would appear to be the case here?

I'm not sure if I understand your terminology, but the road was acquired running through the original lots of land, so It is the same lot/owner on both sides. Split by the road but the same title in two parts. There may be no 'call' for anything involved here. Purely the plans are surveyed, and the new road acquired by way of notification in a government gazette, which in turn will refer to the plan as showing the land to be acquired. Does this answer the question?

> > So, given all that, what would prevent you from simply extending the later survey's lines to >intersect the road as the later plan likely shows was clearly intended? The quantity of land >involved would appear to be negligible.
>
> My interpretation of the later plan is that "A" was to be on the actual corner; a bend in the original survey. "B" was arbitrarily set by the later plan so the mark holds. "C" was most probably the intersection of line "B"-"C" with the original road. You are right, the quantity of land is not even worth mentioning around here, but I'm interested in peoples interpretations of the situation.

In my view, the situation would appear to be quite analogous to a survey of a parcel adjoining the 1894 road that placed pegs in positions that the surveyor thought to be on the line of the 1894 road line, but which were later found not to be.

If it is true that the later surveyor had no authority to alter the location of the road as established by the conveyance made by reference to the 1894 survey, then the later surveyor's road pegs would mainly control the direction and locations of the side lines of the parcel running toward the road.

In this case, the parcel is used as a public road and intersects the 1894 boundary at a very acute angle, but it seems reasonable that the same idea would apply.

> >In your jurisdiction would the call for adjoiner with the older road line implied by the plan >ever be given control as a statement of intention when marks of the survey are at minor >variance, as would appear to be the case here?
>
> I'm not sure if I understand your terminology, but the road was acquired running through the original lots of land, so It is the same lot on both sides. Split by the road but the same title in two parts. There may be no 'call' for anything involved here. Purely the plans are surveyed, and the new road acquired by way of notification in a government gazette, which in turn will refer to the plan as showing the land to be acquired.

Sorry, the term "call for adjoiner" is overly specific to US practice. The idea is that a plan contains various statements of what was intended to be done, apart from the survey data presented by it. For example drawing a line that represented the line of the 1894 road and showing pegs placed upon it would strike me as a clear statement of the intention of the plan to represent this parcel to be acquired in a shape and location that are exactly contiguous to ("adjoin") the 1894 road. A conveyance made in reference to such a plan would seem to indicate that the parties, both grantor and grantee understood their transaction in just that way.

In that light, is the surveyor's role understood to include the interpretation of the clear intent of a plan when ambiguities as you describe are found upon the ground?

I'll illustrate what happens here in this part of the world for this kind of road acquisition the order it happens. Just to be sure. I'm sure it's probably me not understanding what you're saying and the order in which you mean it.

Plan for grant of lot 100 prepared and lot 100 is granted.

Gummit comes along, prepares plan showing road in yellow, refers to plan in gazette and says "we'll have all land colored yellow as shown on road plan 1."

Gummit then prepares plan showing pink road because cars are faster now and says "we'll have pink road in plan 2 as well."

>
> In that light, is the surveyor's role understood to include the interpretation of the clear intent of a plan when ambiguities as you describe are found upon the ground?

Well, I think so and I've prepared plans doing just that and had them accepted for registration, except one, which really pissed me off. But all sorts of plans with all sorts of boundary fixing philosophies get registered around here. I've had someone in the registering authority tell me I'll have an easier time if I "realise that we can do anything here". That was his joking way of saying that all kinds of bad plans using dubious boundary fixing philosophies will slip past the examiners.

> > In that light, is the surveyor's role understood to include the interpretation of the clear intent of a plan when ambiguities as you describe are found upon the ground?
>
> Well, I think so and I've prepared plans doing just that and had them accepted for registration, except one, which really pissed me off. But all sorts of plans with all sorts of boundary fixing philosophies get registered around here. I've had someone in the registering authority tell me I'll have an easier time if I "realise that we can do anything here". That was his joking way of saying that all kinds of bad plans using dubious boundary fixing philosophies will slip past the examiners.

Yes, that was how I understood the situation you described. I think the main question I was asking amounted to how much latitude land surveyors had to apply professional judgment in cases such as the one you have described and I think you've answered it.

To answer your original query, if the situation were in Texas (which it is not), I'd extend the road lines you're dealing with to intersect the strip of land conveyed by the 1896 plan unless there were some special condition on the ground that argued for a strict interpretation of the later plan (hard to imagine, but could happen, I suppose). The pegs marking the later road acquisition would define the lines, if not the proper corners of the later acquisition. I'd set a new marker at the actual point of intersection and explain it all for the record.

Thanks Kent,

This was one of my preferred options. My other option was to turn the line from "B" to "A" to now be "B" to "Aa" where "Aa" is my redefined corner "A".

> My other option was to turn the line from "B" to "A" to now be "B" to "Aa" where "Aa" is my redefined corner "A".

That's certainly a plausible solution, considering the discrepancy at corner "A" is only 8cm, if I understand your diagram correctly. Where you will be lodging a plan and have the means to give appropriate explanations, I'd think that solution wouldn't give any future surveyor the slightest problem.

It's probably too late now, but, you nice people need to start using the PLSS system. Then you can put the centerline of all your roads on section lines, thus making them all very (or almost) straight. Your current predicament would then be quite rare.