Nate asked a good question on another thread.?ÿ To paraphrase Nate, on retracement plats where you had to reestablish missing monuments, do your bearings and distances reflect the coordinates of your calculated point or the coordinates of the final resting place of your newly set monument?
I use the As Set coordinates that Star*Net spits out at me and not the mathematical fiction that I'm attracted to as a moth is to light.?ÿ It shouldn't matter, but it pains me to see bearings that only differ by seconds.?ÿ I try to rationalize using my calculated points by telling myself the difference in bearings will be confusing to my client; that it creates uncertainty in regards to the angle or line held to reestablish the boundary etc..?ÿ After I expel these thoughts, I begin to think about how other surveyors will use my plat in future.?ÿ
I find true measurement to be more useful than convenient rounding.?ÿ The former increases my confidence in previous surveyor's work while the latter forces me to question whether or not the line was actually surveyed.?ÿ If you use mathfiction or round to fifteen seconds or whatever, at least make a note on your plat so that a retracing surveyor doesn't have to view the rest of your plat with mild suspicion.?ÿ?ÿ
I am always available to answer my client's questions.?ÿ If they don't understand why the plat bearings and distances don't match their fifty year old deed, I'm just a phone call away and I typically cover it in a canned email that contains pdfs and kmz files of their lot.?ÿ I hold no fealty to lenders.?ÿ I'm not going to put pretend measurements on my plats for their sake but I will speak to them on behalf of my client on the rare occasion that it is necessary.?ÿ
As always, it depends.
Do you treat your own plats the same way??ÿ Say you're surveying an abutting parcel to one you'd done 10 years ago, and take shots on monuments you'd set, do you report those distances or what you reported 10 years ago??ÿ
What does that do to confidence of the general public in our profession when then see a boundary line seemingly changing between surveys?
?ÿ
?ÿ
When I retrace, I will show record and measured bearings and distances, no matter how close they are, or even if they are the same. If there is a need to reset a monument, the crew stakes out that position, sets it, and then turns a few sets to it. If it is within positional tolerance, the computed position (and my computed bearing) holds.
Of course, if it's not within tolerance, they're going to adjust it until it is.
?ÿ
Do you treat your own plats the same way??ÿ Say you're surveying an abutting parcel to one you'd done 10 years ago, and take shots on monuments you'd set, do you report those distances or what you reported 10 years ago?
I show record and measured, same as if I were retracing someone else's. Equipment changes, underlying datum changes, field crew changes, subsidence, etc. All sorts of things can affect measurements. It is extremely useful to see how well my observations (or someone else's) compare to a previous surveyor's, and I am always going to document that, even if I performed a survey of the same tract in the past.
What does that do to confidence of the general public in our profession when then see a boundary line seemingly changing between surveys?
Considering how much surveyors try to avoid talking or explaining anything to clients, I'd be willing to bet that showing record and measured won't make much of a difference in their opinion of us.
For my part, when I have been asked about the differences between record and measured, I will explain that the above factors make it such that there will always be some variation in the measurements and that it is critical that we document them, but in the end we are more concerned with monuments rather than bearings and distances.
Then I go on to explain that the monuments still hold, and that their physical property remains the same, and that if I walk out there with the landowner, the monument that both myself and the previous surveyor called out is still the actual physical indicator of their corner.
It's going to be interesting when we switch over to the new datums...
I think the only time I would show record and measured is if all the pins are found.?ÿ If I set a pin then it's record data only.?ÿ I'd be curious to see how the public would interpret it when my survey showed none of the monuments matched the deed calls and not even my own set pin matched my calculated point.?ÿ Would they understand why or would they just think I'm bad at my job?
I'm going to show a record and measured between any two monuments that have a record, whether or not I recover every single monument for that property.
If I need to set a monument at a corner, I will compute its position based upon the location of the other found monuments and the actual property description, using the survey record as a guide. The relative configuration of the property description should substantially conform to the survey record in theory, but if it doesn't I am calling up the previous surveyor to find out why. Depending on their answer (or non-answer) I may be doing some additional research, and maybe using their information to guide the position of the computed corner, or maybe holding to the property description, or maybe doing something else in some odd cases.
Either way, I'm calling out both record and computed information along the connecting lines of the computed position, and if there is a significant discrepancy or deviation from any record an explanation will be in the surveyor's narrative on the face of the ROS.
Those set monuments are going to be within positional tolerance, typically around 0.02'-0.05', of the computed points. I'm not going to call out that 0.02'.
No subsequent measurements will ever match the original deed calls unless we get lucky. It is our duty to document our measurements of the monuments, not someone else's.
Most landowners will understand that if you explain it to them carefully and let them ask a few questions. It's a tough concept for some layfolks to get their head around, so it might take some back and forth.
You set two monuments on a survey 10 years ago that were measured then as being 400.00 feet apart.?ÿ Now you are creating a new tract along that same line and put 400.01 feet in your description that gets recorded.?ÿ Now the whole world believes there are two monuments out there that are 0.01 feet apart because they have no idea what a monument really is and the physical impossibility of setting two monuments that closely together plus they have no concept of what 0.01 feet looks like.?ÿ You know there is only one monument there but you have now introduced confusion where there should be none.?ÿ Someday someone else allowed to write descriptions (attorneys, for example) and write a description that goes to the first corner, then jogs 0.01 feet, then continues on whatever the next course is supposed to be.
Introducing a few seconds of change in a bearing is equally foolish in common tract measurements.?ÿ Was the first bearing correct??ÿ Was the second bearing correct??ÿ Did the monument move that little bit or did the tip of the pole move a tiny fraction or did the plumbness of the pole vary??ÿ Puking out garbage from the magic box destroys the public's confidence in the surveying profession.
@holy-cow I could only like it once but I would like to cut and paste holy cow's response a few hundred times.
Ok it is not good to lie. Yet the truth is not always the best response. When your wife asks "does this dress make my butt look big?" The correct answer is ALWAYS no! This white lie promotes harmony and injures no one. When we set pins they are where they are supposed to be or they should be reset. Using holy's example there is no need to say it is at 400.01 feet. There is no need to show a different bearing on the line because we couldn't get the as set coordinates to match exactly.
Now the whole world believes there are two monuments out there that are 0.01 feet apart because they have no idea what a monument really is and the physical impossibility of setting two monuments that closely together plus they have no concept of what 0.01 feet looks like.
I don't know about others, but I call out found monuments from previous surveys. "Found 5/8-inch iron rod with yellow plastic cap, LSXXXX, per R1" is a pretty obvious indicator that I am referring to the same monument from the R1 survey. If a landowner can't understand that, especially after asking their surveyor about it, then they're not ever going to get it. It's as plain as day that I found a monument from a previous survey and that I am holding it.
In the realm of our profession, one of the most fundamental concepts is that there is always some error in every single measurement. Being able to see how previous surveyors matched up against each other is incredibly useful, especially in the uncommon case that I find a monument far out of tolerance.
I also look at the instrumentation and methodology used, which is a big clue about how the survey was conducted and an indicator of why, perhaps, two different surveys yielded different measurements, and why I might need to delve into the records, and my own raw data, to see why that might be the case.
?ÿ
You know there is only one monument there but you have now introduced confusion where there should be none.?ÿ Someday someone else allowed to write descriptions (attorneys, for example) and write a description that goes to the first corner, then jogs 0.01 feet, then continues on whatever the next course is supposed to be.
That's about as far away from my problem as it could possibly be. It may become my problem if that wildly improbable scenario takes place and a brain-dead attorney does write a description.
But you know what will fix all that? That record of survey that I did, showing where I measured all the monuments and found them to be substantially in agreement with the previous ROS, where in no way did I place a jog in the boundary line, and where I reproduced the record description (not brain-dead's version) and certified that I surveyed that specific tract of land.
?ÿ
Puking out garbage from the magic box destroys the public's confidence in the surveying profession.
That box ain't magic, and there are plenty of us who can get precise, repeatable results from it with good procedures. There is a wide variation in understanding of how equipment operates, how error propagation works, and how to best reduce data, but the fact is if we can't be confident in our measurements there's no reason to put them out there at all. The presence of a few abusers of the box won't keep me from using it, and is all the more reason for me to quantify and report my results.
Positional tolerance ain't what it used to be. Using a mix of measurement methods (yes, including the dreaded magic box), redundant observations and good QC/QA procedures, it's pretty common for me to get my relative precisions down to a few hundredths.
Speaking of which, surveyors have been recording distances to the nearest hundredth for decades now, but it's not uncommon for me to measure between two monuments and find them more than a tenth different than the record distance from 20-30+ years ago. Which is funny, because my methods allow me to be confident in my numbers at much tighter specs than a tenth.?ÿ
Who is wrong? Neither one of us.
I'm not going to flip out on that previous surveyor for reporting to the hundredth. Why am I being ripped apart for doing the same?
I'm still going to hold that monument. I'm going to report my methods, procedures and instrumentation and STILL certify that the monument holds. Because that's how surveying works. We report what we found and how it compares to the record, with an explanation of how we got there.
We use different gear and methods than our predecessors. I expect our measurements to not always match up. Reporting those differences, as well as the gear and methods we use, is what helps those down the line follow in our footsteps, which is the entire idea behind a record of survey.
I agree that all this information needs to be shown on the plat.?ÿ Too many then rewrite descriptions to match their (current) measurements instead of merely stating that the plat is of the tract described in Deed Book XXX, Page YYY.?ÿ Then the person handling closing on a real estate or mortgage deal then inserts the new description instead of the one that is perfectly valid and should be perpetuated.?ÿ Also, I work in a region where the bounds never make it into the description.?ÿ If we put them in they will be removed by someone else.?ÿ Therefore, the mention of a 5/8 inch iron bar with a cap (LS 99) at a certain corner does not occur.?ÿ That may not be the best way to do things, but that is how it is.?ÿ Understand fully that a move to Texas would radically change my description writing.
Do you mean if you write the bounds into a description it gets removed by the title people, or that older descriptions didn't do bounds?
They don't think there are two monuments if you identify the monument as found and explain its source. If you dont do that your plat is just a bunch of measurements.?ÿ
But your monument is not at the record distance (99% of the time), do you add a note that explains that the distances provided are not what someone should expect to measure??ÿ How does someone reestablish the position if it is lost if you don't gove them the numbers to do it with it?
I did a some well plats in a new GPS BLM township. I calculated the corner monuments from the plat and went out and located them. The brand new plat was in nearest minute, nearest link. That's what I put on my plats. Found monuments and all record distances and bearings to the minute and link. No need to complicate it.?ÿ
@aliquot It may not be at the exact record distance but it should be within a tenth.?ÿ Later surveyors could establish the point the same way I did-- with the deed or previous ROS showing the monument.
It is extremely rare to find a description, current or old, that includes bounds throughout this area.?ÿ It simply isn't done.?ÿ Even highway takings leave off the bounds.?ÿ If you insert them, someone will strip them out, much the way the title people strip out the area of the tract.?ÿ That is the way it is.?ÿ Doesn't matter who did the survey.?ÿ I can think of one description off the top of my head that I saw written on a survey plat that included the bounds.?ÿ That was about 30 years ago.?ÿ The surveyor may have been licensed here but he didn't live here.?ÿ I can't remember now what state he was from, though.
Once written, the description for a tract should remain as is.?ÿ Sure, the measurements someone gets may differ from what is written, but, so what.?ÿ The next person to go measure it will come up with something slightly different.?ÿ The deed description should stand, even if the monuments have supposedly wiggled a tad or someone wants to change the basis of bearings.
I have a current project where my tract simply says it is the west 100 acres of a quarter section.?ÿ Next to it, of course, is a tract that says it is the east 60 acres of that same quarter section.?ÿ Odds are high that when the first piece was separated the buyer or seller or both measured off 990 feet from the assumed northeast corner and the assumed southeast corner and then built a fence as straight as they could between those two points.?ÿ The fence is the monument of their intent.?ÿ That is definitely not how a modern surveyor would choose to do the job.?ÿ Nevertheless, that is what was done.?ÿ It doesn't really matter much what the numbers are.
That sounds terribly crude, but, largely the same applies to other tracts on a smaller scale.?ÿ If a 300 foot square was whittled out of a quarter section and the remainder has always been described as the entire quarter section less the description originally used to define that 300 foot square tract, then that's what it is.?ÿ It's not 299.97 by 300.03.?ÿ Sure, the survey will show slightly different numbers and bearings but there is no need to rewrite both descriptions simply because the measurement can now appear on a screen with lots of decimal places.
Where do you work that record distances are always within 0.1'??ÿ
I suppose if the differences are that small who cares about record versus measured, but the goal of the next surveyor should be to reestablish the position you monumented, not some older record, unless they think you reestablished it incorrectly and no one has relied on it.?ÿ
Yes, show that on your plat.?ÿ Don't mess with the record descriptions involved.
Say the south side of a certain tract has a record dimension of 300 feet.?ÿ You are now tasked with laying out a tract adjacent to that south side and the client wants it to be the same length as the first tract boundary.?ÿ You measure and get 299.98 or 300.02.?ÿ Big deal.?ÿ An extra 0.01 or a shortage of 0.01 going either direction from the midpoint of your line is most definitely still atop the two monuments.?ÿ Run with it.?ÿ Don't screw it up by claiming your opinion as to the dead center of the top of the monuments is not where the first guy said it was.
@aliquot Record distances are always within a .1' of what??ÿ A found monument??ÿ If that's what you're asking then it depends on the age of the survey.?ÿ What I'm saying is the Idaho standard of practice for controlling boundaries is .1' + 40 ppm.?ÿ If I'm surveying a rectangular lot and I find 3 pins that fit the record within reason for its age then I will 'best fit' the boundary over the found pins and set the 4th.?ÿ And by best fit I mean position the boundary in such a way that this .1' positional tolerance is maintained across the 3 found pins.?ÿ But yes, the difference should be small.?ÿ If there is a monument that isn't fitting well then maybe it's been disturbed and should be rejected.
As far as a subsequent surveyor reeastablishing the position I monumented... like I say the difference should be small enough that the next surveyor could work from older documents without a problem.
.....and somewhere, out there, are about 3-4000 GIS people that need to be reading this thread. Maybe more..... ?????ÿ