You boys would pull your hair out working in upstate ny....0.5' on a village lot line or several feet in the sticks is just another survey up here....i have 3 former surveyors that have worked my area that 100" is the search area for their pins in the puckerbrush...come to think of it, my comb has seen little use as of the last decade or so
?ÿ
"Do you treat your own plats the same way?"
I haven't yet, but I will.?ÿ I don't think it does much to increase or decrease the confidence that the general public has in us.?ÿ I don't think the general public has any idea what we do, which is why I tend to focus more on educating them, one client at a time.?ÿ?ÿ
?ÿ
True, but where do you draw the line??ÿ What if all the existing corners are within your rule-of-thumb (that I doubt you make any mention of on your plat) and one corner is just a little farther off from the record than you feel comfortable fudging in??ÿ Now you have a plat with three "close enough" measurements and one that you decide needed that you need to show.?ÿ ?ÿ?ÿ
I get your point about keeping the peace but it quickly gets to a point where it gets too random for me.?ÿ?ÿ
The public is safeguarded by honest and transparent work.?ÿ It is not in any way clear that randomly keeping record distances is safeguarding the public that is your opinion and one I held for a while.?ÿ However, I'm youngish, and I expect that in my lifetime the temporal component to our measurements will become more prominent.?ÿ My opinion is that in real, rubber meets the road, applications, as opposed to interpretation of feelings, it will be more useful to have a record of true measurements.?ÿ?ÿ
There cannot be a cloud on title when an monument is still in existence and accepted by action or inaction.
Attorney: So, JPH, I've been reviewing your plat of the Blackstone estate.?ÿ What strikes me about it, and it is a very beautiful plat a real work of art, is that all your bearings and distances match exactly with the previous plat performed in 1961.?ÿ Is it common to retrace a sixty year old boundary and have all the bearings and distances match exactly?
JPH:?ÿ No it is not common but...
A: If it's not common, how did it happen on this particular site?
JPH:?ÿ I surveyed Blackstone and greatly exceeded the standards set by the state of Puerto Rico.?ÿ The results of my measurements were nearly identical to those shown on the 1961 plat.?ÿ The tiny differences were omitted in order to avoid any confusion.?ÿ
A: That sounds reasonable except, what is your definition of close-enough?
JPH: I didn't say close-enough.?ÿ?ÿ
A: Alright, how do you know when to copy the old plat or when not to copy the old plat?
JPH: I'm not copying the old plat
A: If you're not just copying the old plat, why is there no difference between your measurements and those performed in 1961??ÿ
JPH: Because the differences in the measurements of record and my new measurements were so incredibly small that they would fall within the amount of error that is present in any measurement even with the latest greatest measurement device.
A: Can you please tell me what distances and angles you would consider so "incredibly small" that they can be ignored?
JPH: Surveyors are trained to isolate, understand, and manage the errors that are present in any and all measurements.?ÿ If my measuring tools can measure to an accuracy of 1/100th of a foot, I would consider anything smaller than 1/100th of a foot as acceptable error.
A: So all your measurements were within 1/100th of a foot of the 1961 plat?
JPH: No, not all.?ÿ Some differed by a couple of 100ths but were still within expected error
A: Where does it say that on your plat?
JPH: It doesn't, it is common practice
A: Common to you perhaps, but we have in evidence multiple examples of recent surveys where the surveyor labeled the boundary with his actual measurements and did not simply copy the older survey.?ÿ Are you saying that it is common for you to pick and choose when you use your actual measurements and when you do not?
I could keep going on but I think you get the point.?ÿ If this were done in reverse, it would be more difficult, but certainly not impossible, to sow doubt in the PLS's testimony.?ÿ?ÿ
Also, I don't believe that most of the PLSs who hold record measurements are actually checking to see if the error falls within acceptable levels.?ÿ I suspect that most surveyors would throw out 0.02' on a line regardless of whether they calculated the position from a traverse around the parcel or were able to occupy the monuments and truly measure between them.
?ÿ
?ÿ
I understand your greater point, but I would consider your example to be ripening acquiescence where I survey.?ÿ It's easier for us in the Colonial states because, usually, the only ones affected by our decision are the abutters.?ÿ I can take a use-it or lose-it view of acquiescence and AP when dealing with just one shared boundary or occasionally four.?ÿ I'm not sure how I would apply implicit or explicit acceptance of a monument when said monument is thousands of feet away and would require trespass to observe.
What, do you write plays in your spare time?
Didn't read it all, but good effort
I'll use my own numbers when they differ substantially from the record.?ÿ But if I'm retracing another surveyor's work, and I'm pretty damn close to what he has on his plan, then I see nothing constructive or useful in labeling a line with R and M that differ by seconds and hundredths.
Yes, we as surveyors understand that double labels mean something, that you're measurements basically agree with the prior work, but the client, abutters, and anyone in the future who looks at it might be confused.
We spend so much time here spouting about monuments meaning more than measurements, so why throw in your own numbers that're pretty much the same as the record.?ÿ?ÿ It's like you're just pissing in the snow, making your own mark, Murphy was here.
If you put a distance of 99.95' along a 100' record boundary, almost 100% of the people are going to wonder what happened to their 0.05', leaving you to explain your expert measuring, how your numbers are superior to the prior surveyor.?ÿ And if that prior surveyor is you, good luck trying to explain that.
Then follow the prior deed description so that they fit together.?ÿ Ignore the 0.03.?ÿ We should not intentionally insert confusion.
Land owners know what a monument means. Surveyors know what a monument means, where is the confusion? The new planners and title examiners might need some education from there friendly local surveyor, but in most of the country, especially in recording states, those in land related professions see differences in measurements everyday.?ÿ
I think every state has case or statute law that covers worthless strips, so even if someone was operating under the deluded idea that the measurements controlled over the monuments there would stil be no strip of questionable ownership.?ÿ
How far to too far? At what point to you become uncomfortable reporting a distance different from what you measured? Doesnt the existence of state precision/accuracy requirments imply that honesty in measurements is expected??ÿ
Most plats here seem to be expressed to 0.01 ft and whole seconds or 5 seconds.
Once long ago I watched a surveyor writing measurements in a field book off of an instrument that could read 0.005 and 5 seconds, and rounding each one to 0.02 ft and one minute which I think was the maximum increment allowed for plats at the time.?ÿ
Of course that would cause accumulation of more error.?ÿ Each rounding is adding a error, which can be modeled with some standard deviation and approximately zero mean (if you use the right rounding rule).
You need to record all the available precision (which a data collector does), compute with better precision than the final answer, and only round the final number that goes on the plat.
There cannot be a cloud on title when an monument is still in existence and accepted by action or inaction.
As surveyors, we all appreciate the value of monuments. Especially those that are called out in legal descriptions. Other people that use the documents we produce - attorneys, title companies, lenders, etc., etc. - maybe not so much. Monument calls routinely get stripped out and/or their significance is underappreciated.
Sure, you get it in front of a judge and you can probably win your case. If you are going to conduct your surveying on that basis your life will be unnecessarily difficult. When the original dimensions are not wrong, you should accept them and work with them. Make it easy for people to go along with you.
Plus, this manner of always disagreeing with the last surveyor by slight amounts is disrespectful. As surveyors we understand that a line length 99.98' is the same as 100.02' is the same as 100.00', but the non-surveyor doesn't always. It looks to them like somebody is right and somebody is wrong.?ÿ If the other guy has better rapport, it may be you that they decide is wrong. That doesn't make you wrong, of course. But you may very quickly get an undeserved reputation. There will be opportunity enough for disagreement on more substantive grounds. Why buy trouble?
There are plenty of circumstances in this business where really tight measurements are key. Such as settlement monitoring and commercial building construction.?ÿ If that is what floats your boat you might look into developing business in that area.?ÿ
None of this should be taken to mean that boundary surveying should be done sloppily, or that all record dimensions should always be accepted. If your error ellipses include the record position that means that the record dimension is just as valid as your measured value.?ÿ Accept the record dimension.
@dmyhill "Why put down the same number twice?" is Winner Winner chicken dinner! That is the best and most succinct way to explain the concept.
I'd say a majority of the deeds I work with have calls that say "100 feet more or less".?ÿ Therefore, I seldom mark out field vs record.
Dear Mr. Attorney, based on my professional opinion there was not enough difference in my measurements to be able to say the record measurements were incorrect and need to be changed. Therefore my survey doesn't show any changes to the record measurements. I'm sure you understand a professional opinion is subjective and requires judgement. My judgement has been tested and I have been granted a professional license to do the work and make the judgements that I do.
?ÿ
Ok, so if you set a series of monuments, and during setting, you took a final shot, and your plat SHOWS your computed, or theoretical points, but your data file shows your ??last shot?, or actual monument, then why do you not do the same honor, showing the theoretical or fictional points, when tying into someone else??s survey?
its just a thought.?ÿ
Nate
Disrespectful? If I report a distance that is 0.01' different from the last guy that shows respect for both of our measuring abilities. We are in perfect agreement, because I only report such ridiculous precision when a regulation requires it.?ÿ
On other hand if the difference is substantial, either he/she is wrong, I am wrong, or something changed. I will first ensure I wasn't wrong. Then what? Admit I can't measure and turn in my license? Ignore that something changed? Pretend that blunders don't exist??ÿ
Yes monument calls often get stripped out, that's why we record our surveys, and reference the survey in the deed (instead of a written description when we can).
Why add confusion? Call it what it is, 600.00 from where the section corner monument was before it was incorrectly reset which you have already found to be true.?ÿ If it makes you feel better, stamp a dimple into the cap where the corner really is or try to knock it back into position first. ?????ÿ
The client tells you to make it 300' by 500'.?ÿ He doesn't want to see 300.02 on one end and 299.98 on the other and 500.03 on one side and 499.97 on the other.?ÿ That is the crap that gets reported when you only spit out what the magic box says took place.?ÿ Knock them around or totally reset them until you can meet what the client requested.?ÿ Otherwise it make the profession look like a bunch of fools who don't have enough common sense to pour piss out of a boot before putting it back on your foot.
I think your 600.00 ft is causing more confusion. Does that mean you are not accepting the reset corner that is actually 600.01'? The next guy may find you were off by 0.1'. What then??ÿ Really ridiculous to use 1/100 for boundaries any way.?ÿ
Within recent months another local firm was to layout an L-shaped tract that wrapped around the one on the corner that I had surveyed about 10 years ago.?ÿ The corner monument was reset by someone else entirely due to roadwork several years ago.?ÿ They found my undisturbed bar to be 900.03 feet from the new monument which was not reset perfectly by that 0.03 amount.?ÿ My description called out a tract width of 900.00 feet.?ÿ Their new description begins at 900.03 feet.?ÿ They have introduced a theoretical gap where none should exist.
