No they haven't introduced a gap. They would have introduced a gap if they called for a distance other then the distance they measured to the monument. That would mean they found the monument but rejected it in favour of a measurement.?ÿ
Who would think there was a gap when the surveyor called for a monument marking the adjoined corener????
The people reading both descriptions on deeds honestly believe there is a gap.?ÿ Those are our ultimate clientele, not just the one person who pays our survey bill.?ÿ They never see the survey plat.?ÿ They only see the words with a bunch of distances and bearings.
That's how it is HERE.?ÿ It may be different ELSEWHERE.?ÿ This is the confusion I must try to prevent.
@holy-cow I worked in So Cal and at any one time you could listen to 3 to 5 surveyors on the two way radios (from different companies) and from time to time you could listen to the instrument man telling the rod man on the final ??as-staked shot? to lean the rod away or forward and left and right so the recorded stored point would be exactly where it was calced to be. ?ÿAfter speaking to the crews, they did this because they had a surveyor supervisor ??checking their raw data/field work? as quality control. ?ÿI always found it amazing that 3 people could fib to each other and find it acceptable. ?ÿ:) funny stuff! Jp
I read all of your post.?ÿ?ÿI'm sorry if I have offended you, it was not my intent.?ÿ I drive about 30,000 miles in the course of a year and it gives me the enjoyable opportunity to why I believe certain things.?ÿ I've found dialogues to be a useful media.?ÿ I'm not much on plays though.
?ÿ
?ÿ
Another problem with holding record is that it is inconsistently applied.?ÿ If a PLS is surveying a 200 acre parcel and one of the boundaries measures 999.9' and the record shows 1000' it seems reasonable to label it as 1000' right??ÿ What if on that same lot another line between two PKs set in the sidewalk measures 20.1' and the record is 20'.?ÿ Are you comfortable holding record measurements when a construction worker can pull a tape and prove you wrong??ÿ I've scene this scenario played out.?ÿ If you think that the public would look down on you for pedantically labeling a line that differs only slightly from the record, how do you think they'll view you if they can quickly contradict your measurement with a ten dollar tape measure??ÿ
Do you hold record for rural lots but not city??ÿ On the same parcel, do you mix record measurements and true measurements without any note or explanation??ÿ ?ÿ
My decision to label true measurement has nothing to do with proving I can measure better than someone else.?ÿ It's about staying consistent.?ÿ ?ÿ?ÿ
Same courtroom as above:
Attorney:?ÿ So, HC, 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:
HC: Yes, it is common that my measurements would be consistent with the record.
Attorney:?ÿ You say this is common.?ÿ How can that be?
HC: First one must understand the accuracy with which surveyors can measure is dependent upon the equipment used, various physical talents, weather conditions and skill level of the operator.?ÿ All measurements recorded by surveyors are opinions on factual matters similar to the judgement that will rule in this case.?ÿ What one surveyor has reported as, say 100.00 feet, is actually an average of numerous measurements accepted at the point in time when a button is pushed plus the modification by using computer software comparing all measurements taken around the boundary.?ÿ The original measurements on this specific line may have varied between 99.98 feet and 100.02 feet by both the original surveyor and myself.?ÿ The prior surveyor's measurements, in his opinion, averaged to 100.00 feet.?ÿ It so happened that my opinion as modified by statistical software arrived at 100.01 as the best answer.?ÿ My measurement in no way is superior to the prior surveyor's opinion of the measurement.?ÿ Also, his measurement abilities and my measurement abilities need to fall within an error ellipse of similar size, which they do.?ÿ Thus, there was no need to confuse the record by indicating a measurement difference of 0.01 feet.
Attorney:?ÿ So, you are saying 0.01 feet in length is of no significance.?ÿ How big is 0.01 feet:
HC:?ÿ Sir, I believe a demonstration would be most effective in this case.?ÿ Would you mind assisting me with that?
Attorney:?ÿ If it will help move this hearing along.?ÿ How can I be of help?
HC:?ÿ Sir, the first step is for you to drop your trousers and underwear to the floor.
?ÿ
?ÿ
?ÿ
.
?ÿ
Is it wrong and or bad that I was hoping the ending I had predetermined was exactly in the same idea frame? ?????ÿ
Great argument for explaining why a difference of 0.01' in reported distances is actually an agreement with the previous surveyor.?ÿ
How big does the difference have to be before you will report what you measure??ÿ
Doesn't reporting measured and record, probably the most?ÿ common approach to this,?ÿ make it?ÿ clearer then your method of only showing record, that the lines are one and the same??ÿ
I turned down a job (for several reasons mostly because I felt it was beyond my actual abilities versus the nature of the work) doing multi story concrete construction layout.
When being final interviewed on a project sight I after being shown the control shot in on distant high rises and such, asked the simple question: How did you guys bring the vertical up to each floor?"
Lead foreman points to the crane and says, " They use a tape measure from the bottom of the pit and Mark it on the crane, then transfer it."
?ÿ
Im no LS yet and realized I was way over my head and really wonder if people umderstand whats going on sometimes when they're not looking......
I agree with your train of thought on this. It's as bad as watching an instrument man doubling angles and watching the numbers on the total station after flopping over. If the angle isn't close enough to what it should be, he'll tweak it in. It's either a lack of understanding of what they're doing, or they fear the scrutiny of the office. I once did a job, and the office told me that all double angles better average five seconds or less. That's all fine and dandy, except we were set up in an intersection, and I didn't want to be out there any longer than I had to. As luck would have it, the set averaged to seven seconds. I had that thought bubble of my boss scrutinizing my field notes. We picked up, because seven seconds in seventy feet was good enough for me!
Showing it on the plat is great.?ÿ Changing descriptions is not so great.?ÿ Let the existing description hold.
Great argument for explaining why a difference of 0.01' in reported distances is actually an agreement with the previous surveyor.?ÿ
How big does the difference have to be before you will report what you measure?
And that's the problem. It's not uncommon to follow surveyors claiming to have set monuments 500.00' apart, only to find that my measurements differ by a tenth or two.
Sometimes it's 0.08', or maybe 0.04'. I know how good my distances are based upon redundant observations and error propagation. But I don't know how good the previous surveyor's measurements are.
At what point do I decide that my error ellipses, combined with the measured distances, overlapped the last guy's error ellipses and measurements enough that I can say they are exactly the same? Especially considering how little information most surveyors provide about instrumentation and methodology?
Even if I can get an idea of the previous guy's random errors in measurement, is it when the ellipses overlap by half? Three-quarters? When my error ellipse just barely touches the endpoint of the other guy's line?
Instead of trying to quantify exactly where that tipping point is, and get deep into the weeds over what is essentially a subjective opinion over some mathematics (I know how much everyone here hates the so-called "math surveyors") I am going to report what I measured.
And, to reiterate, I'm still holding that monument. There is no discrepancy on the ground. The monument holds and the landowner has the same piece of property he had before I measured its controlling elements.
Doesn't reporting measured and record, probably the most?ÿ common approach to this,?ÿ make it?ÿ clearer then your method of only showing record, that the lines are one and the same?
That's my opinion as well. If I get hauled before an authority concerning the way I perform records of survey, I can say with complete confidence that I reported the facts on the ground as observed by myself or someone working under my direction, as required. My measurements don't change the description of the piece of property I am surveying, which is prominently displayed on both my ROS and my predecessor's ROS.
And to be clear, I understand why another surveyor reports record, and I'm not going to say that they are necessarily wrong. I never meant to give that impression. That's how some folks do it, and that's fine.
Surveyors can hold different opinions on boundary location, and they can hold different opinions on how best to report their observations.
Now I am not even sure what we are talking about. The only time the description should change is if it changes to refer directly to a survey, or if the parcel changes. Except in Texas of course.?ÿ
Once the parcel changes there should be no more written description, just Parcel/Lot/Tract xxxxxx per plat# xxxxx (or survey recorded/filed at xxxx or survey attached as exhibit A....) I know many areas are not there yet, but we can aspire...
It does. SurvNet. I use StarNet for just this purpose.
Yes, disrespectful.?ÿ
Note that we aren't talking about really significant differences here. If the measurements truly disagree, if a blunder has occured, report that by all means.
Suppose Surveyor Aliquot surveys out a parcel and reports dimensions to the hundreth. Surveyors Murphy and Mayer are hired to provide a check survey and written opinions of Surveyor Aliquots work. Working together, they run a traverse and tie out Aliquots monuments.?ÿ Working from the same data set they write seperate statements:
Murphy - "My measurements differ from those of Survey Aliquot by up to 0.02'."?ÿ
Mayer - "My measurements are in substantial agreement with those of Survey Aliquot."?ÿ
Both statements are perfectly accurate and true.?ÿ As Surveyors we understand that it means that Aliquot did his work very well. But which statement is Aliquot more likely to be called to account for??ÿ Which surveyor's name is Aliquot more likely to curse? Which statement is more likely to lead to confusion, thereby clouding title??ÿ
And again....about 10-15000 planners and GIS people should be reading this thread.....
???? ?????ÿ
It amazes me that this is such an issue.?ÿ
There should be a presumption that the original surveyor set his monuments at the recorded locations and measurements.?ÿ?ÿ
We look like fools pissing about and saying that a monument set 40 years ago is immune to outside influences, frost, ground disturbance, etc.?ÿ And a minor effect on a monument's location changes a boundary line that has been fixed by a prior survey.?ÿ?ÿ
If my measurements agree substantially to the original then not holding them and reporting a set of new ones does in fact make me and our brethren appear to be an inconsistent and unagreeable bunch of expert measurers.
Monuments themselves don't rule, but monuments in the original location set by the original surveyor do.?ÿ?ÿ
?ÿ
The measurements should lead you to a monument, whether or not of official record.?ÿ That is job one.?ÿ If the original description gets you to the monument, but, not necessarily at the microscopic point you determine is the center of the top, the call is still a valid call.?ÿ It took you to the monument.?ÿ Don't create a new description for an adjoining parcel, for example, different from the original call.
Blunders, obliteration and horrible survey practice by any previous surveyor based on the expectations at the time of setting of the monument are a completely different discussion.?ÿ I remember the days of using a 100-foot steel tape to measure a half mile, uphill and down, on an offset from the presumed true line (because large trees and underbrush prevented running the true line).?ÿ Chaining pins and making a right angle by using a 3/4/5 or 5/12/13 measurement of the tape were common procedures.?ÿ There was no 0.01 foot to worry about because the nearest foot was the realistic limit.?ÿ That was less than 45 years ago.?ÿ Nearly every surveyor in our part of the world is what people disparagingly refer to today as "fence line" surveyors.?ÿ Finding the four quarter corners and running two full miles 100-foot at a time on an offset just to arrive at a center corner within a couple feet of the existing corner post with wire running in the cardinal directions didn't happen out in the country.
