So what would you do in the example of the same lot having 999.9' measurement (record = 1000') and a 20.1' measurement on the sidewalk (record = 20')?
?ÿ
No one is worried about the 0.01'.?ÿ That is not the point.?ÿ This has nothing to do with expert measurements.?ÿ It is about evidence and the way in which evidence is weighed against other evidence.?ÿ The 0.01' you mention is a strawman.?ÿ You and others know very well that you've, "kept the peace" by keeping record measurements with much larger differences from your true measurements.?ÿ So what??ÿ I appreciate that you care and I used to do the same exact thing.?ÿ All that is being said here is that there can be value in showing what your actual measurement is.?ÿ?ÿ
You live in an outlier area regarding descriptions.?ÿ New description that tie lots to State Plane or nearby physical benchmarks are not always necessary but they do increase the ability for retracing PLS to find or reset corners.?ÿ There is no Earthly reason that a one line sentence inserted after a new description that and says "Being the same parcels as described in..." cannot perfectly clear up any title issues that you seem so concerned with.?ÿ I am extremely appreciative of PLSs in NC who update descriptions to include State Plane coordinates on the point of commencement and point of beginning.?ÿ It hasn't led me to worship coordinates, but it sure makes it fast for me to find monuments and start surveying.
It amazes me that this is such an issue.
It's actually not an issue.
There should be a presumption that the original surveyor set his monuments at the recorded locations and measurements.
Yep. No one is arguing against that...
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.
No, we don't look like fools. No one is saying that monuments are immune to outside influences. But the monument fixed the line, not the previous surveyor's measurements. So, again, I'm going to hold the monument.
Practical boundary location dictates that if the monument is original, existent and has not been significantly disturbed, it holds over bearing & distance calls. What constitutes "significant disturbance" varies with region, statute and local practice.
We still, however, should report what we found, which is where recording our actual measurements comes in, and where seeing the record is helpful. I can see where a monument might be slowly moving due to a berm sloughing, or where a monument was rehabilitated by the previous surveyor and falls within positional tolerance. Or I can see if the original surveyor had a systematic error in his line measurements, and where subsequent surveyors have discovered that and still held to the original monuments while documenting the discrepancy.
I'm still going to show my measurements for the record. Because I'm performing a record of survey.
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.
If my measurements agree substantially to the original monuments, then the monuments hold. I'm reporting what I found, and adding to the record, not overwriting it.
It's getting a bit ridiculous that we have to spell these things out. I don't think anyone here is that dense, so either you're playing devil's advocate or simply arguing in bad faith.
Significant units, came before significant digits, in some sense. Units used to be chains, and links. A chain being 66 feet. A link being 0.66??. It was felt by some that 0.66?? was ??way more accuracy, than was needed?. So, often deeds were written in yards. Yards is a potential unit used for ??stepping of the distance?. So, if you find a deed written 70 yds, on level ground, then it??s +- 2 yds. Typically speaking. If it??s hilly, make it +- 3-5 yards. So, we again ??have the point? at the old fence corner. Is this ridiculous? ?ÿIt is for a modern man, who is not-so-well connected to history. So, now, we are fussing about 0.04??, (RTK GPS in woods can be +- about 0.12??).?ÿ
So, there comes a point where we must stop moving the monument, and just modify the dimensions. This world is NOT built by surveyors. Where it is built, is documented by surveyors. We must ??move on up? to the modern world, and see our roles change from being the ??property line police? of the world, to being the documenters of where it got built. An example would be the shifting of epoch dates. This means that SPC coordinates are only true at a particular date. The tectonic plates are still settling, they are presently in motion. Which brings us to our next subject. TIME
We often work day in 3D coords. Xyz. But, we must learn to factor the n the date of the creation of the deed, as well as the date it got surveyed. For the surveyor, 4d coords are a modern reality.?ÿ
The 4th dimension Is TIME.?ÿ
It??s ??time? to grow up, and see this ??fourth dimension? and apply modified dimensions, based on the appropriate error ellipses. Back in the 1970??s, an error ellipse could be 1 foot, or 3 feet. Or 3 feet plus 3 feet for slope. Or including a dependent resurveyed section error of 1:5000?? plus other factors. We must learn to respect old original corners, in locations, that do not agree with our ??gnats posterior perspectives, and personal problems?. We are not the ??authorized property line police? of the world. Writing descriptions of little slivers, and convoluting the record with a concept of ??this community is sure lucky I??ve come to save them, with my fully indexed tribrachs, prism poles, theodolite, RTK GPS, and my survey liscense to do this?. Surveys were happening before you were a little boy, laying on your back, giggling about the arched yellow stream, hitting you in the face, or running out of your overfilled diaper, as the case may be.?ÿ
We have at some point mis-understood our job.?ÿ
Thank you,
Nate
?ÿ
?ÿ
Wow. Interesting thread. After 6 pages I still haven't seen enough 'it depends' answers to be comfortable. There are?ÿ enough 'every time it must be this way' and 'if it fits my arbitrary personal math standard' to scare the crap out of me.
If you follow me and file a map with slight variations in bearings and distances it indicates agreement in my book. If you call my monuments off due to those variations I consider it a demonstration of your lack of knowledge of what we do. If that sounds harsh it is meant to. Improper practice by surveyors creates doubt, not gaps and overlaps. Such things are non-existent. In the end somebody owns everything and nothing apart from common interest makes two owners of a particular property.
We are a profession where applying the law to evidence leads us to an opinion. No part of that short making money while protecting the public is universal.?ÿ
The culprit here is Murphy. Murphy is creating the confusion by making an issue of 0.02'.?ÿ
When we report record/measured and use the the monument set or recovered by the previous surveyor we are Mayer.?ÿ
When we report a distance that we did not measure with no other explanation we are pulling a Murphy, and attaching significance to the 0.02'. Why report a distance we didn't actually measure unless there is something wrong with the measurement. If you don't want to "disagree" with the other surveyor why not report to the nearest 0.1'. Then you don't disagree and you reinforce the idea that 0.01' doesn't matter.?ÿ
What do you do when there is a 100' difference??ÿ
I certainly don't have as much experience as you in the states and province that you list in your bio. But I have experience in them all, and have seen plenty of truthful measurements that differ from the record reported. These surveys didn't seem to cause any significant confusion.
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.
What's wrong with 100 m/l (record), 97.60 (measured)?ÿ ?
?ÿ
It would appear that it is our assumptions of the layperson's ability to understand our plat that dictates whether we show our measurements or whether we tell harmless white lies.
Of course.
My girlfriend doesn't know anything about land survey so when we went out to dinner a couple days ago I decided to do a little experiment.?ÿ I said OK say you bought a house on a perfectly square lot, 100.00' x 100.00'.?ÿ Some years later you decide to sell the house so you get a land survey done in advance to show potential buyers exactly what they will be getting.?ÿ The surveyor comes to you and says it's your lucky day, all of the monuments marking the corners of your property corners are still there and this (map) is what I came up with when I measured between them.?ÿ I told her the map showed the sides of the lot were 99.90', 100.04', 100.05, and 99.98'.?ÿ Remember, your deed says your lot is 100.00' square-- what do you think is going on here?
She sat there with this serious, contemplative look on her face for a minute or two... and then she goes "Just make them the same". ???? (to be fair, when she said 'just make them the same' I didn't know if she meant to re-write the deed to match the measurements or to move the monuments or to use record data, but the implication seemed to be to use record data.?ÿ I'll try to clear this up tonight)
I asked her what might cause something like this to happen.?ÿ I asked if it was a sign that the surveyor is sloppy or doesn't know what he is doing??ÿ Is he trying to scam you out of your property??ÿ Do the instruments not measure well enough to show the 100.00' exactly??ÿ Is it possible the monuments may have shifted slightly??ÿ Is it possible the monuments weren't placed exactly at 100.00' back in the day??ÿ She responded to all of that with "I don't care about an inch.?ÿ If I was losing 10 feet or something then I would be mad".
So there's 1 opinion I guess.?ÿ Ha?ÿ Now if only the entire public saw things this way maybe there wouldn't be a need for white lies?
@murphy Transparency is all fine and dandy but what does it say to the public when you set a pin and call yourself off in the same drawing??ÿ Do you put a note on your survey explaining the various errors that come into play?
If you don't want to "disagree" with the other surveyor why not report to the nearest 0.1'
In my case, because ORS 92.050?ÿ?ÿ
92.050 Requirements of survey and plat of subdivision and partition.?ÿ(1) A person shall not submit a plat of a subdivision or partition for record, until all the requirements of ORS 209.250 and the plat requirements of the subdivision or partition have been met.
?ÿ ?ÿ ?ÿ......
?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ (8) In addition to showing bearings in degrees, minutes and seconds and distances in feet and hundredths of a foot, the following curve information must be shown on the subdivision or partition plat either on the face of the map or in a separate table:
?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ (a) Arc length;
?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ (b) Chord length;
?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ (c) Chord bearing;
?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ (d) Radius; and
?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ (e) Central angle.
?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ.....
That doesnt appear to require?ÿ any specific precision. You just can't use inches, or meters, or chains.?ÿ
Does the board actually interpret that to require a precision of 0.01'??ÿ
@aliquot I think if all they intended was the limit the acceptable units then they could have left out the part about the hundreths.
Interesting discussion and one I struggle with daily.
From Minimum Standards for ALTA/NSPS Land Title Surveys Section 6.B.ii: Any new description of the surveyed property that was prepared in conjunction with the survey, including a statement explaining why the new description was prepared. Except in the case of an original survey, preparation of a new description should be avoided unless deemed necessary or appropriate by the surveyor and insurer.
I guess there could be an argument on one side that a new description is always necessary.
I fall on the "it depends" side most often.
It depends is where I am.
There really needs to be a good reason to re-write a description, not tiny shifts in the record vs field measurement. It's a moot point normally in this area, you can re-write it but I don't know of any local title company or attorney that would put into a deed.?ÿ
The only one I recall re-writing a description for was a description that had a number of problems least of which was the call for 20 acres when the bounds calls actually enclose 60 acres. I re-wrote it but the deed is still the same one originally granted in 1913.
Those who prepare deeds are strange people.?ÿ Somehow somebody decided that 37.51 feet of the open street was to go along with the lot to the north of that.?ÿ It has only appeared once, but that was enough to get the GIS Dept. at the County to assume the street must be closed, which it is not.
That would allow for inches to be used. Terrible wording, but I don't think the intent is to force surveyors to only use whole feet or hundredths of feet. Because that's what the literal reading would be.
Of course, has anyone ever asked the Board for an opinion? It's just speculation otherwise.
distances in feet and hundredths of a foot
That seems pretty clear to me that "feet and hundredths" means all distances must be expressed as xxx.xx feet, with no rounding to a larger increment than 0.01 ft.?ÿ That particular requirement of course says nothing about closure or confidence interval.
@bstrand?ÿ You took her out to dinner and foisted upon her a surveying conversation. If she chooses to still be your girlfriend, I suggest you marry her and the sooner the better.
@lurker Oh yeah, I try to limit how often this happens because she quickly loses interest and get this impending nap-like look on her face.
