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.
I don't believe that anyone here was intending to call any monuments, off
We're all in agreement, that measurements with slight variations are virtually the same, and pretty much expected on a re-survey.?ÿ I just don't think that it needs to always be shown as proof that I really did survey the parcel.
My response was intended to address both points in the preceding pages and related pet peeves.?ÿ?ÿ
I think?ÿ many have not gotten what Murphy was asking. Many described record vs. measured, but Murphy was getting about pins set as part of the survey being slightly off of the calculated positions.?ÿ My response is pins set need to meet your state's boundary law measurement specifications.?ÿ Where I am, measurements need to be better than 1:10,000 or no more than 0.02' error if distances are under 100 or 200 feet (can't recall which it is).?ÿ
The intent appears to be to prohibit inches. They need the hundredths for that. Anyone have any background on what legislature intended? My guess is they weren't sure.?ÿ
?ÿ
ORS 92.050 only applies to subdivisions anyway.?ÿ
But more importantly, ?ÿORS 209.250 (3) which applies to all surveys required to be reorded, requires surveys to show:
"Measured bearings, angles and distances that are used as a basis for establishing or reestablishing lines or monuments separately indicated from those of record together with the recording reference. Metric measurements may be used if a conversion to feet is provided."
Oregon prohibits record only for at least some lines. See ORS 209.250 (3) which requires surveys to show:
"Measured bearings, angles and distances that are used as a basis for establishing or reestablishing lines or monuments separately indicated from those of record together with the recording reference. Metric measurements may be used if a conversion to feet is provided."
New Mexico prohibits this too:
12.8.2.9 requires plats to show "the boundary being surveyed including the dimensions as measured on the ground and
the record dimensions unless the two are equivalent in which case it shall be so stated;"
Any other states do this?
It is possible that is what was intended, but not clear at all. This would be a weird way to work precision requirements in.?ÿ
This section applies only to subdivisions and requires the baseline survey requirements to have been met. The baseline survey requirments explicitly allow meters, and contain no precision requirements.?ÿ
Oregon prohibits record only for at least some lines. See ORS 209.250 (3) which requires surveys to show:
"Measured bearings, angles and distances that are used as a basis for establishing or reestablishing lines or monuments separately indicated from those of record together with the recording reference.?ÿ
I don't read it exactly that way.?ÿ
First, a measured distance may include the raw measured distance together with all possible distances between points included within the error ellipses at each end.?ÿ So you always have some play in whatever you may choose to consider your "measured".?ÿ
Second, after 75 years of recording surveys, there are, in some cases, several survey record distances of a given line, plus innumerable deed dimensions. It would get stupid to enumerate all of them. I, and more importantly most of the County Surveyors, read that as you must show your dimensions (see paragraph above) separately from whatever else you might choose to show.
Third, these are rules that apply to the filing of Records of Survey. If you survey lines and find them to be incompliance with the record, you probably aren't filing a Record of Survey anyway.?ÿ All this becomes moot.
You cant hide behind error ellipses. Error ellipses are part of the measurement, you can't just pick any point inside your original calculated error ellipse, that would mean the error ellipse includes areas outside your original error elipse.
You are right about the record of survey, but many records of survey have some lines that are fine and some that aren't, and don't forget how this all started, with set monuments.?ÿ
I think what is being missed is the question: "What are we actually doing?"
The answer in almost every case is that we are retracing a previous survey. That means that if we match the previous survey, then how we indicate that is kind of irrelevant. I may show that by showing the record 400' and my (M) of 400.01. The next guy may just show (M) 400.01. The next guy might show 400.?ÿ
Can we really say that any of them are wrong? No...
?ÿ
But I do think that this is the sort of discussion that should happen at the (mostly useless) conventions that happen all over. AND they should produce a paper, a publication of what the consensus is. We should be working to clarify what standard and normal practice is (and not by code handed down from regulators).
That is an excellent point. Sometimes the precision needed on an individual course is not dictated by what we can measure, but instead by what we need to have in our closure (which is indicated by what we can measure).
