This just got filed in Lake County.
The Valley Fire, one of the largest in California History, burned over our Boggs Mountain Demonstration State Forest. Somehow by some miracle and the heroic efforts of Cal Fire helitack fire fighters (it's also their home) the HQ area was saved, everything else burned. Therefore salvage logging commenced and armies of workers in white suits showed up to haul away the remains of adjoining subdivision houses (Cal Recycle-another State agency). We needed to find the west boundary FAST!
Initially we divided it into north half (the other crew) and south half (my crew) but I got hurt the first week so I took on doing the Record of Survey on the entire west boundary. I eventually got released to go back out there and was able to personally visit every monument although I only did about half the the traversing. The first week I had a cold virus, there are a lot of steep road banks, I scrambled up a road bank too quickly and strained my calf muscle (did the same to the other one ten years ago). So that grounded me for 6 weeks, the Doc wouldn't let me back out in the field until it healed. He said, "I want you to stop and think before you do something like lift or climb a bank, think for 5 seconds about how you are going to do it, that way you are a lot less likely to get hurt."
The other crew also did a lot of the south boundary and that R/S is in progress right now (office work). Meanwhile I'm going back to Jackson Demonstration State Forest next week to continue working on my north boundary project (about 10 miles) that I have been chipping away at for years (keep getting interrupted).
Attached is the Boggs R/S and of couse I just noticed a typo.
"Salvage logging"! Wow - that's not permitted here - they just leave the trees to rot. Millions of acres of board feet of timber just wasted.
Sorry for the hijack.
I had to google "demonstration forest" to see what it is supposed to be.
Per the Cal Fire website "The forests represent the most common forest types in the state." YUP - spot on.
Burned to the ground with heavy brush sprouting up every square foot..
It's sad to see the effects of failed fire management.
On the bright side - if you can get in there before the yellow jackets, you can get some nice long traverse legs.
Very impressive map. Well done.
Isn't it amazing when you are posting how you can spot the obvious typo that was invisible before.
What does 1 R/S 48 stand for?
Is it Record of Survey Book 1, page 48?
imaudigger, post: 378769, member: 7286 wrote: What does 1 R/S 48 stand for?
Is it Record of Survey Book 1, page 48?
That's what it means around here.
Ed
Edward Reading, post: 378770, member: 132 wrote: That's what it means around here.
Ed
Never see it abbreviated that way in my area. RSB1, PG48 is what I am used to seeing.
imaudigger, post: 378777, member: 7286 wrote: Never see it abbreviated that way in my area. RSB1, PG48 is what I am used to seeing.
Yeah, you guys do it different up in Jefferson ... B-)
imaudigger, post: 378777, member: 7286 wrote: Never see it abbreviated that way in my area. RSB1, PG48 is what I am used to seeing.
Lake County apparently titles their book "Records of Survey", while some counties title it "Surveys", resulting in a "1 S 48" type label. In the latter case you frequently see surveyors incorrectly referencing surveys with the RS or R/S type label. In the past, Mendocino County used a Map Case-Drawer-Page format so Dave's reference might have been "Map Case 4, Drawer 1, Page 48". That's a mouthful that usually got abbreviated to "C4D1P48".
I have at least a couple of questions. The first has to do with graphical standards. The sheets sizes are 18" x 26". Does this mean that the maps are scanned at that size and are to be plotted same size as well or are the minimum light widths and text sizes chosen for microfilming or plotting at a smaller format?
What particularly catches my eye is how the usual heirarchy of line widths appears to be turned over to line types instead. For example the centerline of the street that appears to be the same line width as the right-of-way lines is unexpected.
Is the variety of monument symbols used one that is required? In Texas (where of course the land you surveyed isn't located), it makes more sense to differentiate
- original land grant corners,
- replacements of original land grant corners
- original monuments of record that either directly or indirectly control the boundary subject of survey,
- monuments that are found but that don't control a boundary,
- replacements of boundary monuments as made by the subject survey, and
- miscellaneous markers that aren't boundary monuments.
That way, the top down heirarchy of most to least controlling is fairly easy to see from just the monument symbols. If they are all original controlling monuments, its possible that several completely different types of markers would all get the same symbol, for example.
I'm Yolo County it would be 1 M&S 48 until 1998 or so when they went to annual books, now it'd be 2016 M 48.
Interesting...
BajaOR, post: 378779, member: 9139 wrote: Lake County apparently titles their book "Records of Survey", while some counties title it "Surveys", resulting in a "1 S 48" type label. In the latter case you frequently see surveyors incorrectly referencing surveys with the RS or R/S type label. In the past, Mendocino County used a Map Case-Drawer-Page format so Dave's reference might have been "Map Case 4, Drawer 1, Page 48". That's a mouthful that usually got abbreviated to "C4D1P48".
Mendocino is now D50, P50 (Drawer 50 Page 50)
Older maps are still C2, D50, P50 (Case 2, Drawer 50, Page 50).
Mendocino is unique, I don't know of any other County that had a three number system. They had to drop the Case because Recorder software available only allows for book and page.
Kent McMillan, post: 378803, member: 3 wrote: I have at least a couple of questions. The first has to do with graphical standards. The sheets sizes are 18" x 26". Does this mean that the maps are scanned at that size and are to be plotted same size as well or are the minimum light widths and text sizes chosen for microfilming or plotting at a smaller format?
What particularly catches my eye is how the usual heirarchy of line widths appears to be turned over to line types instead. For example the centerline of the street that appears to be the same line width as the right-of-way lines is unexpected.
Is the variety of monument symbols used one that is required? In Texas (where of course the land you surveyed isn't located), it makes more sense to differentiate
- original land grant corners,
- replacements of original land grant corners
- original monuments of record that either directly or indirectly control the boundary subject of survey,
- monuments that are found but that don't control a boundary,
- replacements of boundary monuments as made by the subject survey, and
- miscellaneous markers that aren't boundary monuments.That way, the top down heirarchy of most to least controlling is fairly easy to see from just the monument symbols. If they are all original controlling monuments, its possible that several completely different types of markers would all get the same symbol, for example.
I accept your criticism on the right-of-way lineweight. It is a bit darker on the original but by the time it got scanned by the Recorder it wasn't heavier enough to survive looking heavier. It needs to bump up a little.
The symbol idea is a good one but how I did it is pretty much standard practice in California.
Dave Karoly, post: 378821, member: 94 wrote: I accept your criticism on the right-of-way lineweight. It is a bit darker on the original but by the time it got scanned by the Recorder it wasn't heavier enough to survive looking heavier. It needs to bump up a little.
The symbol idea is a good one but how I did it is pretty much standard practice in California.
Nice plat, I like the way you sheeted it.
The lineweights look good to me as do the symbols, I wouldn't change any of that.
MightyMoe, post: 378839, member: 700 wrote: Nice plat, I like the way you sheeted it.
The lineweights look good to me as do the symbols, I wouldn't change any of that.
I agree, very well done plat. Line weights, etc don't detract from the clarity of the information at all imho....
Dave, your map takes an approach to the "monument problem" that I've not seen before. The "problem," of course, is the presence of monuments -- established in good faith and in compliance with contemporary standard of practice -- purporting to mark a nominally straight boundary line but found by means of modern measurement not to be on a line connecting the accepted endpoints.
One approach to the problem is to implicitly acknowledge that the boundary line isn't a single line by showing a dimensioned angle point at each accepted monument. Another is to show a single boundary line but show the monuments to be off line, usually by a materially inconsequential amount (this is the one I generally favor).
Your map states that the monuments mark the boundary, yet you show straight lines (single bearing) between the endpoints of each nominal boundary segment. The monument notes include a statement that "offsets are perpendicular to line and are for location only." Yet the definition of "line" isn't clear, and seems to me to indicate that the boundary segments are straight, thus in conflict with the monument notes. The offsets add to the confusion. In my opinion -- and I recognize that there's plenty of room for other opinions -- this approach isn't the best.
Nice looking map in any case, and undoubtedly representative of excellent work.
Jim Frame, post: 378850, member: 10 wrote: Dave, your map takes an approach to the "monument problem" that I've not seen before. The "problem," of course, is the presence of monuments -- established in good faith and in compliance with contemporary standard of practice -- purporting to mark a nominally straight boundary line but found by means of modern measurement not to be on a line connecting the accepted endpoints.
One approach to the problem is to implicitly acknowledge that the boundary line isn't a single line by showing a dimensioned angle point at each accepted monument. Another is to show a single boundary line but show the monuments to be off line, usually by a materially inconsequential amount (this is the one I generally favor).
Your map states that the monuments mark the boundary, yet you show straight lines (single bearing) between the endpoints of each nominal boundary segment. The monument notes include a statement that "offsets are perpendicular to line and are for location only." Yet the definition of "line" isn't clear, and seems to me to indicate that the boundary segments are straight, thus in conflict with the monument notes. The offsets add to the confusion. In my opinion -- and I recognize that there's plenty of room for other opinions -- this approach isn't the best.
Nice looking map in any case, and undoubtedly representative of excellent work.
I really like the way Dave has done it. It is very clear (to those who understand the significance of monuments) what is going on - the boundary is running thru each accepted monument, but also shows it being "record straight" to avoid too much confusion for those who believe the monuments are subordinate to the "record". The offsets preserve the evidence of exactly where each accepted monument was found. I know I'm going to steal Dave's method.
Very interesting to see plats from other parts of the country. One thing I noticed that is different from standard practice in my area is the denotation of the monuments and there source information. Around here you get found rod, found pipe, found mon, with no particular information as to size or source. Which like I said is standard practice.
I think it's time for an update and for me to start to implement some of what I've seen done on the last couple plats posted.
Thanks for sharing Dave & Kent (different thread)
Here is another one, recently filed in El Dorado County. The Surveyor that set the pipes on the east (LS2893) did a lot of work in El Dorado County in the 1950s and 60s. Evan Page is familiar with his work. He was involved in another snafu near one of our camps (closer to Garden Valley); that one is crazy making this area seem very tame by comparison. Often in these mountainous areas the surveys would, for example, come from the west, then others would come from the east, then they would meet in the middle with apparent gaps (at least there is too much land) or overlaps (harder to deal with). I think he had control on a street over to the east and built his deed cut parcels towards the west coming up about 3' short. I think it is ours because no one else claims it, kind of thing.