Norman
I think you are only fooling yourself as a pincushioner. Why would you even give dignity to a ip, mag nail or any other piece of iron that one does not have the professionalism of the creator to put his number on it. If it's not of record it doesn't exist unless it fits! Irons set by unrecorded surveys prior to recordation requirements of course need to be evaluated.
Pablo
> Please forgive me for the sins I have perpetrated. You see, I am a pincushioner.
> Searching corners of my subject property, I find a 1/4" iron 0.66' north of a point 50' northerly of my section line. In the same vicinity, I find a 1/2" iron, bent, 2.9' north of a point 33' northerly of my section line. No caps on these found irons. Record says the right of way is 33', with a roadway easement out to 50'. I set my own bars. For shame.
I'm sorry, but don't other surveyors have to be involved for the proper marking of a boundary corner to qualify as a Pincushion? I certainly would hope that the bar (pun intended) is set at least that high. :>
> The landowner is more concerned with what they see on the ground...
With all due respect, Mr. Penry, I believe you just DEFENDED a reason to accept monuments rather than pincushion.
> We are all responsible for our own work.
Yes we are responsible for our own work, but what is our job? The courts (and every other authority) have repeatedly told us what our job is:
"In working for a client, a surveyor basically performs two distinctly different roles or functions: First, the surveyor can, in the first instance, lay out or establish boundary lines within an original division of a tract of land which has theretofore existed as one unit or parcel. In performing this function, he is known as the "original surveyor" and when his survey results in a property description used by the owner to transfer title to property that survey has a certain special authority in that the monuments set by the original surveyor on the ground control over discrepancies within the total parcel description and, more importantly, control over all subsequent surveys attempting to locate the same line."
and
"Second, a surveyor can be retained to locate on the ground a boundary line which has theretofore been established. When he does this, he "traces the footsteps" of the "original surveyor" in locating existing boundaries. Correctly stated, this is a "retracement" survey, not a resurvey, and in performing this function, the second and each succeeding surveyor is a "following" or "tracing" surveyor and his sole duty, function and power is to locate on the ground the boundaries corners and boundary line or lines established by the original survey; he cannot establish a new corner or new line terminal point, nor may he correct errors of the original surveyor. He must only track the footsteps of the original surveyor. The following surveyor, rather than being the creator of the boundary line, is only its discoverer and is only that when he correctly locates it." Rivers v. Lozeau, 539 So.2d 1147 (1989).
>I have set additional monuments on more than one occasion.
I have too. In fact for the past month I've been trying to retrace 4 sections originally surveyed in 1872 and "retraced" a couple years ago by the other guy, in which he has missed a bunch of original evidence and improperly proportioned lost corners. The difference in this case being he recently made these mistakes and the landowners have not accepted and relied upon his work (that is why I was called in).
>Each time was not due to differences in measuring, but rather differences in proper procedure used.
I have not found any authority that has said "improper procedure used" can be the only reason to reject long standing, relied upon monuments. (misinterpreted BLM Manual by the BLM surveying its own land not withstanding) 😉
>By accepting another surveyor's monument that was set incorrectly due to poor procedure means that I am accepting his poor procedure and any liability that might ensue afterwards.
This may be true in some very limited instances, but definitely not in all cases. In fact, if we improperly reject monuments, our liability will increase substantially.
> I know of some surveyors who will state something on their plat like "Found 1-inch iron pipe with cap 2.55' north and 0.88' west of true position" in order to not pincushion. They do not set their own monument at their calculated position, but assume the note on the plat covers the situation. The landowner is more concerned with what they see on the ground than what they read in small print on the plat. A fence, wall, or building setback gets built to the found monument and is later discovered to be in error. Are you in any way liable? I would not want to defend this because I did not set my own monument and clearly show where my position was established.
Yepper, I whole-heartedly agree.
> Since these monuments had no ones name on them I would not criticize anyone for pulling them. Just saying.
Perhaps that would be the better rule of thumb for pincushion. Instead of a hat or a bucket, maybe the question we should ask should be: "Am I willing to remove this other monument, or possible monument?"
In a lot of ways our new pin does exactly that, even when we leave the old. We damage the existing, we call it into question. And by leaving the old, in the eyes of all to follow, they question our choice.
We hope to create clarity, I hope, but we create ambiguity.
If something has no pedigree, and we don't believe that it monuments a corner, why would we leave it?
(Search this site for "goat stake" for a certain person's well reasoned arguments about being very careful about dealing with apparent found monuments.)
But, we aren't hired to cover our own behinds, we are hired to find the answer to, "Where is my corner?"
So, why are we so hesitant to remove ambiguity in the form of random nails?
No kidding, you have a bunch of random junk indistinguishable from a traverse point, I can't say actually setting a real monument is pin cushioning the corner.
Pincushioning is when the surveyor sets up on two pieces of random junk and throws out the rest of the corners at their mathematical positions with no real analysis and setting more random junk.