, post: 381473, member: 424 wrote: The disagreement isn't the problem. It's failing to resolve the disagreement and just pincushioning that is the problem.
From a strictly regulatory standpoint, I'm curious: does Oregon have formal rules of practice that require all surveyors to resolve disagreements as to land boundary locations? That certainly is not the case in Texas.
I'm not convinced that there even is a disagreement. From the very limited facts we know, there are two scribed 'x's on the sidewalk. No tagged pipes, no tagged rebar, no lead plug and tag. One could be a random point or an offset for all we know. Or this could be a simple technicals error where the point was incorrectly set by a crew.
, post: 381478, member: 11550 wrote: I'm not convinced that there even is a disagreement. From the very limited facts we know, there are two scribed 'x's on the sidewalk. No tagged pipes, no tagged rebar, no lead plug and tag. One could be a random point or an offset for all we know. Or this could be a simple technicals error where the point was incorrectly set by a crew.
The supplemental details, however, were that there are duplicate markers on the back line of both the lot owned by the OP and those adjacent.
Kent McMillan, post: 381479, member: 3 wrote: The supplemental details, however, were that there are duplicate markers on the back line of both the lot owned by the OP and those adjacent.
The name redacted thing is cute.
Kent McMillan, post: 381477, member: 3 wrote: ...does Oregon have formal rules of practice that require all surveyors to resolve disagreements as to land boundary locations?...
Oklahoma does. The fact that it is frequently ignored does not change my attitude.
Oregon is a recording state. One of the requirements is that the survey include a written "narrative" explaining in detail just how the boundary was arrived at. Why certain monuments were held and why others have been rejected. The Portland area County Surveyors in particular check to make sure that is done to their satisfaction. Since the other fellows survey, and his reasoning in full, has been recorded in the same fashion is it uncommon to have to actually call them up. But I have done it plenty of times.
I should add that pincushions are pretty rare around here.
...., post: 381480, member: 94 wrote: The name redacted thing is cute.
Ditto
Kent McMillan, post: 381479, member: 3 wrote: The supplemental details, however, were that there are duplicate markers on the back line of both the lot owned by the OP and those adjacent.
That may be, but that doesn't mean that there wasn't a basic error of measurement in the field, or that the two Surveyor's would end up ultimately disagreeing after comparing all of the evidence. My guess with this case is that at the end of the process, the Surveyor's will agree, but who the heck knows!
REDACTED, post: 381480, member: XX wrote: The name redacted thing is cute.
I spend too much enthusiasm on posts like this. This isn't the first time we have stepped on toes in our rush to protect poor J.Q. Public from our Profession. And it is not the first time research was shared containing locations, links, coordinates, aerials, addresses, and the names of the parties.
If you don't want your laundry washed in public...
It would be one thing for 'one of the surveyors' in this post came to us asking for tutalge and advice...we would ask the hard questions...ask for the facts...(pipe or stone). I understand wanting to EXPLAIN to the public how hard we work, but our advice should be limited to "have your surveyor give us a call...we are standing by".
DDSM
, post: 381480, member: 94 wrote: The name redacted thing is cute.
I think that most of us will agree that all questions are best settled when discussed in the broadest generalities without any specific knowledge of the exact circumstances or nature of the problem. This applies also to opinions, or so would think.
, post: 381481, member: 424 wrote: Oklahoma does [have a rule requiring all differences of opinion between surveyors as to boundary locations to be resolved]. The fact that it is frequently ignored does not change my attitude.
Oregon is a recording state. One of the requirements is that the survey include a written "narrative" explaining in detail just how the boundary was arrived at. Why certain monuments were held and why others have been rejected. The Portland area County Surveyors in particular check to make sure that is done to their satisfaction. Since the other fellows survey, and his reasoning in full, has been recorded in the same fashion is it uncommon to have to actually call them up. But I have done it plenty of times.
I should add that pincushions are pretty rare around here.
So, what you're saying is that in Oregon you pretty much depend upon the role of the Third Surveyor, but call him or her "the County Surveyor" to make it sound less like a Graham Greene novel?
Prior to licensing of individual surveyors the County Surveyor was it. Anyone else was technically working as his deputy under his guidance.
Different States. Different situations. But, that is why we still have a review performed in the county of the survey in most, but not all, counties. Generally speaking, it is a minor review and not dictatorial.
, post: 381489, member: 50 wrote: Prior to licensing of individual surveyors the County Surveyor was it. Anyone else was technically working as his deputy under his guidance.
That certainly wasn't true in . Here, the role of the County Surveyor was mainly limited as a matter of law to the surveys of the public domain. Once land passed into private ownership, the County Surveyor had no particular role beyond that of making corrected field notes of public land grants when called upon to do so and of surveying the county boundaries.
Kent McMillan, post: 381488, member: 3 wrote: So, what you're saying is that in Oregon you pretty much depend upon the role of the Third Surveyor, but call him or her "the County Surveyor" to make it sound less like a Graham Greene novel?
The County Surveyor sometimes serves the role of the disinterested third party - the mediator - if you will.
That certainly wasn't true in . Here, the role of the was mainly limited as a matter of to the surveys of the domain. Once land passed into private ownership, the had no particular role beyond that of making corrected field notes of public land grants when called upon to do so and of surveying the boundaries.
Holy Cow, post: 381489, member: 50 wrote: Prior to licensing of individual surveyors the County Surveyor was it. Anyone else was technically working as his deputy under his guidance.
Different States. Different situations. But, that is why we still have a review performed in the county of the survey in most, but not all, counties. Generally speaking, it is a minor review and not dictatorial.
Whoa.
ALL surveys, even private surveys, must be reviewed by the county surveyor?
Wendell, post: 381456, member: 1 wrote: Joanie,
My apologies for the post from Dave Ingram, who posted your address for everyone to see. That's not only rude, it's a violation of your privacy by Dave, and should never have occurred. You obscured the information on the surveys for good reason and I have no idea why he would violate that. The post has been removed.
Secondly, I'd also like to apologize for his rude message(s) to you. This would not be his first offense (nor his second or third) and he has now been banned from this website.
Agreed. I didn't see Dave's post, but I knew exactly where this property was shortly after the plats were posted, and I'm probably not the only one. Since Joanie chose not to disclose that information, I certainly didn't consider it my place to do so. She has been very polite, and we should treat her with the same respect.
Mark Mayer, post: 381495, member: 424 wrote: The County Surveyor sometimes serves the role of the disinterested third party - the mediator - if you will.
So, why don't all disagreements between surveyors go right to the licensing board, instead of having a third surveyor attempt to resolve disputes?
Kent McMillan, post: 381503, member: 3 wrote: So, why don't all disagreements between surveyors go right to the licensing board, instead of having a third surveyor attempt to resolve disputes?
OK. Maybe. But in this case the 3rd surveyor is not a disinterested 3rd party. He is being employed by Joanie.
Im still waiting on the plat, from the suveyor, who set the disagreeable pins... Maybe he reads this forum, and is going to carefully publish his plat. I know i would!
, post: 381504, member: 424 wrote: But in this case the 3rd surveyor is not a disinterested 3rd party. He is being employed by .
You lost me there. In a situation such as has been described, the object is to determine the true situation and to document the facts so that if there is a claim to be pursued against someone, the basis of the claim can be laid out. I'm not sure how being retained to provide that service can be understood to be other than as an objective expert.
