Very interesting comments so far
I especially liked Shawn's comment on documenting on your plat when you had previously located key elements of the plan that you are using now. We all know it seems silly to duplicate field work over and over in a short time span. On the other hand, our plats are left to guide future surveyors to be able to duplicate what you just did. If your plat says only, "I say this is the tract." but there is nothing to tell the future surveyor how to get there, have you done your job correctly?
In the example I provided above, the point of beginning says it is based on three things. First, a specific monument. Next, a precise distance and bearing (that is supposed to represent the bearing between TWO monuments using some basis of bearings which is not stated). And third, another precise distance and bearing (that is supposed to represent the bearing between a different PAIR of monuments that is being run parallel with).
Question: Do those three monuments still exist? No information is being provided on the plat to verify that.
Question: What is the basis of bearings? For this one reflect back to previous threads where many of you have discussed the lousy job done by prior surveyors in accurately providing you this information. How much information to support this basis of bearings should be included on the plat? None? Uh, like we used GPS tools, man? Based on North Zone, Bigga State Plane? Date, time, epoch, etc., etc.? Please note that "None" is the typical amount of data supplied.
It all boils down to the question, "What constitutes a survey?" So you preload coordinates into the equipment your technician (7-11 employee last week) will carry to the field, turn on and wander around until each pairing is found so he/she can drive a bar with your cap on it and then drive to the next job. Was that a survey? What level of effort does it take to be a survey? Why should someone pay you to do something they can probably figure out themselves with their iphone?
> I agree. If the data is correct it takes 5 minutes to run a day's data through StarNet and generate coordinates. If it isn't correct you may never know it - until it is too late - if you don't. There is no better way to combine and analyse multiple observations in a meaningful way.
Absolutely. This is a part of a network plot from Star*Net that shows various surveys made in an area over the last ten years. The old work is ready to combine with new and inspect for unacceptable uncertainties/discrepancies.
The above detail covers an area roughly 4 x 4 miles in extent that is part of this larger network roughly 15 x 20 miles in size, some of it entirely conventional work going back twenty years. That pre-GPS survey was later controlled by some GPS vectors to various points connected by the conventional measurements (which turned out BTW to be much, much better than that RTK survey I recently posted about).
One great thing about Star*Net is that it will import data from a variety of manufacturers, so you aren't chained to some vendor's hardware.
> One great thing about Star*Net is that it will import data from a variety of manufacturers, so you aren't chained to some vendor's hardware.
Kent, Microsurvey should be paying the 2 of us a royalty for all the love we give it on this website.
> Kent, Microsurvey should be paying the 2 of us a royalty for all the love we give it on this website.
I'll settle for them just not screwing up such a valuable bit of surveying software.
""not visited this survey""
I absolutely can't imagine putting this note on a plat! There may be some circumstance where it might be appropriate, but I can't envision one...
Thanks for speaking out. When so many do it around a local area you start wondering if you are the goofy one. Jp :-S
I have a some what similar scenario and/or question.
Would you rely of a previously held and located monument to determine and adjoining property line when that monument(s) has been destroyed?
I did and here's why. I did a survey back in 2002. A complete, very tight boundary, with numerous original monuments that were held in the boundary evaluation process. We then recorded a boundary line adjustment plat to make the old lots more useful. You'd have to see the old lots versus the new lots to get the full understanding. Suffice it to say they are now rectangular in shape and more desirable.
A gentleman buys one of the lots, then buys several adjoining lots without extinguishing the interior lines. He builds his huge water front home and destroys some of the then original exterior monuments on the survey I did. Neighbor next door, who I originally did the work for, buys another adjoining parcel. He wants to do another adjustment to the two lots to make both water front parcels.
In the process of doing the plat, I have to survey the new piece he wants to buy, then adjust the lines. Part of the lot is along the original lines I surveyed back in 2002, but the corners are missing. So how do you reestablish the common line? I used the previously located exterior, now missing original monument locations.
Had another surveyor did the work, would he have come to the same location? Probably not. I denoted on the plat what was held, when and why. Same as Shawn above.
The prime objective for me is to restore monuments where they were originally set. There are exceptions but not many. If your prior location is the best available evidence use it. For me that means relationship to nearby control, not just a coordinate...
