#1: Virginia is not a capping/tagging state. Everybody get off their high horse about that issue.
#2: US 11/460 is a variable width R/W - 160' minimum. This is on a large curve and I have R/W monuments that fit very well with said plans.
#3: at what distance do DO I set a new rod on line? 0.25'? 1'? 2.5'?
#4: If I rotated the R/W to fit the pipe, I'd be several feet off my plans.
#5: I'm far from a button pusher, I accepted pipes on this survey that were 0.7' from the calc'ed position. But the are the corner.
#6: I can't take land from the state, no matter how much it is. This is fee/plan R/W.
#7: I guess I was a friggin' 'tard to post this. Won't EVER make that mistake again.
#8: Continue to flame me. I'm done here. Wendell, pull this post if you want to. Apparently I'm too dumb to survey.
Well, kinda sounds like you answered your original question with the above 1-8! If at the end of the day sounds like you felt good about what you did why ask???? You had to to have known the floodgates were gonna open up on the pincusion question.
Guys, we probably should extend him some measure of respect for having the courage to post this.
But, yes, Carl, you did pin cushion.
Holding the OTIF isn't taking anything from the state. It's giving the state what is theirs, and giving the adjoining private owners what is theirs. You said yourself that it was a very good job for the time that it was set. That's all that needs to be said about it.
As alluded to above, the rule about not apportioning across Right-of-Ways is just that, a rule about apportioning, as in lot and block surveys. It has not application to boundary surveying besides lots and blocks. I don't know of any law written anywhere that says "State or Federal always gets it's full measure", and yet, so many land surveyors believe that. I personally believe it is just an inappropriate outgrowth from the lot and block rule. The government land owners are subject to the same rules of property ownership as anyone else, except that their lands can't be acquired through adverse possession.
My thoughts anyway.
Thanks very much for posting.
Stephen
It's obvious you are conscientious about the quality of your work and I apologize for coming across so critical. It was just an opinion and everyone knows about opinions.
Obviously, every state has different rules, so I think you will get varying observations and opinions. In Oregon, there is a distinct "tolerance" for measurements. Per ORS 92.050(2):
The survey for the plat of the subdivision or partition shall be done in a manner to achieve sufficient accuracy that measurements may be taken between monuments within one-tenth of a foot or one ten-thousandth of the distance shown on the subdivision or partition plat, whichever is greater.
While I think there are issues with this statute in and of itself, I think the intent is to imply that everyone will measure points slightly differently and thus, some "error" amongst measurements is acceptable. In addition, in Oregon, the general consensus is that "the king gets his due", meaning that right-of-way widths are held and maintained regardless of your findings (except maybe in very exceptional cases).
Anyway, the point I'm getting to is that I think you could technically consider that existing pipe to be found per record simply because it is within a certain tolerance. Whether this type of rule applies in Virginia or not is obviously a condition of this decision, but it seems reasonable to me.
Personally, I don't get overly excited about surveys that show small offsets to "true" corners because it's not really any different than showing a slightly different bearing and distance on the line and comparing it to the record data. I tend to think that the offsets aren't intended to show error, but to show how the found monuments compare to that surveyor's calculations. I would never say that my calculations are the "true" corner, but I might show them as a comparison to my calculated positions -- not that my positions are perfect, because I would consider those monuments as held and the true representation of the corner.
Whew! All that just to say that I would probably hold the right-of-way line (a curve in this case) based on the best fit of whatever various monuments I found along said right-of-way line (possibly leaving some out of the best fit due to condition, gross error, etc.). Then, I might show offsets from my best fit curve to the various monuments -- not that I am saying they are wrong, but merely showing what I found and how I found them. My survey narrative (required in Oregon) would further explain how I calculated the right-of-way line and why I am showing said offsets.
Carl
First let me say, this is your survey, no one elses. What you decided to do was your call.
I do have a few questions though, if you do not mind answering them.
1. Whats the size of those R/W monuments? 2" x 2"? 6" x 6"?
2. You have 0.08' error in the 4/6, did you allow for that?
3. Could you have just called that iron pipe as a witness to the R/W instead of adding another monument? From the picture it looks pretty good for line.
4. How do you know he's an 'old timer', that pink flagging is not that old.
Anyway..
I pin cushioned a guy last week by 2". I wish I had a picture of it, I love being the guest star at a Surveyors Roast..oh well, maybe next time.
Ohh..I just remembered. I do have a picture...brb..
Found it!
> Good Grief!
>
> Is this what land surveying has come to?
>
> Keith
Yes
Sometimes when you are working in a high-dollar commercial area, 0.2' or 0.14' ain't close enough.
After you do your boundary survey holding the old iron, and then some clown comes in and proves that r/w line is "here", and they staked the million dollar bldg right on the front setback line based on your old held iron, and now it 0.2' over the setback, the old "1320' roll of barbed wire" argument is not going to seem so cute.
Pin cushion? Worse, you moved the boundary line. In boundary surveying the monument holds, "THAT IS THE CORNER"! In construction surveying the measurement holds. Boundary surveying ain't construction surveying.
Sounds like a good job to me, Carl
> So instead of "fudging" some numbers, I set the new #4 rebar on my calculated R/W line. I will use the pipe for line. I think that the old timer that set the pipe did a heck of a job, considering that he probably didn't go get the same R/W monuments that I did.
>
> So, in the end... Did I pincushion? I don't think that I did.
No, what you did is what is called "land surveying" as opposed to fudgery. The boundaries of the state highway aren't subject to change just because some private surveyor stabs a pipe 0.14 ft. into the right-of-way, presumably. The state's title is wholly unaffected by surveying mistakes and you found the best evidence of the original right-of-way line, I take it.
The land owner needs to know where the actual corner of his or her lot is, not where some pipe is that looks as if it might be the corner but which is out in the state highway. So marking the true corner instead of pretending that landowners are going to be able to reproduce a mathematical point without a marker is good practice.
Sounds like a good job to me, Carl
"No, what you did is what is called "land surveying" as opposed to fudgery. The boundaries of the state highway aren't subject to change just because some private surveyor stabs a pipe 0.14 ft. into the right-of-way, presumably. The state's title is wholly unaffected by surveying mistakes and you found the best evidence of the original right-of-way line, I take it.
The land owner needs to know where the actual corner of his or her lot is, not where some pipe is that looks as if it might be the corner but which is out in the state highway. So marking the true corner instead of pretending that landowners are going to be able to reproduce a mathematical point without a marker is good practice."
Oh??? than answer this, "why do you set physical monumentation?"
Sounds like a good job to me, Carl
> Oh??? than answer this, "why do you set physical monumentation?"
(The "quote" button works well BTW)
One sets boundary monuments to provide definite, permanent reference points to land boundaries. When some surveyor mistakenly drives a pipe with the intention of placing it on the boundary of a senior parcel at the intersection of a newly created lot line, but fails to place it on the line of the senior parcel, it serves only to control the newly created lot line, not the point of intersection. Elementary principle of law in my jurisdiction.
Sounds like a good job to me, Carl
The whole situation would, I assume, change complexion if, instead of 0.14 ft., the fact situation were to be varied so that the pipe is progressively further into the land to which the State presumably has some paramount title.
As that 0.14 ft. grows to 0.24 ft. to 0.54 ft. to 1.54 ft., you'd lose progressively more surveyors who want to fudge the situation and pretend that the pipe actually has moved the boundary. In other words, 99% of them will recognize the principle involved. Their real problem is that they evidently don't think that a surveyor can resolve a boundary any closer than 0.14 ft., so it would be impossible to say that the pipe isn't actually on the boundary of the State's title. Sounds slack as hell, but I think that's the real issue here.
Sounds like a good job to me, Carl
> > Oh??? than answer this, "why do you set physical monumentation?"
>
> (The "quote" button works well BTW)
>
> One sets boundary monuments to provide definite, permanent reference points to land boundaries. When some surveyor mistakenly drives a pipe with the intention of placing it on the boundary of a senior parcel at the intersection of a newly created lot line, but fails to place it on the line of the senior parcel, it serves only to control the newly created lot line, not the point of intersection. Elementary principle of law in my jurisdiction.
Exactly, you set monumentation because measurements DO NOT have a physical presence. 50 years ago the ROW survey was set evidenced by the pipe. That's it, end of story.
0.14'? Heck 1.4' wouldn't have made a difference.
(The "quote" button works well BTW
What next, the spell checker??
Sounds like a good job to me, Carl
I think there is a difference in alignment "pincushions" versus "angle point" pincushions (in the interior of the property).
Everyone knows that r/w lines may change slightly, depending on what 90-day-wonder the DOT hires to do the new r/w maps and monumentation.
Everyone will be holding to the predominance of found monumentation for the r/w line. If an old fd iron is half a foot into the r/w, should you tell your client to measure off that iron to stake his bldg?
The important thing is, Carl held the lateral line between the two contiguous estates.
The r/w line is going to be where the DOT's cheapest "bidder" says it is, once the r/w maps are approved.
Sounds like a good job to me, Carl
> 50 years ago the ROW survey was set evidenced by the pipe. That's it, end of story.
> 0.14'? Heck 1.4' wouldn't have made a difference.
Actually, Carl was posting about a real situation with real facts. In his real situation, the pipe was not a monument that had been placed when the State acquired its superior title in the highway. The pipe in question arrived afterwards, when the boundary had already been created by the conveyance by which the State acquired the highway. So, to say that the pipe set after the boundary of the highway had already been created is anything other than some later surveyor's attempt to mark a point on that boundary is unsupported by the facts that Carl provides.
Sounds like a good job to me, Carl
Actually 0.14 makes quite a bit of difference along some right of ways in Texas.
Believe me I have seen many municipalities, TXDOT, and for that matter the railroad enforce their right of way, and it has not been pretty for some land owners.
Sounds like a good job to me, Carl
> > 50 years ago the ROW survey was set evidenced by the pipe. That's it, end of story.
> > 0.14'? Heck 1.4' wouldn't have made a difference.
>
> Actually, Carl was posting about a real situation with real facts. In his real situation, the pipe was not a monument that had been placed when the State acquired its superior title in the highway. The pipe in question arrived afterwards, when the boundary had already been created by the conveyance by which the State acquired the highway. So, to say that the pipe set after the boundary of the highway had already been created is anything other than some later surveyor's attempt to mark a point on that boundary is unsupported by the facts that Carl provides.
Kent nailed it. The right of way is more than likely senior. Why would you not hold that line? An uncalled for monument should never control.
Sounds like a good job to me, Carl
> I think there is a difference in alignment "pincushions" versus "angle point" pincushions (in the interior of the property).
Actually, the term "pin cushion" has been mainly used to describe multiple monuments at a protracted corner, i.e. one that was not originally marked upon the ground when the boundary was created, but which was to be established by surveying methods from other corners that were marked upon the ground.
This is not that case. Each survey marker marks an important position, I would think, based upon the evidence presented. The pipe marks a corner of a lot as established by some original survey. It also marks where that original surveyor mistakenly thought the right-of-way line to be, apparently. That may be an important bit of evidence in re-establishing other corners of lots whose boundaries were established at the same time by the same surveyor.
Carl's monument marks the intersection of the boundary of the State's paramount title with the side line of the lot. It is a boundary corner monument. The pipe is in this situation in effect a witness monument, not a boundary corner monument.
Sounds like a good job to me, Carl
> Actually 0.14 makes quite a bit of difference along some right of ways in Texas.
>
> Believe me I have seen many municipalities, TXDOT, and for that matter the railroad enforce their right of way, and it has not been pretty for some land owners.
Yes, it would be a serious mistake to assume that some administrator of the State's interest in the land of the highway would always be willing to turn a blind eye to even a small encroachment.
Carl:
concepts...
did you find a closing corner?
I think so.
did you hold the line as monumented between the adjoiners?
You said you did.
should you encourage your client to construct improvements to the monument rather than to the R/W line?
I think not.
I think you did the right thing from what you presented... sometimes my favorite rag tape is not the best tool for the job.
