A.C Mulford:
The problems of boundary lie at the foundation of all surveying, for one must know where a line is before he can measure it, and the solution of these problems calls for the same powers of accurate observation and of consecutive and logical thought that are demanded for successful work in any branch of modern science. It is needless to say that the successful surveyor must be accurate in his instrument work and in his computation; yet, if he would really succeed, he must go beyond this. He must add to this the patience to collect all the evidence which can be found bearing upon the case in hand, together with the ability to weigh this evidence to a nicety and to determine clearly the course pointed out by the balance of probability. If, in addition, he possesses enough imagination to cast pleasant lights across the desert of dry details, he should be successful indeed.
The watchwords of the surveyor are Patience and Common Sense.
Kent
> I'm just guessing here, but I bet a skyscraper isn't located on this lot within 0.14' of the boundary line. I can't imagine the state or county or who ever owns this right of way coming back on a landowner and asking them to remove 0.14' of paving or some other kind of improvement.
David, it sounds as if you concede the point, then that the pipe doesn't mark the right-of-way correctly and are now trying, sight unseen, to decide whether the time savings of pretending that it did would ever come back to bite you.
> Kent, how would feel knowing some surveyor in the future pulled one of your pins because he decided it was off 0.004' He would say something like "that Kent must have had a bad day when he set this corner". Maybe in the future these kind of exact measurements will be possible and they will make us look like hacks.
What in the world does that have to do with this discussion? Nothing? No one is proposing to remove the original pipe except for Brother Miller in Iowa. The pipe controls the common lot line. It doesn't control the right-of-way and wishing it did won't make it happen. The right-of-way will always remain where it was originally established until the highway is widened or relocated or some action to which the adjoining owners are parties is taken. A surveyor ten years from now will still be faced with the identical task that Carl was and will probably find that Carl did a pretty good job. That is what professional surveying looks like.
> Most landowners and courts don't care about such percise measurements. They just want to know where their corner is.
Yes, which is why fudging and telling them that the pipe marks the corner of their property is inferior to what Carl did, i.e. actually marking the corner.
> A.C Mulford:
>
> The problems of boundary lie at the foundation of all surveying, for one must know where a line is before he can measure it, and the solution of these problems calls for the same powers of accurate observation and of consecutive and logical thought that are demanded for successful work in any branch of modern science.
Yes, Mulford's reproach to the folks who argue in favor of fudging.
Kent
> I can't imagine the state or county or who ever owns this right of way coming back on a landowner and asking them to remove 0.14' of paving or some other kind of improvement.
Not so sure about that. I know of a house here in VA that the owner REPORTEDLY had to remove the gutter off the front of his house because, after an additional right of way take, the gutter was now in the right of way.
Some of the counties here have fits if new houses are built even a tenth into the setback areas. Many a homeowner has spent many hours and dollars trying to get variances through the local zoning boards, and many have had to remove parts of houses to be in compliance.
"He must add to this the patience to collect all the evidence which can be found bearing upon the case in hand, together with the ability to weigh this evidence to a nicety and to determine clearly the course pointed out by the balance of probability. If, in addition, he possesses enough imagination to cast pleasant lights across the desert of dry details, he should be successful indeed."
> If, in addition, he possesses enough imagination to cast pleasant lights across the desert of dry details, he should be successful indeed.
Yes, Mulford clearly would reproach the folks who want to fudge the corner just because they fail to imagine the possible negative outcomes that could unfold from misrepresenting its position.
Besides your pointy ears, you head is getting pointy too.
🙂
Carl
Serious question!
Do you buy Kent's arguments on this thread?
Keith
Carl
> Serious question!
>
> Do you buy Kent's arguments on this thread?
>
> Keith
Serious answer: He's picked up exactly where intended to tread. But with much more vim, vigor, intelligence and vocabulary than I possess. So the answer is yes, I do. I will take everything I have read into consideration here from now on, but I still defend my original thought process on why I set the new rebar. I don't think I'd have many locals disagree with me either... that had a part in my decision as well (local flavor/custom).
I hope that that does not make me an outcast on this board.
Carl.
Carl
Thanks for your response.
Does not make you an outcast, just another surveyor's opinion.
Keith
Carl
> Does not make you an outcast, just another surveyor's opinion.
That was very civil of you, Keith, and that's the direction that this thread needs to go. Thanks. Carl is obviously a good man and a good surveyor. I respect him.
Don
Carl
Carl, if there is one thing I've learned in surveying, don't say never or always. You have to have an open mind. I don't agree with what you did, but I don't think it is wrong either.
I've seen surveyors get all worked up about this kind of situation. They see it as very black and white, and in their book, there is only one correct answer, and everyone else is wrong. That is the kind of thinking that hurts this profession.
Carl
It is Carl's survey and I am sure that he knows he is ok with it.
My concern is more with the general tone and opinions here about the sanctity of a ROW line and where did that concept come from?
Land surveying is about establishing boundaries and using proper procedures, proper instrumentation and not get hung up on certain "methods" as done in the local area and as perpetuated by previous bosses.
The concept of a ROW boundary being ONLY at the prescribed distance is as bogus as setting a corner monument over on a neighbor's property by a finger nail length.
That precise measurement cannot ever be attained as there will always be somebody that will come along later with a newer and better machine and can measure to a tenth of a finger nail.....and what has been proven by that?
Monuments mean things and landowners have a right to use them to plow the field, build the house and enjoy life without some better measurer coming along and telling them their boundary is not as they have thought for years.
Somebody, anybody point out some written textbooks, statute law, case law that states unequivocally that a ROW line is ONLY at the record bearing and distance.
And after that, point out some written textbooks, statute law, case law that states unequivocally that a senior line can NEVER be bent through a junior corner.
Then we can talk some more about land surveying.
Keith
Carl
Keith
You may or may not recall but I was once in Carl's corner having spent my career working for the road authority. I was always bothered by the fact that those darned ROW monuments that were clapped off and cloth taped kept getting in the way of the true ROW line. It took a long time for the concept to sink in the monuments mean things to the owners and to the legal system. The road does get its full width in a proportion situation or when there is no monumented width evidence. I am eagerly waitning for a court case where the ROW is the issue and the other side claims they believed the ROW boundary to be the monuments representing road line and the raod authority claims it was the record width. I am not aware of a case such as that.
Better measuring
If you want to talk about who can measure the best, that is a different subject and is not Land Surveying.
As I have come to believe anyway.
Better measuring results in a court case like Rivers v Lozeau!
Keith
Norm
I would like to read such a court case too and basically it is the concept of valid monuments over bearing and distance.
It is obvious where posters are on this argument and as a thought process, lets talk about some specific court case that states bearing and distance ranks higher then monuments. And that is really what this idea is about; ROW lines being ONLY at the written distance and not at the measured distance.
That is my intent to make surveyors think about what they are posting and get out of the box once in a while.
Keith
Better measuring
Keith,
Just to clarify: Carl did not set the rebar because of a deed distance he was trying to match, but he set it to be on the alignment of the preponderance of his fd monumentation.
He may have been out in the country, I don't know, but when in a high dollar commercial area, there will be trouble if the bldg is over the setback line.
And the location of the setback line may depend on where 4 out of 5 surveyors would find it to be (probably using the preponderance of the monumentation.)
Carl
> You may or may not recall but I was once in Carl's corner having spent my career working for the road authority. I was always bothered by the fact that those darned ROW monuments that were clapped off and cloth taped kept getting in the way of the true ROW line. It took a long time for the concept to sink in the monuments mean things to the owners and to the legal system.
Actually, in the case that Carl described, the right-of-way line could be located quite well from the monuments that controlled its location. The problem was that some later private surveyor had apparently stabbed a pipe that fell within the right-of-way as determined from those monuments.
It would be interesting to compare the descriptions under which various state highway departments customarily acquired the land in which highway facilities are now in place. The commonest description in Texas leaves little room for doubt as to the width of the right-of-way. It is a centerline description describing the land by station and offset from that centerline which is nearly always described as a line that had been surveyed on the ground. The marks on the centerline were invariably destroyed by highway construction, so the right-of-way markers that were set during highway construction, typically to lines given by State surveying staff, to reference that centerline are usually the best evidence of the centerline's location.
However, the clear language of the deed that doesn't call for the right-of-way markers subsequently placed fixes the boundaries in relation to the centerline.
Carl
Earlier in this thread the old how much error is too much question was eluded to. I have thought about the gross error question a lot. I have reached the conclusion surveyors don't have to be concerned with it because it is so evident it is an issue long before the surveyor arrives. If it takes a surveyor's measurement to determine gross error it probably isn't gross error.
Better measuring
Yep
I'm not Keith but I understood that completely and I've been in on lots of those discussions with my counterparts. Now we are back to the lines can't bend through monuments discussion.
