"Did not meet positional tolerance...."

I might have a tendency to disregard Mr. "Positional Tolerance's" corners and run with the previously monumented corners, particularly if tracts have been patented to private ownership described from the 'older' monumentation. (remember 43-772?)

I'm not that familiar with the USFS. We have very little USFS lands around here. Do they survey with Federal Authority?

I think we need to resurrect the term "Dippy Idiot" for individuals like that one (Mr. Positional Tolerance).

HA!

Well, up front, it looks like the subdivision of the section is in strict accordance with the Bouman-Robillard bogus theory!

If the remon work was done in 1971, I may know something about it?

Who is/was the FS surveyor and the BLM remon surveyor?

Maybe somebody from the Forest Service will post those "Positional Tolerance Standards"?

I would be curious about them?

Monument I saw today- NW of S10, was stamped 1964. 1 of the crew put together the package on those, and I haven't reviewed it yet to know the name.

That is what I was wondering. It would sure help end this never ending debate of "how close is close enough" if someone would PLEASE post these authoritative positional tolerance standards, that when exceeded, REQUIRE or even ALLOW the rejection of a good faith establishment of a corner.

Just be glad this survey didn't take the positional tolerance all the way back through the original GLO surveys to the initial point. Might have move the whole thing miles.

Anybody have a copy?

I don't think he understands what positional tolerance means.

mightymoe

Maybe I don't either, please explain!

mightymoe

It is a process to pin down the surveyor to a standard.

Not to pin down earlier surveys to that standard.

The surveyor should preform his survey to a standard not expect prior surveys to hold to that standard. His new survey should report what he finds and that report needs to fall within whatever positional tolerance he is required to meet.

But understand that the surveyor cannot move corners-even ones he sets (once property has been transfered) if they don't meet the standard. The standard holds the surveyor liable for poor work-it doesn't invalidate the monuments.

We recently finished a concrete pour that had a very tight standard for elevation. If the concrete didn't pass the standard the contractor would have faced a deduct beginning at $5,000 and going up. The concrete would not have been redone-but the contractor would have been liable for not meeting the tolerance. Same with a positional tolerance-you would be liable to pay up if the survey is "out" and causes a problem (setbacks, acreages, ect.).

mightymoe

I know what standards are!

Maybe somebody from the Forest Service will post those "Positional Tolerance Standards"?

The standards are.....

basically R=2.0 feet or R= 0.25 feet+(.0008* distance to the nearest controlling corner) : which ever is smaller.

I'm in the process of comparing the 1971 section breakdown to the 1993 breakdown, to understand what the 1993 surveyor was referring to in his note about the discrepancy in position of the 1/4 corner.

1982 USFS R-1 tolerance....

from 1982 USFS R-1 Cadastral Survey Standards by Wayne Valentine, LS, PE, Geometronics Engineer, Missoula, Montana:

"Acceptance Tolerance
The second aspect concerns acceptance or rejection of subdivision monuments
previously set by local surveyors that control federal boundaries.
The local surveyor clearly has an authoritative role in the scheme of things,
by conception and design of the system. 8/ At the same time, it is recognized,
that locally set corners may be at variance with their theoretical position. 9/
Just how much variance is tolerable, to still retain the "essential form" of
the rectangular system? The Manual implies that the system is still "reasonably
fixed" if new 1/4 corners fall within 25 links per 40 chains, or lines
are within 2l' of cardinal. 10/ Although this is not a survey accuracy statement, it gives some idea of the "rectangularity" of the rectangular system.
This limit of rectangularily if used elsewhere as an acceptance criteria,
where the Manual states that a local corner will be adopted it within 21'
and if relied upon. 11/ Elsewhere, the Manual clarifies and amplifies this
seemingly unconscionable looseness, with a discussion concerning the protection
of bona fide rights of affected landowners.

It slates that boundaries must be located in good faith, using "such
care ... as might be expected by the exercise of ordinary intelligence
under existing conditions." 12/ And finally, a corner reestablished by local surveyor, without gross error, by proper methods, is acceptable. 13/

Therefore, it can be concluded that a new corner set by a 1ocal surveyor is
acceptable, even if out of position by several feet, providing it meets the
test outlined above, (It should be noted that, since this is a heirarchical
system, the position is with respect to senior corners only.)

Do not new corners so set gain "original corner" status, and hence become
unchangeable; forever fixed in position?"

1982 USFS R-1 tolerance....

Hmmmmm?

I hope surveyors know that USFS land surveys are NOT official FEDERAL government surveys. If the FS says they are, call the BLM Chief Cadastral Surveyor for the area and ask.

I have always been confused about, for who and what these State authority Land Surveyors are surveying. If they are not federally authorized to delineate federal land and private landowners have not instigated a survey of their land, what boundary have they delineated?

My 2 cents worth?