> When someone working on a state or federal road project puts up monuments that look official and they are several feet wrong, then either someone is practicing surveying without a license, or a licensee needs to be brought up for review.
When surveying one's own property, one doesn't need a license. The state is surveying its' own property.
Stephen
> In Illinois the concrete ROW markers are intented for maintenance purposes only. That is, it lets the mowing crews or the ditch cleaners know where their limits are.
I've heard that argument before and I've always marveled at its elliptical duplicity. Isn't that the point of any and all property markers... to let adjoining owners know where to maintain to?
Stephen
> Are the letters "APPROX." chiseled in the sides not shown in the photo?
Thank you.
Stephen
> For years I have heard the NYSDOT claim the concrete markers are to guide the crew cutting the grass.
Well, you wouldn't want them cutting grass on private property would you?
What is it with this strange snobbery in which otherwise sensible land surveyors want to demean property markers by pointing out that they are used by what many deem to be occupations situated on the lower rungs of the socio-economic ladder (grass cutters, ditch diggers)? Truly bizarre.
> The right-of-way is based on the taking maps, station and offset to a baseline usually lost during construction. Finding even 1 original tie is rare.
Well then... ?!?!?!? You said it, not me.
> The DOT is now requiring a chart of 'as-built' vs. 'plan' locations. That helps the surveyors working on the right of way, but not the owners.
>
Surveyors surveying for themselves and not the land owners. Typical. And disasterous to the profession.
>Connecticut, on the other hand, has a wonderful system. The right-of-way is monumented. The baseline down the road, generally recoverable points, is well documented, with ties to the right of way.
Here I agree with you and wish they were all that way.
Stephen
Mitch
> On MOST of the State Routes that I have worked with the contractor is paid to set the right of way monuments. A surveyor may stake them absolutely correctly but the laborer with the auger may or may not place them correctly.
Doesn't matter, Andy. The governor of the state does not have to come out and place the monument for it to have been officially set by the state. Laborer or not, it is still an official monument.
> Unfortunately, in Georgia, they are evidence of the fact that a right of way is in this general vicinity.
>
> Andy
I submit the proposition that there is no such thing as an approximate monument. There are monuments and non-monuments. Nothing else.
Stephen
What I want to know is ...
> If the monument is off by a foot, do you still have to hold it at its true location and not its intended location? 😀
Gosh, I don't know, Neil. It seems that I've heard somewhere that original monuments hold over record distances and angles. Have you ever heard that?
Stephen
What I want to know is ...
>
> Remember the scene in Taxi where Alex is telling Jim to be careful; not all blue berries are blueberries?
>
> Same thing with monuments; not monuments are monumenting boundaries.
I think you meant to say "not ALL monuments are monumenting boundaries. I don't agree with that (outside of the very obvious exceptions such as FEMA benchmarks and geodetic monuments). RoW monuments are exactly what they are called... monuments to the Right of Way. I submit that it is legally impossible for them to not mark the right of way. Of course, they can be set wrong, but the clock is ticking...
Stephen
> After years of having the RW monuments not work well in Kentucky, I sat through a class with the chief surveyor for the Transportation Cabinet. As it turns out, official policy was not to set the monuments at the corners but well within the ROW so as to not be trespassing with the monuments. Exactly how far in was a function of time, because the rulebook changed periodically over the years. They were usually set by a contractor and not a surveyor also. That cleared things up for me. At least I understand the craziness now.
>
> The chief surveyor has really brought the Cabinet a long way in his tenure so far and is bringing some real surveying logic to an engineering dominated world.
I won't dispute what you are saying at all. But I will posit that the Chief Surveyor of the KDOT, nor any one individual for that matter, nor even the entire department of transportation as a whole, can thwart basic law governing real property. Besides, how do you think the courts would react to that? Or the affected property owners? That would be some beaureaucrat issuing paper tigers that they would have no way of knowing about. You said yourself the rulebook changed periodically over the years. That won't fly with people. They see the RoW monuments and they believe they are correct. After an appropriate amount of time, I don't see how anyone could fault them for believing that.
Stephen
Well, I see that I am clearly in the minority on this issue, but I will hold my ground. I notice virtually no one actually responded critically to the questions I posed in the original post. I have stated my case. I will only repeat for emphasis that an approximate monument is a null set. It doesn't and cannot exist.
Stephen
I have seen the owner's dog use the R/W marker! 🙂
What I intended to convey about the new and better Transportation Cabinet is that from here forward, roads are being built and monumented to real surveying standards. Past monumention is still a crapshoot. We can digress to the discussion of whether or not public right-of-ways can be adversely possessed, changing the road width by holding monumentation that does not match plans. Written somewhere in the spec books at the time these monuments were set is a paragraph and diagram explaining how to set these concrete markers in relation to the actual corner, thus making them witness monuments if you dig deep enough.
> I have seen the owner's dog use the R/W marker! 🙂
Then we can add dawgs to the list of people that know more than land surveyors! ;-))
Stephen
I think I got your meaning correctly. I think it's great for all monuments to be set to modern surveying standards. I'm always in favor of that. But almost the totality of real property law supports long held monuments no matter what standard was used in setting them.
Also, adverse possession of any flavor is not possible in these situations.
Stephen
Mitch
I have heard this argument before.
Is it the land owner's fault that the State delegated this task to a contractor? No, of course not.
The DOT should not be let off the hook on these monuments.
no kidding, thank you.
If the State causes a huge hunk of concrete to be set with R/W stamped in it then that is what they get, like it or not.
:good: :good: :good:
I know, holy hell.
No Mr. Landowner we set this huge hunk of concrete but we didn't really mean it!
:good: :good: :good:
Stephen-you are exactly right.
I have heard all the same arguments, the contractor set them, they are for the mower, blah blah blah. The DOT instructed the contractor to set them. The adjoining land owners had nothing to do with that. The adjoiners have every right to rely on an official government monument no matter how shoddily the work was done.
If the DOT wants everything that is coming to them then they can quit trying to cut costs at every opportunity and get the monuments set correctly.
Stephen
The BIGGEST and most noticable monument is the center of the road. I have worked with the Georgia DOT on widening and improvement projects and have been told by THEM that the center of the road is the center of the right of way (unless otherwise indicated). The ROW monuments are clear indication that the right of way is "close" but the ROW monument (at least in Georgia) does not necessarily mark the exact location.
Andy
