Said Lot, post: 415106, member: 1296 wrote: I mostly agree with Kent but could easily be anti-Kent if the evidence was there.
I feel exactly the same. :>
Kent McMillan, post: 415095, member: 3 wrote: there are cases where a private surveyor did work in the interim between the centerline survey and the road construction and placement of the right-of-way markers by the road contractor's forces that perpetuated the locations of the Engineer's Centerline as originally surveyed. I have considered that evidence to be superior to the positions of the right-of-way markers, particularly when I have known the private surveyor's work to be excellent.
This makes sense. I would agree because you have this connection to the original, the points could be potentially called off. Very different in my mind from a case where you just have a hodgepodge of secondary points with nothing original to call them off with.
Or.dot starts their descriptions at a plss corner, east then south to pob ( which is 0.57' easterly of an existing monumented cl street established in a retail subdivision, that there is no mention of in dot description) then a 3' tangent, thence along a spiral curve, thence along 20 more segments .........to an end point that closes into nothing or no false call. Then (Kent, this is for you) they monument the r/w only or set control points in lieu of cl/ r/w. B.O.B., is some version of SP Coordinates. This area is off ramps and re-aligned frontage roads NOT a 100' strip that is tangent for miles. In their defense they do a pre-construction/design map of survey that they "as-build" with coordinates existing monuments and an in house "r/w map". With a combination of this data, the local dot survey office personnel, and the accurate measuring tools we now have available it typically all comes out fairly close in the end. The "take" acquisitions mentioned above are not monumented for years by the dot. This forces the private Surveyor to be the first to set the r/w monuments during private surveys (scary). The topper is that when the dot finally sets the monuments for the "takes and re-alignments" they call the private monuments ( mentioned above) out of position! But what the hell, they work for the KING, AND THE KING GETS HIS according to some in this thread. (Side note, We all are supposed to be licensed to protect the public, not the King).
Sorry this is a big bitch of mine.
But back on the topic, why do the dots leave these erroneously set monuments to mark the earth if they are erroneously set, for what ever reason they were erroneously set? If our job as surveyors is to protect the public it would seem that it should take nothing more than a phone call to the dot from a private Surveyor to get answers and help to resolve the r/w. In my area there are portions of interstate 5 freeway that filed surveys from private and odot surveyors show r/w in a multitude of different positions depending on what is held. Nothing has ever been done to resolve these problem areas by the King. So I said it before and I'll say it again I AM CONFUSED! Maintain your e&o insurance because you don't have a chance if Kent is called to be a professional witness for the dot that is responsible for the crappy monuments that are being discussed in this thread. Thanks, Jp
Jp7191, post: 415110, member: 1617 wrote: Or.dot starts their descriptions at a plss corner, east then south to pob ( which is 0.57' easterly of an existing monumented cl street established in a retail subdivision, that there is no mention of in dot description) then a 3' tangent, thence along a spiral curve, thence along 20 more segments .........to an end point that closes into nothing or no false call.
Then (Kent, this is for you) they monument the r/w only or set control points in lieu of cl/ r/w. B.O.B., is some version of SP Coordinates. This area is off ramps and re-aligned frontage roads NOT a 100' strip that is tangent for miles. In their defense they do a pre-construction/design map of survey that they "as-build" with coordinates existing monuments and an in house "r/w map".
With a combination of this data, the local dot survey office personnel, and the accurate measuring tools we now have available it typically all comes out fairly close in the end.
The "take" acquisitions mentioned above are not monumented for years by the dot. This forces the private Surveyor to be the first to set the r/w monuments during private surveys (scary).
The topper is that when the dot finally sets the monuments for the "takes and re-alignments" they call the private monuments ( mentioned above) out of position! But what the hell, they work for the KING, AND THE KING GETS HIS according to some in this thread. (Side note, We all are supposed to be licensed to protect the public, not the King).
Okay, so in the scenario you've described, the State acquires an interest in land without describing it in such a way that a surveyor can actually definitely locate it? Or is the problem that to locate it a surveyor would need to resurvey the local equivalent of the world to get a sufficiently good answer?
If the first, that sounds more like a problem of the regulation of surveying in that State. If the second, isn't it understood that valuable land does tend to cost money to survey? I've made surveys in problem areas and the folks at the DOT office were THRILLED to have a copy of the map for their use.
roger_LS, post: 415109, member: 11550 wrote: This makes sense. I would agree because you have this connection to the original, the points could be potentially called off. Very different in my mind from a case where you just have a hodgepodge of secondary points with nothing original to call them off with.
If the folks with no experience in this area are interested, I'm sure I can dig out some examples of actual sets of right-of-way markers that a centerline is to be reconstructed from. It isn't the sort of problem from which a surveyor of normal capacity would run away screaming.
Kent McMillan, post: 415071, member: 3 wrote: My observations mostly are not assumptions. It's a fact that the right-of-way deeds typically make no reference to any line surveyed other than the centerline and it's a fact that the right-of-way markers were installed as a part of the road construction contract. The folks who want to pretend that the Monument Fairy visited every boundary when the plain evidence is to the contrary are engaging in fantasy, not me.
"... it's a fact that the right-of-way markers were installed as a part of the road construction contract. "
That is not a fact here at all..
for reference here is a great example of the situation faced when dealing with many older TxDOT descriptions and surveys. this one dates from 1968. i just got done reviewing another RPLS' survey of the tract adjoining the piece painted in green (the piece in green being a title exception due to obvious reasons). note that this snapshot is emblematic of the entire strip map, which is to say there is zero reference to monuments set. on some of these older ones you get lucky and they actually drafted the ties to side line PIs or back property corners (assuming the time and effort was put into locating them). otherwise this presents what you're faced with solving the vast majority of the time. also consider that in doing a purely paper reconstruction of this section of r.o.w., the two found type I monuments don't jive by a couple of feet (according to the stated measurements on the survey).
Jim in AZ, post: 415130, member: 249 wrote: "... it's a fact that the right-of-way markers were installed as a part of the road construction contract. "
That is not a fact here at all..
flyin solo, post: 415133, member: 8089 wrote: for reference here is a great example of the situation faced when dealing with many older TxDOT descriptions and surveys. this one dates from 1968. i just got done reviewing another RPLS' survey of the tract adjoining the piece painted in green (the piece in green being a title exception due to obvious reasons). note that this snapshot is emblematic of the entire strip map, which is to say there is zero reference to monuments set. on some of these older ones you get lucky and they actually drafted the ties to side line PIs or back property corners (assuming the time and effort was put into locating them). otherwise this presents what you're faced with solving the vast majority of the time. also consider that in doing a purely paper reconstruction of this section of r.o.w., the two found type I monuments don't jive by a couple of feet (according to the stated measurements on the survey).
just realized i labeled this incorrectly. the "type I found" at the property corner was actually at the ostensible PC at 389+69.32.
James Fleming, post: 415134, member: 136 wrote:
I suspect that it's a fact that Marcus Aurelius wasn't a surveyor.
Kent McMillan, post: 415079, member: 3 wrote: Those Rods and Caps (and Spikes) that I set in drill holes in the stubs of broken concrete right-of-way markers were just reference points that have a calculated offset from the actual right-of-way in most cases. It's much more practical to set the reference point and then calculate the offset instead of returning to find that the actual point on the right-of-way is in a position that is a bear to mark, such as along the edge of the busted marker or too close to an embedded rebar.
[SARCASM]What Kent MEANT to say was I do it this way so the adjoining land owners think I'm accepting the monument and I don't get my AZZ beaten....[/SARCASM]
Rankin_File, post: 415158, member: 101 wrote: [SARCASM]What Kent MEANT to say was I do it this way so the adjoining land owners think I'm accepting the monument and I don't get my AZZ beaten....[/SARCASM]
In all honesty, my take is that Kent is a very thorough and highly reputable surveyor in his area, and as such could probably get away with inventing centerlines all day long without question from the local community, only glitch may be a low-bid, hold-everything Okie stepping down into his parts and creating conflict.
I see KentÛªs approach as the best practice solution to the establishment of a highway boundary. The center line or base line of a highway is what gets surveyed, not the boundary line. Therefore it is a much better practice of surveying to establish the center line (or base line) from the best available evidence. That includes observations to the monuments that exist at the boundary of the highway and making a best fit.
I would not be inclined to hold the position of a monument that I found to be in error knowing that it was set erroneously by a person who is not a surveyor. Unless relied upon by parties on both side of the line an erroneously set monument would offer no credible evidence of a boundary.
If you are inclined to believe that road constructors set the monuments marking the right of way then why would they be more exacting evidence than the surveyed line? I would think if a surveyor believed these monuments to be set by someone other than a surveyor then that alone would be cause for rejection because both parties are not aware of their location.
LetÛªs say I own a huge tract of land, and I have monuments set by a surveyor to delineate my tract. My neighbor sets monuments or has some unqualified person set monuments within my property boundary by ten feet or more. If my neighbor relies on those monuments and I have no knowledge of their placement then I do not agree with accepting them for myself nor should a surveyor.
If, in this example, I were to have my tract of land surveyed again, it would prove that the monuments set by my neighbor were outliers and of no significance in determining the boundary. The boundary would remain as established.
Rankin_File, post: 415158, member: 101 wrote: [SARCASM]What Kent MEANT to say was I do it this way so the adjoining land owners think I'm accepting the monument and I don't get my AZZ beaten....[/SARCASM]
LOL! With the passage of time, the majority of the Precast Concrete Right-of-Way Markers that remain in place along many highways are a mess of busted concrete around rusted snaggles of rebar. It's enough work to hacksaw the rebars and bend the stubs out of the way just to be able to get a drill in to make a hole for a rod or a spike in the stubs that remain that I like to set something semi-permanent for the benefit of the next surveyor. The "FD ROW CM" that was stamped on the cap was for the RTK folks.
Interestingly, California's Right of Entry statute includes a subsection (PLSA 8774 (c)) relating to controlled access freeways, wherein DOT personnel will reference monuments within a freeway right-of-way to usable points outside the access control by the agency at no cost to the surveyor performing an adjacent property survey.
Warren Smith, post: 415174, member: 9900 wrote: Interestingly, California's Right of Entry statute includes a subsection (PLSA 8774 (c)) relating to controlled access freeways, wherein DOT personnel will reference monuments within a freeway right-of-way to usable points outside the access control by the agency at no cost to the surveyor performing an adjacent property survey.
Thank you for reminding me. I think we can persuade the dot to do this in Oregon but it takes some persuasion and time!. Another thing that should be brought out in this discussion is that in many instances after finding all the r/w monuments, remnant wood cl hubs, fly ties to plss corners, fences and any other evidence most r/w's fit together very well. My problem is where there is feet floating around and shown on filed surveys and yet the dot does nothing to clean the r/w up or address the issue for future surveyors and adjoiners. Jp
Rankin_File, post: 415158, member: 101 wrote: [SARCASM]What Kent MEANT to say was I do it this way so the adjoining land owners think I'm accepting the monument and I don't get my AZZ beaten....[/SARCASM]
And it's hard to reinstall a ROW monument; the irony meter is redlined.
MightyMoe, post: 415182, member: 700 wrote: And it's hard to reinstall a ROW monument; the irony meter is redlined.
I'm pretty sure that would be a first if TexDOT spent state money replacing right-of-way markers along some existing right-of-way from the 1930s just because some were ... broken. So anyone who worries that setting a Rod and Cap in a hole drilled in the top of the stub of a broken precast concrete right-of-way marker will somehow impair the replacement of the marker should also worry about an asteroid impact messing all the markers up.
not my real name, post: 415170, member: 8199 wrote: I see KentÛªs approach as the best practice solution to the establishment of a highway boundary. The center line or base line of a highway is what gets surveyed, not the boundary line. Therefore it is a much better practice of surveying to establish the center line (or base line) from the best available evidence. That includes observations to the monuments that exist at the boundary of the highway and making a best fit.
I would not be inclined to hold the position of a monument that I found to be in error knowing that it was set erroneously by a person who is not a surveyor. Unless relied upon by parties on both side of the line an erroneously set monument would offer no credible evidence of a boundary.
If you are inclined to believe that road constructors set the monuments marking the right of way then why would they be more exacting evidence than the surveyed line? I would think if a surveyor believed these monuments to be set by someone other than a surveyor then that alone would be cause for rejection because both parties are not aware of their location.
LetÛªs say I own a huge tract of land, and I have monuments set by a surveyor to delineate my tract. My neighbor sets monuments or has some unqualified person set monuments within my property boundary by ten feet or more. If my neighbor relies on those monuments and I have no knowledge of their placement then I do not agree with accepting them for myself nor should a surveyor.
If, in this example, I were to have my tract of land surveyed again, it would prove that the monuments set by my neighbor were outliers and of no significance in determining the boundary. The boundary would remain as established.
Establishment of a boundary is more than just describing a centerline and recording a deed. The boundary needs to actually be marked with something visible/physical and then the owners use it/accept it. The centerline is not the boundary.
So the DOT surveyed a ceneterline, probably was marked by some pins, stakes, whatever. The deeds/plans I've used never mentions the ÛÏmonuments set along the centerline.Û They construct the highway which being along the centerline destroys are almost always would make any ÛÏuncalled forÛ centerline monuments inaccessible (a PI might survive, but its usually not on the centerline). So a surveyor would need to use some other evidence to get back on or best fit to the centerline. I don't disagree with doing that and its how I approach the situation.
Most of the DOT Row's I've worked seem to work out pretty well from my standpoint but never perfect. Usually in the end there are only a few tenths in width of concern. The tangents being much longer sometimes a few feet. The curve angles need to be tweaked a bit, the tangents sort of control that. One I worked on had the original survey across a very steep talus slope with lots of rocks and trees. It would have been a tough survey and it was not as accurate as I would have liked but I still had respect for the surveyors that had done it. I had a highway to drive up and down, they didn't.
Getting back to the establishment of the boundary. The centerline survey created a line to offset out to the ROW line (boundary). It may have created a legal boundary line but it didn't finally establish the boundary line. That had to come later if the ROW markers were not in place at recording the deed, although I think many of them in my area were set if not before the conveyance but before construction. No doubt many were set after the road was mostly complete. So as part of the establishment of the ROW boundary the DOT set ROW markers. It's hard for me to believe the DOT did this not for the purpose of establishing the ROW boundary, for landowners to be able to have a physical presence for the boundary. They usually built a fence also, in my parts about a foot inside the ROW line.
OK, who set the ROW markers and should that matter. I don't really know but I find them pretty good. I suppose the DOT could hire anyone they wanted to and don't see it as requirement that they be licensed although at present I believe they would want it supervised by a licensed land surveyor and probably have their own surveyors do some quality checking, but 50 or more years ago. I'm not sure I know but I also don't think it really matters. Who ever the DOT used to set the markers would have been considered acceptable to the DOT including what ever accuracy their ÛÏcontractorÛ was able to achieve. A licensed surveyor is not a requirement to establish a boundary. In fact a surveyor has no legal authority to establish a boundary other than as an agent for the landowners that hold all the authority to establish their boundaries.
Now if a surveyor at this time is going to consider his/her job to ÛÏestablishÛ the boundary when all this as gone on before to mark the ROW, and that their best fit solution becomes the way to re-establish correctly the boundary, well when is it ever going to end because the next surveyors best fit line might be different. When will the line finally be established?
If I ever get in a situation where a few tenths or a couple hundredths are critical, I'd probably back off and get the DOT and the landowner to split the hairs. So far I've never had the DOT or a landowner worry about it.
OK, I just added another year to Groundhog Year.
Kent McMillan, post: 415186, member: 3 wrote: I'm pretty sure that would be a first if TexDOT spent state money replacing right-of-way markers along some existing right-of-way from the 1930s just because some were ... broken. So anyone who worries that setting a Rod and Cap in a hole drilled in the top of the stub of a broken precast concrete right-of-way marker will somehow impair the replacement of the marker should also worry about an asteroid impact messing all the markers up.
Lol, big bad ROW monuments are so hard to replace "where they should go".
