Kent,
My question has to do with whether the term "reasonable" is a professional standard for boundary surveys in Texas, not whether a Texas RPLS can employ the services of an abstractor (as long as the surveyor reasonably believes such data is sufficient...). That section is the only occurrence I found for the term. I'm not licensed in Texas, so I may not have looked in the right spot(s).
Is the term defined in the statutes? Or Board Rules? If not, why do you repeatedly use the term to defend your solution? One would think that a licensed surveyor would be more careful and use the professional standard specified in the statutes and/or Board Rules.
Rankin_File, post: 415231, member: 101 wrote: [SARCASM]but, but, but- it's a best fit to the positions I accepted until I rejected them.....[/SARCASM]
What will happen is all of the maps will be missing 75 years from now because Texas has no way to file a Survey in the public record so the next Boundary Engineer will find all those caps and assign new offsets to them based on whatever his mathematical Right of way alchemy happens to be.
Gene Kooper, post: 415253, member: 9850 wrote:
My question has to do with whether the term "reasonable" is a professional standard for boundary surveys in Texas, ....
So, you're basically asking how a surveyor determines whether something is reasonable or not or are you wondering why a surveyor ought to even be concerned with whether some idea is reasonable? In mineral surveying, I suppose that the test of reason would never figure into things since the whole exercise is determined by rules that may or may not be reasonable, but where the object is to arrive at a solution from a varied set of facts and evidence, the test of reasonableness would always apply. Otherwise, you'd have the spectacle of surveyors claiming that, say, a right-of-way marker set by some road construction worker along a State highway years after the land was surveyed and conveyed by reference to that survey was an "original" marker.
Dave Karoly, post: 415256, member: 94 wrote: What will happen is all of the maps will be missing 75 years from now because Texas has no way to file a Survey in the public record so the next Boundary Engineer will find all those caps and assign new offsets to them based on whatever his mathematical Right of way alchemy happens to be.
Actually, in my usual practice the reconstruction of a right-of-way such as the one that I posted will end up in the public records in the form of a metes and bounds description with accurate coordinates on the works. Here's an example of the description that ties to the markers along the Devil's Backbone whose images I posted earlier, for example. Courses (20) through (26) run along the highway.
Dave Karoly, post: 415230, member: 94 wrote: I think you are just guessing, you aren't reestablishing the original centerline, you are making an educated guess where it was then you are moving the established right of way to your guessed location.
I think you're overlooking the important fact that the pairs of right-of-way markers show themselves not to be on the right-of-way lines that you imagine them to "establish" when the distances between them mean that either one or both cannot be at the distance from the centerline as originally surveyed at the time of the conveyance. So, you will either need to pretend that there are multiple centerlines when the conveyance describes only one or you will have to suppose that somehow the original surveyor who ran and marked the centerline of the right-of-way was able to measure for thousands of feet with systematic errors under 1:3000, but somehow couldn't measure 40.00 ft. any closer than half a foot or more.
The reality is that many land surveyors don't want to actually reconstruct the original centerlines of highways because it is much easier to just run dot-to-dot between whatever is in place in whatever shape it is, and under the fiction that somehow their mere existence makes them marks of the original survey that defined the boundaries of the land acquired for the highway.
Kent McMillan, post: 415273, member: 3 wrote: I think you're overlooking the important fact that the pairs of right-of-way markers show themselves not to be on the right-of-way lines that you imagine them to "establish" when the distances between them mean that either one or both cannot be at the distance from the centerline as originally surveyed at the time of the conveyance. So, you will either need to pretend that there are multiple centerlines when the conveyance describes only one or you will have to suppose that somehow the original surveyor who ran and marked the centerline of the right-of-way was able to measure for thousands of feet with systematic errors under 1:3000, but somehow couldn't measure 40.00 ft. any closer than half a foot or more.
The reality is that many land surveyors don't want to actually reconstruct the original centerlines of highways because it is much easier to just run dot-to-dot between whatever is in place in whatever shape it is, and under the fiction that somehow their mere existence makes them marks of the original survey that defined the boundaries of the land acquired for the highway.
Do you reject long standing monuments set by a party to a conveyence because they where not set by a land surveyor in situations other than state ROWs?
aliquot, post: 415276, member: 2486 wrote: Do you reject long standing monuments set by a party to a conveyence because they where not set by a land surveyor in situations other than state ROWs?
Where they have no record dignity, and are known not to be original they don't control the boundary in the same sense that an original, undisturbed monument does, which I believe was the point of departure for this whole thread.
The question that I'd pose to the folks who want to consider every Type I Concrete Right-of-way Marker they find along a public highway to absolutely correctly mark the line of the right-of-way is what point on the marker they consider to be the corner when the marker is leaning or broken as probably more than 3/4 of the markers I see are after enough time has passed.
I mean, if the marker is leaning 0.25 ft. or 1.25 ft. off plumb, do they just say, "Well, I guess they just originally set the marker that way, so who am I to try to use any logic about it?"
If the marker has obviously been hit by something like a tractor or a grader hard enough to break it and shift it, do you just assume that because the adjoining landowners haven't filed something of record, the boundary has shifted also by "establishment"?
Kent McMillan, post: 415273, member: 3 wrote: I think you're overlooking the important fact that the pairs of right-of-way markers show themselves not to be on the right-of-way lines that you imagine them to "establish" when the distances between them mean that either one or both cannot be at the distance from the centerline as originally surveyed at the time of the conveyance. So, you will either need to pretend that there are multiple centerlines when the conveyance describes only one or you will have to suppose that somehow the original surveyor who ran and marked the centerline of the right-of-way was able to measure for thousands of feet with systematic errors under 1:3000, but somehow couldn't measure 40.00 ft. any closer than half a foot or more.
The reality is that many land surveyors don't want to actually reconstruct the original centerlines of highways because it is much easier to just run dot-to-dot between whatever is in place in whatever shape it is, and under the fiction that somehow their mere existence makes them marks of the original survey that defined the boundaries of the land acquired for the highway.
I'm not imagining anything. You are calling these monuments right of way markers, not me. You are simultaneously calling them invalid yet valid to reconstruct the centerline. They were set in the 1930s, several decades have passed. You are using them as evidence yet call them unreliable because of the way they were set. Then you go onto your typical accusations of laziness on the part of those who disagree with you but that is a specious argument.
Hey I saw a lawyer do similar, calling a post which had been there over 100 years "speculation" in a brief. You would break your kneecap on that thing but it's mere speculation. Speculation is measuring in a point because the existent, several decade old monument doesn't meet your unreasonable expectations.
Do you go into Home Depot and demand a stud that actually measures 2"x4"?
Dave Karoly, post: 415282, member: 94 wrote: I'm not imagining anything. You are calling these monuments right of way markers, not me. You are simultaneously calling them invalid yet valid to reconstruct the centerline. They were set in the 1930s, several decades have passed. You are using them as evidence yet call them unreliable because of the way they were set.
No, the question was whether the concrete right-of-way markers that were set along this State highway were "original", which they clearly aren't and which is nearly uniformly the case along most State highways outside of urban areas where the markers were set months or years after the land was surveyed and conveyed. The original survey was obviously the survey that located and marked the centerline to which the deeds of conveyance also nearly uniformly refer.
So, when the object is to figure out where the boundaries of a strip of land that was conveyed in reference to that surveyed centerline are, there is no alternative but to actually locate the centerline from the best available evidence, which sometimes - as I've mentioned - is in the form of private surveys made in the interim between the survey of the centerline and the construction of the highway and placement of the right-of-way markers. The term "Right-of-Way Marker" is simply that of the line item in the construction contract. It doesn't mean that they were necessarily placed with some standard of care, actually ended up on the lines of the right-of-way, or remain there.
The practical reality is that along most of the State highways I've seen, a significant number of the Type I Concrete Right-of-Way Markers will either be busted from some major impact like being hit by a tractor or will be leaning way off plumb. The folks who want to uncritically accept everything they find will still be faced with how to rectify those conditions unless they just want to close their eyes and pretend that tractors and the soil movements have "reestablished" the boundary in its present position. I don't personally consider that to be a serious or tenable position, but I'm sure there is a constituency for it.
Dave Karoly, post: 415282, member: 94 wrote: Do you go into Home Depot and demand a stud that actually measures 2"x4"?
Obviously dimension lumber is described by terms used in the timber industry and 2 x 4 is a term of art. There is no Highway Right-of-Way Manufacturers Association standard that would mean that a landowner who contracted to sell a strip of land 100.00 ft. wide should expect to deliver 102.50 ft. or 98.5 ft.
In case there is any doubt, what is meant by "Type I Concrete Right-of-Way Marker" in Texas is a precast marker that looks pretty much exactly like this, except without the aluminum paint and without the beautiful setting, and not grouted into solid rock as this one is. In most cases, they are not protected and have a much harder life.
What a beautiful monument! It's a shame that it doesn't actually mark anything.
roger_LS, post: 415292, member: 11550 wrote: What a beautiful monument! It's a shame that it doesn't actually mark anything.
Actually, I'm pretty sure it marks an offset point from a certain plan station on the Engineer's Centerline for that Texas highway, but may be at the same distance from that centerline as the right-of-way line is.
The funny thing is that during construction the vertical tolerance of top of base rock is +-0.04' and horizontal positional tolerance of structures such as catch basins is +-0.06'. So in the future we should be able to reestablish cl from catch basins. Jp
Jp7191, post: 415296, member: 1617 wrote: The funny thing is that during construction the vertical tolerance of top of base rock is +-0.04' and horizontal positional tolerance of structures such as catch basins is +-0.06'. So in the future we should be able to reestablish cl from catch basins. Jp
Actually, in farming country where there are no right-of-way fences, the farmers tend to remove the right-of-way markers. I see nothing unreasonable about using concrete structures like headwalls of cast-in-place concrete culverts at some plan offset from the Engineer's Centerline as evidence of where the centerline is. Those are the same construction plans that indicated where the road contractor should place the right-of-way markers in the course of road construction and the structures nearer the centerline would seem to be more likely to be stable and accurately positioned.
I have found bridges, culverts and recorded stationing of existing fence lines to be far more accurate than the so-called R-O-W markers, in any condition. Picture, if you will, a situation where the stated width jumps by ten feet. You would expect to find two markers, 10 feet apart, on something close to a perpendicular to the project center line. So when you find them 27 feet apart at some oblique angle, which one, if either, is the correct representation of the truth.
Gene Kooper, post: 415244, member: 9850 wrote: Several years ago, an attempt was made to change the professional standard in Colorado from the generally accepted standards of practice to what the licensed surveyor regarded as being reasonable. The change was not made. I was against the change because I believed it would replace a subjectively based standard with an even more subjective standard.
With respect to the many occurrences of the term, "reasonable" by a certain Texas RPLS, a general question to Texas surveyors. Is the term defined in the Texas surveying statutes? When retracing a survey I reestablish corners using the best available evidence, not which evidence I may regard as "reasonable".
I found this section on boundary control where the term reasonably is used once (highlighted in red).
Texas Administrative Code
TITLE 22 EXAMINING BOARDS
PART 29 TEXAS BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYING
CHAPTER 663 STANDARDS OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND RULES OF CONDUCT
SUBCHAPTER B PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL STANDARDS
RULE å¤663.16 Boundary ConstructionWhen delineating a boundary line as an integral portion of a survey, the land surveyor shall:
(1) Respect junior/senior rights for boundary retracement;(2) Follow the footsteps of the original land surveyor;
(3) Follow the documented records of the land title affecting the boundaries being surveyed;
(A) Rely on the appropriate deeds and/or other documents including those for adjoining parcels for the location of the boundaries of the subject parcel(s).
(B) A land surveyor assuming the responsibility of performing a land survey also assumes the responsibility for such research of adequate thoroughness to support the determination of the location of the boundaries of the land being surveyed. The land surveyor may rely on record data related to the determination of boundaries furnished for the registrants' use by a qualified provider, provided the registrant reasonably believes such data to be sufficient and notes, references, or credits the documentation by which it is furnished.
(C) All boundaries shall be connected to identifiable physical monuments related to corners of record dignity. In the absence of such monumentation the land surveyor's opinion of the boundary location shall be supported by other appropriate physical evidence, which shall be explained in a land surveyor's sketch or written report.
(4) Follow the intent of the boundary location as evidenced by the record;
(5) Respect the proper application of the rules of dignity (priority) of calls, and applicable statutory and case law of Texas.
I place the word "reasonable" in the same category as "all", "every", etc. It is subjective, and not capable of evaluation. Your "reasonable" may not be at all reasonable to me..
Jim in AZ, post: 415320, member: 249 wrote: I place the word "reasonable" in the same category as "all", "every", etc. It is subjective, and not capable of evaluation. Your "reasonable" may not be at all reasonable to me..
At a minimum, reasonable means that the surveyor can give a reasoned explanation for his or her decision that the members of the licensing board would find acceptable. An example would be a surveyor who just located a position where the metal detector indicated some ferrous object was in place and reported that position as being that of a survey monument. If it later turns out that it was something other than a survey monument and that the boundary location based upon the position was grossly incorrect, the question would be: "For what reason didn't you uncover what you thought to be the marker to examine it?"
Kent McMillan, post: 415307, member: 3 wrote: Actually, in farming country where there are no right-of-way fences, the farmers tend to remove the right-of-way markers. I see nothing unreasonable about using concrete structures like headwalls of cast-in-place concrete culverts at some plan offset from the Engineer's Centerline as evidence of where the centerline is. Those are the same construction plans that indicated where the road contractor should place the right-of-way markers in the course of road construction and the structures nearer the centerline would seem to be more likely to be stable and accurately positioned.
I agree after doing much construction staking in my younger years, I to understand the value of structures constructed during the construction of the overall project when trying to regenerate the intent (even if for no other reason than a check). In fact bridge bents placed on cl per the plans are probably pretty good dam evidence of cl in most cases. My point though was how catch basins can be constructed within hundredth's but survey monuments only within feet. Jp
Kent McMillan, post: 415324, member: 3 wrote: At a minimum, reasonable means that the surveyor can give a reasoned explanation for his or her decision that the members of the licensing board would find acceptable. An example would be a surveyor who just located a position where the metal detector indicated some ferrous object was in place and reported that position as being that of a survey monument. If it later turns out that it was something other than a survey monument and that the boundary location based upon the position was grossly incorrect, the question would be: "For what reason didn't you uncover what you thought to be the marker to examine it?"
As a member of the committee that reviews complaints for my Board, I can state unequivocally that what you think "reasonable" means is not what anyone else might. I have heard explanations by others of actions they deemed reasonable that left me speechless! In your case, a person could state "I didn't feel it was "reasonable" to dig a hole in a City street." Are you going to rule that his thinking was not reasonable? It is not a defensible legal term - it is subjective.
