Bushwhacker, post: 415419, member: 10727 wrote: As for the R.O.W. markers were do you measure to on the marker? In Louisiana it is the outside edge.
On pretty much every State highway where I've made a survey in Texas, the markers were plainly set with the intention of the center of the marker being on the right-of-way line. Typically, right-of-way fences are set back a bit, so there is room for half of the marker on the private land adjacent to the strip owned by the State of Texas. Somewhere in the files of the former Texas Highway Department, there is most likely a detail showing how the item of construction called "Concrete Right-of-Way Marker" is to be constructed and installed that would confirm what the road contractor was *supposed* to do.
Where on the 4x4 concrete post to measure is the least of our problems here in Southern Oregon! Jp
Jp7191, post: 415434, member: 1617 wrote: Where on the 4x4 concrete post to measure is the least of our problems here in Southern Oregon! Jp
Can any surveyors from *Northern* Oregon be persuaded to give Continuing Education seminars or are is it just obvious that the concrete posts were set by Monte Carlo methods instead of according to the construction plans?
Kent McMillan, post: 415405, member: 3 wrote: I have yet to hear the folks who want to consider every precast right-of-way marker ever dropped in a hole by a road contractor to be absolutely without question the boundary of some strip of land that was either taken in condemnation from some landowner or sold by him to a State explain where they locate the right-of-way line when the markers are leaning off kilter or have been obviously knocked out of whack by a tractor or other machinery. Using their logic, presumably the right-of-way line moves every time the markers do.
I think you are trying to change the subject. Determining where a leaning ROW monument was originally placed is no different than a frost heaved rebar or a bent pipe under a road. Do you reject other leaning monuments?
I don't think anyone has suggested that they accept every state ROW momunent.
aliquot, post: 415437, member: 2486 wrote: ..I don't think anyone has suggested that they except every state ROW momunent.
...or accept every monument, whichever case may be deemed reasonable. 😉
aliquot, post: 415437, member: 2486 wrote: I think you are trying to change the subject. Determining where a leaning ROW monument was originally placed is no different than a frost heaved rebar or a bent pipe under a road. Do you reject other leaning monuments?
I don't think anyone has suggested that they accept every state ROW momunent.
Actually, taken at face value the folks who want to claim that any marker ever set in the vicinity of the boundary of a strip of land acquired by a State for highway purposes must necessarily control the boundary seem to base their argument upon the mere fact of the existence of the marker. They admit that typically they were set by the work crew of some road contractor by undocumented methods that the adjoining landowner wasn't a party to and assert that the marker itself is what fixes or "establishes" the boundary without regard to what the writing actually said.
So, if where the marker ends up is the key element, shouldn't one assume that if a tractor hits it and shifts it over, that the boundary also is "re-established" wherever the marker ends up if the existence of the marker is the central fact?
Yes obviously the contractor's crew set those as a hobby on the weekends. I'm sure the resident engineer didn't know anything about it. Imagine his surprise when walking along the R/W he cracked his knee on that thing having no idea it was there.
Dave Karoly, post: 415446, member: 94 wrote: Yes obviously the contractor's crew set those as a hobby on the weekends. I'm sure the resident engineer didn't know anything about it. Imagine his surprise when walking along the R/W he cracked his knee on that thing having no idea it was there.
Well, the Resident Engineer's surveying staff set a hub or a nail and the contractor set his auger on top of that and ran a hole down and dropped a precast marker into the hole, just as you'd set a fence post. The principles of equity that you seem to think should apply to this misadventure (but which probably don't) depend upon the mere existence of the marker, not that it is correctly located, so why doesn't wherever the marker is on any particular day move the boundary to a newly *established* position?
Don't tell me that in the case of leaning markers you want to locate the ACTUAL RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE by methods that don't rely upon the defective marker. Doesn't the rest of your argument fall apart if that is acceptable?
Jesus Kent, put down the wine bottle LOL.
Dave Karoly, post: 415452, member: 94 wrote: Jesus Kent, put down the wine bottle LOL.
Well, in the case of a concrete right-of-way marker that has been shifted out of the position in which it was originally dropped by the road contractor's worker, either by soil movement, or mechanical impact, you're going to have to deal with the question of where the boundary of the land granted to the State is, right? It's a perfectly fair question to ask exactly how you intend to do that in some way that makes no reference to the Engineer's Centerline that was the basis of location in the actual grant in the first place. It's hardly unreasonable to think that the folks who want to accept every marker everywhere along the sides of a State highway should have a ready answer for that one.
Kent McMillan, post: 415442, member: 3 wrote: ... face value the folks who want to claim that any marker ever set in the vicinity of the boundary of a strip of land acquired by a State for highway purposes must necessarily control the boundary seem to base their argument upon the mere fact of the existence of the marker. They admit that typically they were set by the work crew of some road contractor by undocumented methods that the adjoining landowner wasn't a party to and assert that the marker itself is what fixes or "establishes" the boundary without regard to what the writing actually said.
So, if where the marker ends up is the key element, shouldn't one assume that if a tractor hits it and shifts it over, that the boundary also is "re-established" wherever the marker ends up if the existence of the marker is the central fact?
No, I don't think it is the wine, it may be a lack of reading comprehension - but I'm afraid it is actually much worse than either one. While Kent is probably good at measuring and arguing, the really sad part is how he not only routinely insults other professionals, it the apparent level of dishonesty to which he stoops in order to attempt to "win" a debate. Kent, as a professional, you really should be better than this.
Brian Allen, post: 415492, member: 1333 wrote: While Kent is probably good at measuring and arguing, the really sad part is how he not only routinely insults other professionals, it the apparent level of dishonesty to which he stoops in order to attempt to "win" a debate. .
If you consider the obvious question to be an insult, that isn't my problem. The question was how the folks who want to uncritically accept all the right-of-way markers deal with markers that are:
(a) leaning well off plumb,
(b) clearly shifted by impact, or
(c) missing completely.
My guess is that you don't like to think about that because then you either have to deal with the actual writing of the conveyance to locate the corner or just fake something in. The writing of the conveyance, of course, describes the land by reference to the centerline, so reconstructing the missing corners takes you right where the folks who just want to beep existing markers don't seem to want to go.
Kent McMillan, post: 415497, member: 3 wrote: If you consider the obvious question to be an insult, that isn't my problem. The question was how the folks who want to uncritically accept all the right-of-way markers deal with markers that are:
(a) leaning well off plumb,
(b) clearly shifted by impact, or
(c) missing completely.My guess is that you don't like to think about that because then you either have to deal with the actual writing of the conveyance to locate the corner or just fake something in. The writing of the conveyance, of course, describes the land by reference to the centerline, so reconstructing the missing corners takes you right where the folks who just want to beep existing markers don't seem to want to go.
Ken, are you actually reading the comments? No one said anything about uncriticaly accepting all ROW monuments. Dealing with leaning and missing monuments are basic surveying skills.
Again, monuments are not set as a secret code to future surveyors. They are set for land owners and land users. If this were not the case we would have shifted to surveying by coordinates long ago. We are not Singapore yet.
There are times when a mathematical solution based on the numbers in a deed is appropriate. But, you ignore long standing monuments at your and your clients peril.
This is not a R/W marker issue but is something similar. In 1936, GLO did a dependent resurvey of part of a T-2-N R-17-W, 5th Principle Meridian, and set brass caps in concrete markers at all of the section and 1/4 corners. In 1939, my Grand Father purchased the NW 1/4 SW1/4 and there was a brass marker at his NW corner, the West 1/4 corner, and his SE Corner, and interior 1/16th corner. I can remember seeing the SE corner as a child 50+ years ago. I don't remember what the stamping is on it.
Fast forward to the late 1970's, if I remember correctly it was 1979, and a surveyor comes through and does a sectional breakdown of that section with a T-16 and a Beetle. using his expert measurement techniques, he determined that the brass cap was about 13 feet to far to the south and set a new corner. His corner reference card shows the old monument as an accessory to the New monument. He mentioned that he was using a T-16 and a Beetle on his corner reference card.
I am tempted to stir up trouble about this as I am now the owner of my Grandfather's land but we are only talking about .4 acres of low value land. I do think that I will go scratch up the concrete monument and do a corner recovery on it and put a fence post painted purple by it just to stir the pot a little. Maybe even do a 4 plus hour static observation on the brass cap and submit to OPUS Share.
Kent McMillan, post: 415497, member: 3 wrote: If you consider the obvious question to be an insult, that isn't my problem. The question was how the folks who want to uncritically accept all the right-of-way markers deal with markers that are:
(a) leaning well off plumb,
(b) clearly shifted by impact, or
(c) missing completely.My guess is that you don't like to think about that because then you either have to deal with the actual writing of the conveyance to locate the corner or just fake something in. The writing of the conveyance, of course, describes the land by reference to the centerline, so reconstructing the missing corners takes you right where the folks who just want to beep existing markers don't seem to want to go.
This thread didnÛªt include discussing monuments that are leaning, disturbed, or missing. It was to discuss existing monuments and their value in determining where the right of way line is actually located, either based on evidence, principles, and law, or the offset of magical recreations of constantly moving, mythical, mathematical ÛÏcenterlinesÛ.
Just how many conveyance documents from other states have you read? Here is an excerpt from a right of way conveyance document (WD Instr. # 103109) relating to a current ongoing project (yes, right here in podunk, back-backwater Idaho), which is very typical of all IÛªve seen in Idaho, dating from the 1930Ûªs to present:
ÛÏA strip of land 135.0 feet wide, being 65.0 feet on the Northwesterly side and 70.0 feet on the Southeasterly side of the following described centerline of highway as surveyed and shown on the official plat of State Highway 34 ÛÒ Project No. _________ Highway Survey on file in the office of the Department of Highways of the State of Idaho and lying over and across the NW1/4NW1/4 of SectionÛ?Û?Û?Û
The plans, as provided by ITD, clearly show by symbol and station/offset, where ÛÏROW MarkersÛ were set. In the detail drawings of the plans, there are details of the concrete monuments and the 3.5Û brass cap clearly showing they were to be stamped in ÛÏletters between 3/16Û and å?Û in height, not less than 1/32Û deepÛ the words ÛÏState of Idaho Right of Way MarkerÛ. In fact, the set of plans on my desk also state ÛÏThe brass cap shall have the inscription ÛÏRIGHT OF WAY MARKERÛ for those set on the right of way line. All other caps shall have the inscription ÛÏREFERENCE MARKERÛ.
Nowhere in the conveyance documents or plans does it state or indicate, in any manner, that the location of the ÛÏRight of MarkersÛ are ÛÏapproximateÛ, or for ÛÏgrass mowers onlyÛ.
Now, that is just the record documents. Even more importantly, as many of us have pointed out, the location of right of way lines, along with other boundaries, can lawfully be influenced by evidence found outside of the ÛÏconveyance documentsÛ.
Now, please feel free to continue with your petty insults and intentional misrepresentations.
The straw man is alive and well here. BTW, I don't think these work too well in court.
Brian Allen, post: 415527, member: 1333 wrote: This thread didnÛªt include discussing monuments that are leaning, disturbed, or missing. It was to discuss existing monuments and their value in determining where the right of way line is actually located, either based on evidence, principles, and law, or the offset of magical recreations of constantly moving, mythical, mathematical ÛÏcenterlinesÛ.
Just how many conveyance documents from other states have you read? Here is an excerpt from a right of way conveyance document (WD Instr. # 103109) relating to a current ongoing project (yes, right here in podunk, back-backwater Idaho), which is very typical of all IÛªve seen in Idaho, dating from the 1930Ûªs to present:
ÛÏA strip of land 135.0 feet wide, being 65.0 feet on the Northwesterly side and 70.0 feet on the Southeasterly side of the following described centerline of highway as surveyed and shown on the official plat of State Highway 34 ÛÒ Project No. _________ Highway Survey on file in the office of the Department of Highways of the State of Idaho and lying over and across the NW1/4NW1/4 of SectionÛ?Û?Û?Û
The plans, as provided by ITD, clearly show by symbol and station/offset, where ÛÏROW MarkersÛ were set. In the detail drawings of the plans, there are details of the concrete monuments and the 3.5Û brass cap clearly showing they were to be stamped in ÛÏletters between 3/16Û and å?Û in height, not less than 1/32Û deepÛ the words ÛÏState of Idaho Right of Way MarkerÛ. In fact, the set of plans on my desk also state ÛÏThe brass cap shall have the inscription ÛÏRIGHT OF WAY MARKERÛ for those set on the right of way line. All other caps shall have the inscription ÛÏREFERENCE MARKERÛ.
Nowhere in the conveyance documents or plans does it state or indicate, in any manner, that the location of the ÛÏRight of MarkersÛ are ÛÏapproximateÛ, or for ÛÏgrass mowers onlyÛ.
Now, that is just the record documents. Even more importantly, as many of us have pointed out, the location of right of way lines, along with other boundaries, can lawfully be influenced by evidence found outside of the ÛÏconveyance documentsÛ.
Now, please feel free to continue with your petty insults and intentional misrepresentations.
From this thread I can only conclude that Texas has roving bands of hobbyist monument setters.
What is interesting is apparently they perfectly indicate station but not offset so when the roving band set them they used a special auger which could only move left and right but not up station and down station.
Dave Karoly, post: 415532, member: 94 wrote: From this thread I can only conclude that Texas has roving bands of hobbyist monument setters.
What is interesting is apparently they perfectly indicate station but not offset so when the roving band set them they used a special auger which could only move left and right but not up station and down station.
I'm sure the proper thing to do would be to adjust the monument's longitudinal location in Star*Net for a reasonable fit....then refute their transverse distances for deeded values...;)
excerpt from TxDOT Manual
Field Work
All fieldwork will be related to the NAD 83 datum through a control network of TxDOT survey points established before the commencement of the boundary survey. Surveys may be performed by GPS techniques, such as real-time kinematic methods in terrain suitable for their employment.
Conventional survey methods may be needed in wooded, urban, or mountainous environments, or a mixture of GPS receivers and conventional total stations. Survey techniques shall comply with the procedures specified in Chapter 3, Preliminary Surveying, of this manual. The surveyor will compute state plane coordinates on the Texas Plane Coordinate System for all survey measurements. Surface coordinates will be computed using methods acceptable to TxDOT.
After the preliminary office research is complete, the surveyor will plan the field work based upon the results of the preliminary report. The working sketch will indicate what original corners may be recovered. An original corner that is well known and its use accepted by the local surveying profession is often the most effective beginning point. A careful inspection of the working sketch will frequently reveal the footsteps of the original surveyor that must be retraced for a defensible survey.
The courts have established the duty of the modern boundary surveyor to be the retracement of the footsteps of the original locating surveyor (Vanishing Footsteps of the Original Surveyor, Clayton Orn, Report of the Fifth Texas Surveyors Short Course Conference, 1952). The surveyor shall exert every reasonable effort to recover the corners established by the original surveyors of the grants included in the project area.
The question is not where an entirely accurate survey would locate the lines, but where did the original survey locate such lines (A Treatise on the Law of Surveying and Boundaries, F.E. Clark, 1939). This may require multiple visits to the vicinity to search for the best remaining evidence.
The surveyor will begin by locating or retracing as many corners of the original grants as required to construct the boundaries of the lands included in the project for future takings. Subsequent to locating the original grant boundaries and preparing a boundary construction, the surveyor may locate corners and lines of any junior survey interior to the original grants. In this manner, the surveyor will build up a logical scheme of boundary construction.
i have like zero interest in entering the... equipment calibration contest currently going on (in whatever level of earnestness various participants bring to it).
but if you happened to be interested, here's an easy way to take a look at the vast history of r.o.w. conveyances here: https://maps.dot.state.tx.us/AGO_Template/TxDOT_Viewer/?
