Sometime back Paden detailed how concrete right of way markers, such as those Kent has pictured, have traditionally been set in Oklahoma. That is, by the right of way fence contractors from what amounts to fence staking. As such, these markers get very little respect from OK surveyors.
I haven't followed this discussion blow by blow, but I don't see that anyone has I discussed what they do when:
- the difference between as found and record is on the order of a few hundreths of a foot, or,
- both the centerline and the right of way lines are monumented, and therefore inevitably slightly disagree
Speaking very generally I usually show the full width of right of way. But my experience is that the difference between monuments and record is commonly within the limits of positional error (notwitstanding the examples of Oklahoma right of way monuments, which were widely ignored by all) . I do recall one case (in downtown Portland) were I called the right of way width a half foot short of plat. I had significant monumental evidence for doing so together with some clues in the record. In that case it was obvious in the many records of survey that other surveyors had recognized the shortage but had gone to some lengths to avoid expressing it on their maps
A former ADOT employee suggested that below the surface grade is the actual controlling monument. I've seen that situation on occasion.
dwayne, post: 414983, member: 12506 wrote: A former ADOT employee suggested that below the surface grade is the actual controlling monument. I've seen that situation on occasion.
Below the brass cap in concrete?
Jim in AZ, post: 414986, member: 249 wrote: Below the brass cap in concrete?
I would not think so in that circumstance. How does your boundary retracement fit with the centerline control, section line calls, right of way maps,and adjoiner deeds?
dwayne, post: 414989, member: 12506 wrote: I would not think so in that circumstance. How does your boundary retracement fit with the centerline control, section line calls, right of way maps,and adjoiner deeds?
Well, they are all different. I've never found centerline control. The ones with the calls to assumed Section and fractional Section lines are interesting. The ones with monuments set on these assumed lines are even more so.
Jim in AZ, post: 414976, member: 249 wrote: "In other words the R/W monuments (concrete monument) are ignored..."
So can I ignore all the private survey monuments set along this line too?
Let me answer with a question. If you saw "laborers" setting the monuments with an auger, and then moving the hole because he hit a rock or root, or setting the monument on one side of the fence when the stake for the monument is on the other, would you ACCEPT the monument? I personally have seen both of these happen. If I locate one and it is "close" to being the correct distance from centerline I will either accept it or note the difference that I find. Road contractors (at least here in Georgia) are paid unit cost for setting monuments, I have only seen a couple of contracts (both written by the firm for whom I worked) that required the monument locations be verified by a Land Surveyor.
Andy
Andy Bruner, post: 414994, member: 1123 wrote: Let me answer with a question. If you saw "laborers" setting the monuments with an auger, and then moving the hole because he hit a rock or root, or setting the monument on one side of the fence when the stake for the monument is on the other, would you ACCEPT the monument? I personally have seen both of these happen. If I locate one and it is "close" to being the correct distance from centerline I will either accept it or note the difference that I find. Road contractors (at least here in Georgia) are paid unit cost for setting monuments, I have only seen a couple of contracts (both written by the firm for whom I worked) that required the monument locations be verified by a Land Surveyor.
Andy
Is it within the power of the State to do things differently?
Mark Mayer, post: 414981, member: 424 wrote: I haven't followed this discussion blow by blow, but I don't see that anyone has I discussed what they do when:
- the difference between as found and record is on the order of a few hundreths of a foot, or,
- both the centerline and the right of way lines are monumented, and therefore inevitably slightly disagree
As for the first point, the problem with the Type I Precast Concrete Right-of-way Markers used in Texas is that they don't have a station mark on them. So I prefer to add one, either as a scribed X from corner to corner of the top or as a small drill hole at the center of the top. It is much more practical to give the center of the monument a station mark and then determine where the mark is in relation to the actual right-of-way line, i.e. the offset from mark to line, than to try to mark the actual right-of-way line on the top of the marker. Here's an example:
A good read:
TYSON v. EDWARDS, 433 So.2d 549 (1983)
More simply put the question is:
In the event of a discrepancy as to subdivided land lot lines, do you go with what the original surveyor intended to do as shown by the plat or do you go with what the original surveyor did by way of laying out and monumenting his survey on the ground?
Surprisingly, because of surveying principles based on established surveying practices, the correct answer is that what the original surveyor actually did by way of monumenting his survey on the ground takes precedence over what he intended to do as shown by his written plat of survey.
The difficulty with the problem is that the role and practice of the surveyor and his function in solving a surveying problem of the type in this case is misunderstood. Lawyers, architects and design engineers are accustomed to achieving objectives by first conceiving of abstract ideas or plans, then reducing those ideas (intentions) to paper, and then using the written document from which to construct a physical object or otherwise tangibly achieve the original goal as written. When this is done, the written document is always considered authoritative and any deviation or discrepancy between it and what is actually done pursuant to it is resolved by considering the deviations and discrepancies as being defects or errors in the execution of the original plan to be corrected by changing the physical to conform to the intention evidenced by the writing. In only one situation does the surveyor play a similar role and that is when he, in the first instance, lays out boundaries in the original division of a tract which has theretofore existed as a single unit. Thereafter the surveyor's function radically changes. It is not the surveyor's right or responsibility to set up new points and lines establishing boundaries except when he is surveying theretofore unplatted land or subdividing a new tract. Where title to land has been established under a previous survey, the sole duty of all subsequent or following surveyors is to locate the points and lines of the original survey. Later surveyors must only track and "trace the footsteps" of the original surveyor in locating existing boundaries. They cannot establish a new corner or line nor can they correct erroneous surveys of earlier surveyors, even when the earlier surveyor obviously erred in following some apparent original "over-all design" or objective. The reason for this lies in the historic development of the concept of land boundaries and of the profession of surveying. Man set monuments as landmarks before he invented paper and still today the true survey is what the original surveyor did on the ground by way of fixing boundaries by setting monuments and running lines ("metes and bounds"), and the paper "survey" or plat of survey is intended only as a map of what is on the ground. The surveying method is to establish boundaries by running lines and fixing monuments on the ground while making field notes of such acts. From the field notes, plats of survey or "maps" are later drawn to depict that which was done on the ground. In establishing the original boundary on the ground the original surveyor is conclusively presumed to have been correct and if later surveyors find there is error in the locations, measurements or otherwise, such error is the error of the last surveyor. Likewise, boundaries originally located and set (right, wrong, good or bad) are primary and controlling when inconsistent with plats purporting to portray the survey and later notions as to what the original subdivider or surveyor intended to be doing or as to where later surveyors, working, perhaps, under better conditions and more accurately with better equipment, would locate the boundary solely by using the plat as a guide or plan. Written plats are not construction plans to be followed to correctly reestablish monuments and boundaries. They are "as built" drawings of what has already occurred on the ground and are properly used only to the extent they are helpful in finding and retracing the original survey which they are intended to describe; and to the extent that the original surveyor's lines and monuments on the ground are established by other evidence and are inconsistent with the lines on the plat of survey, the plat is to be disregarded. When evidence establishes a discrepancy between the location on the ground of the original boundary survey and the written plat of that survey the discrepancy is always resolved against the plat.
Brian Allen, post: 415002, member: 1333 wrote: A good read:
TYSON v. EDWARDS, 433 So.2d 549 (1983)
.... Where title to land has been established under a previous survey, the sole duty of all subsequent or following surveyors is to locate the points and lines of the original survey. Later surveyors must only track and "trace the footsteps" of the original surveyor in locating existing boundaries. ...
And, of course, in the case under discussion, i.e. strips of land acquired by States for highway purposes that were described by reference to a surveyed centerline with various right-of-way marker installed by a road contractor months or years after the conveyance, the original survey to be retraced is .... the centerline.
Kent McMillan, post: 415008, member: 3 wrote: And, of course, in the case under discussion, i.e. strips of land acquired by States for highway purposes that were described by reference to a surveyed centerline with various right-of-way marker installed by a road contractor months or years after the conveyance, the original survey to be retraced is .... the centerline.
Many acquisition deed descriptions don't directly reference a surveyed centerline for roads I've worked on. Also, the surveyed centerline is kind of the "traverse line". They set actual concrete monuments as the monumentation for the right-of-way limits.
Maybe I'm looking at this wrong, but if the road is inside the right-of-way monuments and the adjoiners are using the other side of the right-of-way monuments, why are we digging for (hopeful) original hubs in the middle of the of an asphalted highway? How can you tell whatever you find is the original? do they have markings? are they described in the deed or the original notes? Were they moved when they installed the big highway on top of them?
I get the concept of holding the "kings" 200 feet, but seriously, what wrongs are being righted by shifting, moving, and juggling the monumented highway? Will it change where the neighbor plows or mows to? move the fences? Will it change where the highway maintenance crews maintain to? (If you are fixing a 10-foot bust I get it, but why do we bicker over 0.27 feet on a huge highway swath?
Tom Adams, post: 415018, member: 7285 wrote: Many acquisition deed descriptions don't directly reference a surveyed centerline for roads I've worked on.
[...]
I get the concept of holding the "kings" 200 feet, but seriously, what wrongs are being righted by shifting, moving, and juggling the monumented highway?
Here is the language from a typical conveyance to the State of Texas in 1939 of a strip of land upon which a highway was later constructed:
"A strip of land 100 feet wide and 5269 feet long, being 50 feet on each side of the centerline of location of Highway No. 232 as surveyed and staked by the Resident Engineer of the State Highway Department ... [with survey data defining that centerline and its various curves following]"
As for your second question, basically it boils down to whether the location of any boundary really matters, doesn't it? In rural Kansas or Colorado, it may not. Who am I to say that plus or minus a foot or two isn't close enough for everything there?
Dave Karoly, post: 414997, member: 94 wrote: Is it within the power of the State to do things differently?
The power and the will are two different things. What we have to deal with is the way things are actually done. I have heard someone at GDOT say that the monuments are so they know where to cut the grass. Many things could be done better, it the people ultimately in charge had the will.
I'm coming in late to this conversation and there may be much I've missed, but is there something special about retracing State ROW's? Are these any different than a typical retracement where you are evaluating classes of evidence. I know we've all been taught to hold full record measure across streets but I think of this more in the context of prorating across blocks. A last resort of the last resort. Of course every state is different, but is there actually any legal authority stating road rights of way must be full record?
roger_LS, post: 415023, member: 11550 wrote: I'm coming in late to this conversation and there may be much I've missed, but is there something special about retracing State ROW's? Are these any different than a typical retracement where you are evaluating classes of evidence. I know we've all been taught to hold full record measure across streets but I think of this more in the context of prorating across blocks. A last resort of the last resort. Of course every state is different, but is there actually any legal authority stating road rights of way must be full record?
Well, in the case of a strip of land that was described in the conveyance to the State as being 100 ft. wide, with none of such right-of-way markers as may presently exist having been in place at the time of the conveyance, the real question is what basis there might possibly be to claim that the strip was other than 100 ft. wide.
If original monumentation has disappeared, how would you even re-establish this centerline without relying on secondary evidence? And if secondary evidence is sufficient to re-establish the centerline, how could it be at the same time, insufficient to establish the sidelines?
roger_LS, post: 415028, member: 11550 wrote: If original monumentation has disappeared, how would you even re-establish this centerline without relying on secondary evidence? And if secondary evidence is sufficient to re-establish the centerline, how could it be at the same time, insufficient to establish the sidelines?
Well, it seems to me to be a straightforward surveying problem. The right-of-way markers were set in relation to specific stations on the Resident Engineer's Centerline and perpetuate those points in the same way that any other tie would. If the strip is 100 ft. wide and the markers at nominally the same station on opposite sides of the right-of-way are 99.07 ft. apart, one rectifies the discrepancy using the most reasonable method of construction.
Typically, that involves surveying through at least one PI beyond the tangent in question to arrive at a solution.
Kent McMillan, post: 415008, member: 3 wrote: And, of course, in the case under discussion, i.e. strips of land acquired by States for highway purposes that were described by reference to a surveyed centerline with various right-of-way marker installed by a road contractor months or years after the conveyance, the original survey to be retraced is .... the centerline.
I guess if you are the engineer the centerline is the most important part, but if you are a surveyor, the boundary delineating the right of way from the private landowner is the one you would be most concerned with. You know, the one that was represented to the landowner (usually by stakes) before the conveyance, the same one referred to in the conveyance, and the one staked by the state (or its agents), and the one marked by monuments for the obvious purpose of marking the boundary, and most importantly, the boundary relied upon (usually for many decades) by both parties.
It is absurd to think that a private landowner would be required to hire a surveyor and roll the dice to find where the ambulant mathemagical boundary might fall each and every time he needs know where the boundary actually lies, as opposed to relying on the concrete monuments set by the state, represented by state as marking the boundary, shown on state drawn and issued plans, and usually stamped "Right of Way".
roger_LS, post: 415023, member: 11550 wrote: ...... but is there actually any legal authority stating road rights of way must be full record?
Apparently not.
Brian Allen, post: 415033, member: 1333 wrote: I guess if you are the engineer the centerline is the most important part, but if you are a surveyor, the boundary delineating the right of way from the private landowner is the one you would be most concerned with. You know, the one that was represented to the landowner (usually by stakes) before the conveyance, the same one referred to in the conveyance.
Actually, the line that was staked before the conveyance was typically the centerline. Probably the majority of State highways in Texas follow existing county roads and the centerlines generally followed the centerlines of those existing road where feasible.
As for your other ideas about ignoring the clear language of a deed as a matter of convenience to speed up the survey, as long as you're speaking about local Idaho standards of practice, I have no dog in that fight. Feel free to knock yourself out.
