roger_LS, post: 415070, member: 11550 wrote: Maybe, but that's a lot of assumptions on your part to overturn a basic assumption that lines have been established on the ground and especially when you're arguing a case that rights of way are always full record. I'd throw out your (a) because as we know, many many deeds make no call for monuments when in reality they were actually based on a survey and monuments were actually set.
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.
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.
Oh, we are talking about concrete monuments set during the process of road construction, I assumed these were points set years later. If that's the case, they'd basically be original monuments, would they not? If the state did not intend for those very monuments to mark the limit of their right of way, what other purpose would they serve? Was building and placing those monuments just busy work to keep people going? Or to make the highway look nice?
My assumption would be that the state never did cared about that foot or two because they usually have plenty of room to work with.
Some old codgers at TxDOT will tell you they were put there to show the mowing crews where to stop mowing. (Think: a bunch of Ford 9-N tractors towing 72" mowing decks.)
Here is a map of the ROW of I-95. It shows the randoms, that tie into the ROW boundary. No centerline information is given on these maps.
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.
You might want to check with the monument fairy because apparently he set your rod and cap dead center of several of the concrete monuments.
Joe the Surveyor, post: 415076, member: 118 wrote: Here is a map of the ROW of I-95. It shows the randoms, that tie into the ROW boundary. No centerline information is given on these maps.
The urban highways tend to be exceptions to the general rule. For every mile of urban highway like that in Texas, there are probably at least a thousand that were just strips described in relation to the centerline.
Dave Karoly, post: 415077, member: 94 wrote: You might want to check with the monument fairy because apparently he set your rod and cap dead center of several of the concrete monuments.
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.
roger_LS, post: 415074, member: 11550 wrote: Oh, we are talking about concrete monuments set during the process of road construction, I assumed these were points set years later. If that's the case, they'd basically be original monuments, would they not?
They would not be monuments that the parties had in view at the time of the original conveyance and so would only be at best "established" monuments.
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.
So you have these concrete monuments which you say were very poorly set by the monument fairy, I mean the low bid fence guy, and you use them to estimate where the imaginary centerline was located which could be 1 or 2' from the original but all the R/W monuments are off some amount in your imaginary geometric world. That sounds odd and arbitrary.
flyin solo, post: 415075, member: 8089 wrote: Some old codgers at TxDOT will tell you they were put there to show the mowing crews where to stop mowing. (Think: a bunch of Ford 9-N tractors towing 72" mowing decks.)
Yepper, and I'm sure all the landowners were officially notified that the concrete monuments they set were not to be considered "boundary" monuments, but merely "mowing limits" monuments.
But I'm still confused, why did they stamp "RIGHT OF WAY" on them instead of "NOT BOUNDARY MONUMENTS, FOR USE BY MOWING CREWS ONLY"?
If you can find that stamped on one of those old type 1 monuments, congrats. Cuz I've never seen word one on one of them in 20 years of surveying.
Dave Karoly, post: 415082, member: 94 wrote: So you have these concrete monuments which you say were very poorly set by the monument fairy, I mean the low bid fence guy, and you use them to estimate where the imaginary centerline was located which could be 1 or 2' from the original but all the R/W monuments are off some amount in your imaginary geometric world. That sounds odd and arbitrary.
Not really. There was centerline control maintained through the road construction process and it's reasonable to think that the right-of-way markers were set approximately in locations that had been surveyed off the centerline control. It isn't reasonable, however to think that somehow the same surveyors who were able to chain along the centerline with errors of 1:2000 or (typically) much better were somehow unable to measure 40.00 or 50.00 ft. from the centerline. Likewise, it isn't reasonable to think that every right-of-way marker was actually placed in exactly the location that had been staked by TexDOT forces.
So, what you end up with are lots of markers with the natural errors in their positions starting with the process by which they were placed by the road contractor's forces and ending decades later after soil movement and mechanical damage have further rearranged them.
flyin solo, post: 415084, member: 8089 wrote: If you can find that stamped on one of those old type 1 monuments, congrats. Cuz I've never seen word one on one of them in 20 years of surveying.
There apparently was a standard for Type I right-of-way markers once upon a time that included imprinted letters "R O W" in the casting. I recall seeing just such an animal in front of the old porno house on South Congress, the Austin Theatre. I've never seen another one since, though.
Kent McMillan, post: 415085, member: 3 wrote: Not really. There was centerline control maintained through the road construction process and it's reasonable to think that the right-of-way markers were set approximately in locations that had been surveyed off the centerline control. It isn't reasonable, however to think that somehow the same surveyors who were able to chain along the centerline with errors of 1:2000 or (typically) much better were somehow unable to measure 40.00 or 50.00 ft. from the centerline. Likewise, it isn't reasonable to think that every right-of-way marker was actually placed in exactly the location that had been staked by TexDOT forces.
So, what you end up with are lots of markers with the natural errors in their positions starting with the process by which they were placed by the road contractor's forces and ending decades later after soil movement and mechanical damage have further rearranged them.
I get what you're saying. You assume the surveyors set the stake at 50.00' but you don't really know that so what you're doing is really apportioning which is based in equity. If the monuments are too close together then take half the shortage from each side. Likewise if they are too far apart then award half the overage to each side.
Dave Karoly, post: 415088, member: 94 wrote: I get what you're saying. You assume the surveyors set the stake at 50.00' but you don't really know that so what you're doing is really apportioning which is based in equity. If the monuments are too close together then take half the shortage from each side. Likewise if they are too far apart then award half the overage to each side.
No, the process of retracing highway centerlines is a bit more sophisticated than that. The starting assumptions are:
- The centerline actually was surveyed and marked on the ground as stated in the deeds of conveyance, particularly when the centerline ran along an existing road that was to be upgraded to be a public highway.
- The survey was most likely made with the tools of the day, i.e. transit and tape before the late 1960s.
- Errors in angle and distance meaurements were most likely consistent with the equipment and methods used.
- Where the centerline crested a hill, there almost certainly was a POT on the centerline through which the line was prolonged, but that may have created a small angle point.
- Where the PI of a curve falls inside the right-of-way or not very far outside it, most likely the centerline was run to the PI and the deflection angle was measured to the Fwd tangent with the PC and PT stations being chained from the PI after the curve was calculated.
- Where the PI falls well outside the curve and particularly where the terrain was restrictive, the location line was probably run as a chord or series of chords.
Kent McMillan, post: 415081, member: 3 wrote: They would not be monuments that the parties had in view at the time of the original conveyance and so would only be at best "established" monuments.
They may not be original monuments in the classic and technical sense, but I'd argue are quasi-original here and have a different value and weight than your typical secondary monument, as they are all that is left. It is possible that someone may have "viewed" the original centerline stakes in the short amount of time between layout and construction, but even if they did, they wouldn't be looking at the limit of the take, if as you mention side lines weren't normally staked. Instead, they'd be looking at centerline and maybe eyeballing over 50'. But it's hard to eyeball the difference between 50' and 51' so this doesn't seem too significant. If the state layed out only 99' or 98' because they didn't then care about this level or precision back then, I don't see how they can now come back 75 years later and say that it is significant, and that their own Survey monuments are wrong. They had their chance.
roger_LS, post: 415091, member: 11550 wrote: They may not be original monuments in the classic and technical sense, but I'd argue,,,.
Well, as long as you admit that the right-of-way markers set by some road contractor's forces months or years after the actual conveyance aren't original monuments, I think my work is done.
Kent McMillan, post: 415085, member: 3 wrote: Not really. There was centerline control maintained through the road construction process and it's reasonable to think that the right-of-way markers were set approximately in locations that had been surveyed off the centerline control. It isn't reasonable, however to think that somehow the same surveyors who were able to chain along the centerline with errors of 1:2000 or (typically) much better were somehow unable to measure 40.00 or 50.00 ft. from the centerline. Likewise, it isn't reasonable to think that every right-of-way marker was actually placed in exactly the location that had been staked by TexDOT forces.
So, what you end up with are lots of markers with the natural errors in their positions starting with the process by which they were placed by the road contractor's forces and ending decades later after soil movement and mechanical damage have further rearranged them.
The way I understand it there is no original evidence left of the surveyed center line. The best remaining evidence of that surveyed centerline is the ROW markers. The ROW markers have unacceptable error to be used for the width of the ROW.
So the monuments are good enough to establish the bearing and distances of the centerline? The only thing you are holding from the deed is the width? Why does the width hold over the distance and bearing?
aliquot, post: 415094, member: 2486 wrote: The way I understand it there is no original evidence left of the surveyed center line. The best remaining evidence of that surveyed centerline is the ROW markers. The ROW markers have unacceptable error to be used for the width of the ROW.
So the monuments are good enough to establish the bearing and distances of the centerline? The only thing you are holding from the deed is the width? Why does the width hold over the distance and bearing?
The language of the deed typically expresses an obvious intention to convey a strip of land of a specified width to each side of the surveyed centerline. A typical retracement of a highway centerline involves the entire pattern of evidence of which some right-of-way marker is a part. As I previously mentioned, 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.
A rigorous if circular debate!
There is a third view here, albeit an unpopular one: this is a false dichotomy in which both sides are right some of the time and neither side is right all of the time. I mostly agree with Kent but could easily be anti-Kent if the evidence was there.
The joy in surveying lies in the mystery and the debate - internal and external. Those of us who care passionately are all on the same team here, and I'd argue the only true opposition are those who don't care and/or don't explain their decisions in the record.