>
> But that is my point: how can anyone expect to replicate something that is over 76 years old; has probably been replaced at least once and thousands of varas long?
What happens in practice is that you end up with multiple resurveys in the record, but of different fences at different times, along supposedly the same line. It makes a needless mess that is avoided by NOT mentioning the fence in any way that even hints it might be intended to be a locative call.
For example, I don't think it would be at all excessive to add a clause like this:
>THENCE along the South boundary of the tract here described for the following courses numbered (10) through (15), inclusive, (noting that these courses generally follow a five-strand barbed wire pasture fence found in place at the time of the survey, but not intending for said fence to define said South boundary as hereby described):
> Beginning at a 4" x 4" concrete highway monument found 0.2' below grade on the northerly bounds of Jane Lane at the southeasterly base of a 6" cedar fence post;
>
> Thence following the bounds of Smith and generally along the trend of a three row barbed wire fence N 23 W a distance of 234.5' to an axle found with a 2.0' reveal on the northwesterly side of a 6" diameter cedar fence post on the bounds of lands now or formerly of Doe;
I think your practice of describing the type of fence post that a boundary marker falls beside is excellent. I use it myself because:
(a) it simplifies the next surveyor's search for the monument and
(b) it gives a very good clue that a post has been replaced, possibly disturbing a monument beside it in the process.
I use the phrase "average line" instead of "trend", but think "trend" may well be less open to alternate construction.
"2 in. Down" and "24 in. Up" are the equivalents to "0.2' below grade" and "2.0' reveal" that I use.
Kent is thinking along the same lines I am..... Hey, a pun!
> IMVHO, revealing the intent of the grantor in your description is just as or more important than following legal guidelines for grammar.
:good: :good: :good: Enough said.
JBS
I can't believe the amount of discussion here promoting the idea that centuries of boundary law be turned on its head in favor of a fictional invisible line between x's on an survey monument held stationary by a coordinate value.
Yes, it's important for a surveyor to be able to retrace a boundary which has been obliterated and coordinates can assist in the process, but boundaries are revealed by the physical evidence established and perpetuated by landowners.
Remember the rules of construction: Natural monuments control over artificial monuments which control over course and distance which control over area and coordinates. This follows the centuries-old maxim "that which is most certain controls over that which is least certain." There are reasons for the rules. Why are we looking for ways to overturn these rules in favor of our more precise coordinates or the x's on our markers?
Remember, also, that the purpose of the description is to reflect the intentions of landowner. If they intend to create a boundary along the fence, then our responsibility is to describe the boundary as intended. The physical evidence of the fence is a by far better monument than one set by a surveyor with an x on top. And, give me a well-determined position of the fence location so it the remnants can be recovered and retraced.
JBS
> I can't believe the amount of discussion here promoting the idea that centuries of boundary law be turned on its head in favor of a fictional invisible line between x's on an survey monument held stationary by a coordinate value.
You probably aren't familiar with the problem that the original poster had before him, but it was subdividing a large ranch into various parts along lines that have pasture fences in place along them. In other words, the boundaries are to be newly minted and the vision of "centuries of boundary law" you conjure is only relevant to some future construction of the language of the descriptions of the tracts being created for the very first time in 2014. HTH
> You probably aren't familiar with the problem that the original poster had before him, but it was subdividing a large ranch into various parts along lines that have pasture fences in place along them. In other words, the boundaries are to be newly minted and the vision of "centuries of boundary law" you conjure is only relevant to some future construction of the language of the descriptions of the tracts being created for the very first time in 2014.
Not at all, Kent. You seem to be the one who isn't familiar with the concept of "I'm writing some descriptions splitting lands along existing fences." The landowner's intent is clear. The fences are intended to be the boundaries. It's a pretty simple concept that has been upheld by the courts for "centuries" past and "centuries" yet to come.
Instead of expressing constructive ideas of how the fences (boundaries) should be described, you've launched off with ideas of how the surveyor should create invisible boundaries marked by "coordinates" or "monuments at the base of fence posts" using wiggle-words interjecting your opinion taht the fence is NOT intended to be the boundary. That's contrary to the intent the landowner has expressed. We surveyors must perform our duty to express the landowner's intent in a way that is unambiguous. We can accomplish that in ways that are augment our ability to recover the physical evidence, prove the evidence and perpetuate the evidence.
The physical remnants of the fence are the best evidence of the intended boundary when the fence has been merely obliterated. Coordinates and x's are great as long they will lead you back to the physical evidence of the boundary; i.e. the fence (as intended by the owner). In the rare circumstance that the physical evidence is completely lost, the coordinates (any measurements for that matter) will serve as the best available evidence to replace the lost boundary. Fundamental boundary law. Centuries old.
JBS
> Not at all, Kent. You seem to be the one who isn't familiar with the concept of "I'm writing some descriptions splitting lands along existing fences." The landowner's intent is clear. The fences are intended to be the boundaries.
If you think your idea through, though, you'll realize that the role of the *professional* is to recognize what a poor idea it is to make every post in some irregular fence a boundary monument as you would appear to think reasonable.
Any experienced surveyor will know what a crummy idea using the actual fences as boundaries is, and for obvious reasons. That is why the original poster set "monuments" at various angle points along the fences, to fix the boundaries in definite locations. The fact that the actual pasture fences may meander back and forth is of no consequence since the ownership of fences can be taken care of by other means and when the fences are rebuilt (as they always are), then can be rebuilt closer to the line if the parties want to do so. HTH
Another little problem that comes along, is fences are up in the air!! They are up in the air. For real. 1st strand, some 8" up, second strand, some 14", and so forth. Top strand is up around 4 ft. Sometimes 4.5'. Even 5' or 6'.
So, where is the line?
If the cows are in the north pasture in the spring, then the fence leans south. If the cows are in the south pasture, for winter, then it leans north.
These up in the air issues move things a tenth. Or 2. Or 3. Maybe up to a foot. I have seen fence move. Kind of like watching time lapse photos, as the trees grow, fences break, get repaired, new posts added, old posts are broken off.
What we are looking for is to reduce ambiguities.
We are surveyors.
N
Nate-
You forgot...
HopeThisHelps.
> Nate-
>
> You forgot...
>
> HopeThisHelps.
Not much!!! 🙂
I suppose the really bad part about the fence being up in the air (visible) is you can actually see the boundary and treat it like a boundary.
LOL!! :good:
> I suppose the really bad part about the fence being up in the air (visible) is you can actually see the boundary and treat it like a boundary.
Yeah, until the fence is torn out and replaced. Then you can't see it at all because it's a pile of posts and a tangle of wire dumped in a ravine for erosion control.
However, before that happens, you can have all sorts of fun watching surveyors locate some of the posts of the fence in the course of surveying the boundary. You'll see:
- RTK crew holding antennas at tops of leaning posts,
- folks holding rod on one side of post or another, depending upon which side of the fence they are, or
- folks holding rod up against top strand or botton strand of wire just because.
And you might even see
- surveyors locating the actual centers of the bases of the posts and setting offset monuments to preserve their locations.
When the fence is rebuilt, the tractor will run along the fence scraping everything out and the new fence will be built as straight as possible between wherever the new braced posts have been set. The next resurvey will demonstrate that the new fence isn't on the boundary. So, after all that screwing around, it's back to where things could have started in the first place.
> Kent is thinking along the same lines I am..... Hey, a pun!
Why is it hard to explain puns to a kleptomaniac?
Because they take things, literally.
😀
Nothing like a great straw man argument is there? Yeah, as the dozer clears the fence it will get your markers also.
Think of a fence boundary as a gold mine. As you take a half hour to topo the circumference of each post and then use your computer to locate the center of mass (angle point) and then replace each with your bar and cap or reference marker (with punch mark) the meter will just be ringing up the hours (money).
I mean Geez, what we talking about here, a ranch boundary somewhere in Wyoming or Montana for thousands of acres of open space/pasture land where apparently the seller and buyer agreed to use the fence that keeps the cows on their side of the new boundary (fence). Use some common sense here (if you have any).
What Mighty is doing seems fine to me. Along the fence with monuments (angle points) in the fence line at enough points to practically describe the location of the fence. If the description is good so what if it isn't perfect when the nuclear blast clears everything away. What's a foot or so here and there in this situation. Only nerdy surveyors would likely worry about it or start a range war over it.
Yepper, spot on Leon.
If the grantor & grantee (landowners) want the fence to be the boundary, then it is the boundary; the fence is the physical manifestation of the intent of the grantor/grantee. The fence becomes the monument which occupies the location of the boundary. In other words: fence=monument=boundary.
If the landowners want to maintain THEIR boundary/monument/fence, they can do so however they want to - it is, after all - THEIR boundary/monument/fence. If, in 20 years, they want to argue over millimeters, they are gonna argue over RHC's & we can't stop them. All the "what if's", "for instances", and "by golly this may happen in the future" straw men, ain't gonna change the facts, the law, the authority and responsibilities of the landowners.
It is really pretty darn simple - if one understands what our role as surveyors are.
Create a description that fulfills the intentions of landowners, and preserve the relevant evidence to assist future landowners/surveyors as necessary.
Coming back from the monument sidetrack above, assuming that nothing was ever set on the original line to aid in the recreation of the original location of the fence without a doubt, then yes, I absolutely positively agree. The fence is the fence is the fence if that is the intended monument of the line.
If it has strayed a posts width or so one way or the other over it's lifetime...what's a few tenths between neighbors? 😉
As long as the fence seems like a decent interpretation of the original intentions as per "accretion and avulsion" principals typically applied to water courses, I'd probably be pretty happy as long as the field work confirmed that the fence was more or less in the original intended location.
I'd also knock on the neighbors door and ask of he knew where the line was. There's a 99.9% chance that "the fence" would be the answer.
> Nothing like a great straw man argument is there? Yeah, as the dozer clears the fence it will get your markers also.
In that the point of professional surveying is to give boundaries permanence and stability, using a meandering fence as a boundary monument defeats that purpose for the obvious reasons I gave above, i.e.
- the actual location of the pasture fence can require a significant amount of time to map,
- that same fencelocation is unlikely to be reproduced when the fence is rebuilt, considering common fence building practices, and
- maintaining boundaries marked by conventional survey monuments is both easier and free of the above difficulties.
> I mean Geez, what we talking about here, a ranch boundary somewhere in Wyoming or Montana for thousands of acres of open space/pasture land where apparently the seller and buyer agreed to use the fence that keeps the cows on their side of the new boundary (fence). Use some common sense here (if you have any).
I'm sorry, I've dealt with far too many pasture fences that have been treated as if every meander of the fence were a wiggle in the boundary not to know that what seems like pushing to the "EASY" button really won't be over time. Fences make messes unless, as you suggest, surveys are merely submeter mapping exercises.
I didn't bother reading all the responses so maybe this has been suggested already.
Make the bearing the obvious intent with fence call follow the bearing and distance. For example;
Thence N89-59-50W, 2640.00 feet to 'the monument description', a four strand barbwire fence runs generally along said line.
I have the same situation on an agreed line of "best fit" to the fence ties I made. I just don't want some future surveying genius to come along and put 264 angle points along the line
