Following the Surveyor Before You

Looks like he held #3 and something else to the South. Also looks like he held a straight line probably indicated by the plat and shows how far off found monuments were from the record, looks good to me. What's the problem, are you going to bend the line through the monuments? I would hold the previous work if it checks out in the field. The real problem is the city requiring a new survey when the old one and the the monuments set during that survey are still in place. They could justify a new plot plan, a new survey is overkill. This is a recording state, my views reflect that.
jud

Hmmm....from what I see, if it's 1 inch caps, he's pretty much hitting all three.

What is the problem?

I agree, what is the problem? I dont see a "bend" in the line. It's straight.
what is FND "P/C"? property corner or pin cushion?:-)

any bets that the data on the plat is the result of a single 8 second rtk observation on each cap........ 😐

Good Grief!

Is this what land surveying has come to?

Keith

Gawsh-

Was someone building a watch ?

Derek

c'mon, Derek, those are significant dimensions, .....if yer a pi$$ ant.

Amen brother Keith... I cannot believe this one, or the ROW pincushion of Carl's. These new guys must be much more expert measurers than the rest of the world. I would like to see them repeat their own measurements to the accuracy shown of the "offsets" shown here.

I also don't understand setting unidentifiable monuments, regardless of a regulatory requirement to do so.

Sheez what have we come to.

> Looks like he held #3 and something else to the South. Also looks like he held a straight line probably indicated by the plat and shows how far off found monuments were from the record, looks good to me. What's the problem, are you going to bend the line through the monuments? I would hold the previous work if it checks out in the field. The real problem is the city requiring a new survey when the old one and the the monuments set during that survey are still in place. They could justify a new plot plan, a new survey is overkill. This is a recording state, my views reflect that.
> jud

Looks good for a working sketch and for working from for construction staking.

For a final plat and for recording. I don't think so!!!

SJ

I have seen that useage of showing a "corner" location and where the monument is in relation to it. Many of the authors of this sort of plat I have talked to, say that they are "accepting" the monuments, and continue to explain the difference between a "corner" and a "monument". Others claim that the corner is where the math puts it and the monuments are that far off the corner.

If you are retracing that plat, and want to reset a new monument where that 2001 surveyor shows the corner to be, which math do you use?

Personally, I like to decide if I am accepting a monument as "being" the corner, and if I do, I show my measured dimension between monuments/corners. I use "record" and "as measured" dimensions. I think that is a clearer way to show that I am indeed accepting the monument as being the corner or not. If I don't accept a monument, I would set a new monument at my professional opinon as to where it goes, and I would show the additional contradictory evidence (ie the old monument) on my plat with ties to the old monument.

I agree that your conversation with the land owner might be obscure. If I were looking at that plat, I would interpret differently than the earlier surveyor might have meant for it to be interpreted.

Tom

It is mind-boggling isn't it?!

I'm snickering here, been on a job the past week where the PLS is holding monuments that miss record by feet (1920's subdivision, no original cypress hubs found, most senior corners being 2" galvanized pipes set by the developer in the 1930's as guards for the old cypress hubs and POL's) all waterfront lots. We've been locating buildings and bulkheads for the past 3 weeks trying to piece together just what went on.

Kent's kindred in spirit have diligently ignored such and have expertly measured themselves into a lawsuit, with a 17' overlap and three landowners, two being retired attorneys with nothing but time and decades of experience. The other landowner has clearly fenced his property and been in continuous occupation since 1971, and has a survey done at that time that determined the location of his bulkhead. Today Expert Measurer A says his bulkhead is over their expertly measured line on the east by 11 feet, and the property line runs through the house. E.M. B says it is 17' overlap on the west. Between the two of them they have whittled a 75' lot to 47'.

The key to all this is 30' drainage easements originally platted and later conveyed to the state in the late 1960's, where 15' was taken by the state and 7.5' on each side transferred fee simple to the adjoining lots, once the culverts were built. Or not. Our evidence is finding some lots got nothing, some got the whole 15', and the legal descriptions transferring the abandoned easements aren't worth the paper they were written on.

Welcome to court.

> Hmmm....from what I see, if it's 1 inch caps, he's pretty much hitting all three.
"""

I disagree. the intent is that a marker has no actual dimension. the marker is supposed to represent a point, or a point on line. for example, a rebar cap is, say 0.1' dia., but the mark, or the line that it terminates on, is intended to be dimensionless.

what about a precast marker, say 6inches square vs 4 inches square?

i also would expect an OLDER call to a tree, or maybe a stone to have variation in its location. we would measure a tree or a stone the best we could, but not consider the variation of its location until the boundary analysis.