The subject was pretty intense on CLSA board http://clsaforum.californiasurveyors.org/showthread.php?t=3959
and I would like to read some of your comments after reading Dave Woolley’s posts on the CLSA board.
Interesting stuff, Jp
> The subject was pretty intense on CLSA board http://clsaforum.californiasurveyors.org/showthread.php?t=3959
>
> and I would like to read some of your comments after reading Dave Woolley’s posts on the CLSA board.
>
> Interesting stuff, Jp
Thanks for linking to that. It was a very interesting discussion. Read Dave's reference material also.
Ya know.....if the measuring experts have their way, there will be a gap/overlap in every resurvey they do.....think about that for a minute and a half as they will hardly ever match record!
Really.
On this forum you don't need to start new threads like on the old RPLS. If you set it up right, the current thread with new posts will come to the top all by itself.
I think it is more of a politics of land surveying issue than a legal issue. That probably doesn't make sense to anyone else. It is kind of part and parcel to the pick and choose style of practice being suggested. I can do this law but not that law and it is kind of an arbitrary interpretation of Curt Brown's writings.
>
> Read Dave's reference material also.
I have and am. The problem that i have with Dave's stand is that I believe he is picturing a particular kind of mishandling of the matter by surveyors and presuming to state an absolute rule which covers all instances where an ambiguity might indicate an apparent or real gap.
There are very few absolutes in surveying or in the law, and IMO, where one attempts to identify or assert an absolute, one-size-fits-all-circumstances kind of rule, one is very likely to be wrong as often as one is right on the matter.
The argued limitations of a surveyor's role with respect to supposed gaps is inconsistent with the acknowledged role when it comes to other boundary matters, particularly overlaps.
Good observation, Dave.
