We are a recording state. The records are online. To speak poorly of me, for sharing a public document... is an indication of your not knowing how things are here.
So, where's your plat?
N
So, where's your plat?
Here we go Nate, kindly refer to the blue boundary lines and some discrepancy notes near each corner. Enjoy
http://expirebox.com/download/21be8805fe54c78b07ea29ec658636a2.html
Thank you, Francis.
I do note that you merely refer to "how far off" various monuments are, with no reference to direction.
I also note, that SOMEBODY before you had to come up with a "Base Survey" or foundation for your work. What is going on here, is you have SOMEBODY ahead of you, who built the cadastre. You have a base map to work with.
In America, our base maps are very rough. ie, they were surveyed in 1800's. In arkansas, where I work, alot of the work, I am retracing is from 1835-1845.
The work on Odom, was from 1835. When possible, you locate all corners from that survey. When a corner is missing, you have to proportion back the missing corners.
Depending on WHAT you have for a base map, you handle it differently.
If your base map is already set, and it is pretty accurate, ie, 1:5000, or 1:10,000, then we follow much the same philosophy you have. We are still building our base maps... We live in a country, where much of the land is owned, and lived on, with only approximate boundaries... and some of these occupation lines have "Ripened" into ownership. See Adverse Possession, and Acquiescence.
What you do, is the same thing we often do, when we have a solid base map, with high confidence. Except, we often YIELD to original monuments... within close tolerances. Also, we often refer to monuments we reject, via brg and dist and set a new monument. If you note the NW corner of Sec. 21, OdomNorth, you will see I refer to a 3/8" rebar, that I set, on the south side of a RR tie. I have reason to believe that at least one other surveyor has used the RR tie as the section corner. It does not match the rest of the GLO survey, to the north and south, and it also causes chaos, in the whole neighborhood.
Anyway, thanks for sharing your plat. I would say that your survey tends to be a "Narrow Spectrum" survey, And, that ours are broader spectrum.
Nate
Very perceptive, Nate. I thought the comparison may be "apples to oranges".
Horses for courses - to add another simile.
I also note, that SOMEBODY before you had to come up with a "Base Survey" or foundation for your work. What is going on here, is you have SOMEBODY ahead of you, who built the cadastre. You have a base map to work with.
All survey records whether in US, Singapore, Malaysia, HK started with some old time surveyor doing his work using chains,alidade,transit. We all started using procedures that are susceptible to a high degree of error or blunder. All early surveys created bad basemaps because mainly of technology then.Land was cheap 100 years ago in Asia or even just after the war. People don't mind losing/gaining a few acres due to survey error.
But you see, succeeding surveyors using better technology also improved on their work. You correct rectify early blunders in succeeding survey work.
So maybe the mother parcel is erroneous and as you said so many times, it's not your job to rectify it. Ok. But when you subdivide the mother parcel into smaller parcels errors of the mother parcel are not passed onto the inner parcels. Some parcels on the border that share the same lines with the mother parcel will inherit these errors but inner parcels should be free from any inherited errors.
This is how our system here came to such state that most errors are now less than 50cm and anything above this we can consider as a blunder & SHOULD be rectified in the field to follow the deed.
So we got one guy, in a whole other country, trying to tell us how to survey in our country, which is in itself full of different methods between the states, and even the localities, yet he is positive that he is the one and only person to know how to survey correctly. When he explains his methods, we try to explain to him that is the things we try to keep a field crew from becoming locked into thinking in their first few days. This whole discussion helps make my argument that surveying should be looked upon as an art, not a science. The numbers can and do lie. Time spent in the field working with an experienced mentor to learn about the monuments, the ties to corners, the hows and whys of measurements, how a measurement can be long or short, or why a compass could be pulled off north in one spot, are all the things that make surveying what it is, not some computer spitting out mathematical equations of how long a line must be at what angle to make a closed polygon of a certain dimension. Surveyors, at least in the USA, are skilled men and women, part of a long line of skilled men and women who helped settle America. Not button pushing technicians that cant think beyond a computer screen.
Francis, I am reading this post with a smile, but just to inform you, the client does not own my work, they own the right to use my work but the underlying product belongs to me. If I couldn't use previous work on my jobs then I would be wasting money and time, and if I didn't own then it would be wrong for me to use it. There is nothing wrong with Nate sharing his work.
Dtp
Ron Lang, post: 396393, member: 6445 wrote: Modern subdivisions are just as likely to have similar discrepancies as older, however now it is most likely due to the unscrupulous surveyor not putting forth the effort required to do it correctly or "making things fit" for the benefit of the client.
Just retraced a lot the other day that was all out of wack on a subdivsion done in the last 10 years. I have followed this surveyor before and have always found his surveys lacking integrity.
Yes there is the occasional modern subdivision or survey that is difficult to follow for one reason or another. But if "Modern subdivisions are just as likely to have similar discrepancies as older," something is wrong, and that should be the exception not the rule. Maybe it is time to call out your unscrupulous surveyor. Hopefully your board is more aggressive than mine in culling out poor practitioners. Thanks for the discussion, Jp
Francis, after looking at your plan I am curious, do you really publish ground shots to the nearest millimeter?
I have one more comment, about your plat. You do not seem to describe your monuments. (Maybe your legend is cut off) We often describe ours. Please note the Witness trees, and monument descriptions. This leaves a PLAIN set of footprints for the next surveyor.
Another thing that comes to mind, is you do not show what you held, and what you USED to determine that certain monuments on your survey are "off". I would think that if you Rejected a monument, you should also say why. I often say and show why. Also, I try to show the pedigree of monuments. I have EVEN rejected my own monument, set on a previous survey, because I have personal knowledge that a particular monument was disturbed.
Again, thanks for sharing your plat. (Albeit, the truncated version!)
Nate
Mr Francis, you measure distance to MM, but you only turn your angles to the nearest minute? Why are you so picky on the distance away but not the bearing away? I know these are short runs, but if tight measurements matter...
Francis, after looking at your plan I am curious, do you really publish ground shots to the nearest millimeter?
Your TS measures distance to the nearest mm, these are your actual raw data. Why not use them in your plat? Your level run using a digital level records elevations in mm, why not use them in your plat?
Strange that you are worried about my mm yet are not concerned about your discrepancies in monument are in the ft. ayyy caramba!!!
I have one more comment, about your plat. You do not seem to describe your monuments. (Maybe your legend is cut off) We often describe ours. Please note the Witness trees, and monument descriptions. This leaves a PLAIN set of footprints for the next surveyor.
aside from the plan, we also have a set of written survey report that mentions all the reference points, GPS reference used, tie marker monument, benchmark references. these are filed together with the plan. in short the plan is just a visual representation.
Here, surveyors, engineers, construction have no use for a hardcopy plan. we all rely on the CAD files with all of ita layers - point, description, elevation, etc. the hardcopy usually goes to a govt agency for filing and to the client for him to feel that he paid me for something tangible.
Another thing that comes to mind, is you do not show what you held, and what you USED to determine that certain monuments on your survey are "off". I would think that if you Rejected a monument, you should also say why. I often say and show why.
I think I held 3 of the corners based on the plat. I showed their discrepancies due to wall thickness. In short the actual corner points are within the thickness of the wall itself so position of the walls are correct and any errors are due to construction leeway. in short no harm done during construction.
Nate, I read your corner report, and I think 3 or 4 of them, you can't even say if you used them or not. You kept on saying "further research should be done into local history.." what's the use of putting that on the plat? it just show to the reader like me how indecisive you are about your survey. you either make your conclusions in black/white then sign your name. none of that "I think this may be correct but I am not sure". the owner could have guessed it by himself. that' reason why he hired a surveyor so he could get definite answers.
Mr Francis, you measure distance to MM, but you only turn your angles to the nearest minute? Why are you so picky on the distance away but not the bearing away? I know these are short runs, but if tight measurements matter...
it's because the title only reflects bearings to nearest minutes. it's not me who decided to round off to nearest minute.
[USER=10211]@FrancisH[/USER]
How do you decide which monuments are in the correct place?
Has every monument in the country been given location values?
What are these values based upon?
Without these questions being answered that there is system in place for every monument's location to have a specific known location, how can anyone decide what is right and what is wrong?
All I can say is I know more than a few farmers who will kick your a$$ if you cross a fence that they built many years ago with their grandpa and set a rebar in their pasture. I don't think they care what the distance is. The boundary is where it's always been. Interesting thread.
I don't think they care what the distance is. The boundary is where it's always been.
honestly, that system lends itself to land grabbing activities. what if your adjoining lot is too vast and owner rarely checks on one of his faraway corner. his neighbor could move it a little bit at a time. 1 ft every few months. since everyone relies on actual monuments as being legal boundaries then if the line in question is several hundred feet long, just imagine area lost if one corner is moved 1 foot every few months.
and if the aggrieved owner gets one of you as his surveyor to check, you will report that that's the way it is.
Jp7191, post: 396798, member: 1617 wrote: Yes there is the occasional modern subdivision or survey that is difficult to follow for one reason or another. But if "Modern subdivisions are just as likely to have similar discrepancies as older," something is wrong, and that should be the exception not the rule. Maybe it is time to call out your unscrupulous surveyor. Hopefully your board is more aggressive than mine in culling out poor practitioners. Thanks for the discussion, Jp
Well maybe not or damn well shouldn't be "just as likely" but
Jp7191, post: 396798, member: 1617 wrote: Yes there is the occasional modern subdivision or survey that is difficult to follow for one reason or another. But if "Modern subdivisions are just as likely to have similar discrepancies as older," something is wrong, and that should be the exception not the rule. Maybe it is time to call out your unscrupulous surveyor. Hopefully your board is more aggressive than mine in culling out poor practitioners. Thanks for the discussion, Jp
HAND SLAP
Jp7191, post: 396798, member: 1617 wrote: Yes there is the occasional modern subdivision or survey that is difficult to follow for one reason or another. But if "Modern subdivisions are just as likely to have similar discrepancies as older," something is wrong, and that should be the exception not the rule. Maybe it is time to call out your unscrupulous surveyor. Hopefully your board is more aggressive than mine in culling out poor practitioners. Thanks for the discussion, Jp
Well you're correct. "Just as likely" maybe an over statement. But it does occur. Either by mistake or malious. And the rules that govern and have governed for 200 years still apply. And should apply once the first owner relies on the monuments to mark their land.
In regards to the board. Hand Slap!!!
Francis, you are killin me, with comments like #197 above!!
Now, on to a reply to post 193 above.
The answer to the issues you raised are visable to a USA surveyor, but not someone who is, shall we say,.... unaware.
I YIELDED to the C-1/4 cor as found, and I yielded to the CW-1/16. (This would be the northeast and northwest corners of the NE1/4-SW1/4. I COULD have just finished my survey without SHOWING the shape and tie lines, of Section 21.
There is a local surveyor, who is TOTALLY minimalistic. He could potentially tie into one, or two of the markers shown on my survey, and then USE the rest of my published data, and BASE his work, on one of the corners, I show as needing further investigation. I wish to warn that guy not to do this. IF he wants to rely on my work, he does it at his own risk, and peril. IF I do another survey, and now NEED one of those corners that are "Flagged for further investigation", I will DO that investigation, and when my John Henry goes on the plat, it will be my professional opinion. Showing tie line, that is solid in the Northings, but not necessarily solid in the Eastings, is part of what is going on here. Any body who wishes to call me, can, and I can share more. However, I do now wish to become the foundation of somebody else's willingness to to "Take from the table" without putting some back.
Thanks for your comments. I find this conversatio... gotta go!
