Apologies in advance to innocent bystanders but this thread is in grave danger of being completely deleted. I've already deleted a few posts, but I'm not gonna sit here all night and cherry pick. I'll just delete the whole thing at some point.
Like what we do here? Donate
Need a new or refreshed website? Five Point Web Solutions
Looking for a web host? Website Hosting & Management
I've been wondering about the veracity of FrancisH. His prior posts seemed innocuous, but this appeared to veer off the tracks ...
Wendell, post: 397178, member: 1 wrote: Apologies in advance to innocent bystanders but this thread is in grave danger of being completely deleted. I've already deleted a few posts, but I'm not gonna sit here all night and cherry pick. I'll just delete the whole thing at some point.
Light it up
The place this post has landed is exactly what is happening on real surveys every day.
I see several surveyors, technicians and rookies that do what FrancisH is saying every year.
I have had to redo the work of some of my previous helpers and associates that stake the deed and ignore the monument.
If anything, this post is bringing this real life horror out in the open.
Have said it before and will say it again "many out there are sitting on the fence about what to do in the real world when they go out to survey something and find it so out of whack, they really want to pull all stakes and fix a century old mess".
Well, the mess is what it is and it is those monuments that control where boundaries are strung across the land today.
Since 1967 I have had the opportunity to follow just about every messed up surveying.
Owners measuring their property off more than called as chainmen for a surveyor, sometimes to even short themselves and sometimes to short others.
People moving newly set monuments as much as several hundred feed to their advantage and doze out evidence and build new fences practically overnight.
Surveyors using aerial photos to survey land.
Non licensed surveyors using a dead mans seal.
Surveyors taking other surveyors caps off and replacing with their own.
Surveyors setting monuments at fence corners and ignoring valid monuments mentioned in record deeds as much as 70ft away and in clear view.
Noting the recording information and never reading any of the descriptions to identify the correct monument and instead using the goat stake many feet away.
Having to defend witness trees and original monuments mentioned in all adjoining deeds against other surveyors who are being paid to say that it could not exist that way.
This list of errors could go on longer.
It simply shows that not everyone cares enough about anyone's interest except their own.
I am just glad that I have met more that would gladly give anyone the help they need to get thru the day.
Many great people out there that would rather suffer themselves than bring any harm to another sole.
I do wish FrancisH any bad, I simply do not agree with him. It may be fine for Singapore as every square centimeter of land is probably worth more than much of the land around NETexas and they have had much more time to get it right.
Imagine the ShoGun that would lop off the arm of whoever measured wrong.
That would tend to bring out the best measurement possible every time.
I found the same apparent similar practice in other places, simply put, in areas that the workers were adept in staying alive against nature, savages and others that wanted what they had and were willing to take it from them, were perhaps less adapt and may have had less time for surveying.
There were times that people were quite pleased with the terms from here to a days ride away is yours and beyond that is mine.
I have people and surveyors that call me most every week that have a problem taking the time to do the work themselves and put together a group of deeds into a connected drawings and would rather want it free from me.
They don't want to pay me money because their old school mate or somebody will do it for them for less.
We all have to eat and all the while keep from being eaten by the fate that we are headed for.
I am simply glad that there is a place like Singapore where no mistakes can be made..........lol.
This was written in 1878, and has been cited with approval by countless other jurisdictions and survey texts as relevant to the application of retracement principles in the United States.
A lot of you have used the Cooley paper to justify what you are saying. One thing seems to escape you with regards to the said paper.
Anyone? anyone? anyone?
It was written in 1878. We are now in 2016. It is 138 years after the fact. He was referring to surveys made prior to his time and as he admitted in his essay, was the fact that main reason for the survey errors are due to survey done by "imperfectly trained surveyors". He was referring to a time when the science of survey was still young in the US and land was cheap that an error of losing 5 or 10 acres compared to the 100 acres remaining does not seem so bad. But surveying technology even in the 1950s was mature enough to avoid the blunders of the 1800s.
The problem with US surveyors is you are using a doctrine that was referring to the time when surveying was in a "primitive" stage for lack of a better word. Surveyors did survey with minimal supervision from higher ups. This is no longer the case for today. You use whatever technology you have today for today's survey.
In the Cooley essay, he mentions that
There are two senses in which the word extinct may be used in this connection: One, the sense of physical disappearance; the other, the sense of loss of all reliable evidence. If the statute speaks of extinct corners in the former sense, it is plain that a serious mistake was made in supposing that surveyors could be clothed with authority to establish new corners by an arbitrary rule in such cases.
So if a corner is physically missing then a surveyor cannot arbitrarily on his own establish the missing corner.
But Cooley goes on to mention the 2nd type of disappearance:
But if by extinct corner is meant one in respect to the actual location of which all reliable evidence is lost, then the following remarks are pertinent:
1. There would undoubtedly be a presumption in such a case that the corner was correctly fixed by the government surveyor where the field notes indicated it to be.
If a corner is not where it is supposed to be located, the present day surveyor has the duty to relocate it based on the deed description of the original survey. You cannot say that his chain was off by 10 feet compared to today. There is no way to determine the error constant for his chain.
So in short the deed description is a basis to locate any wrong/missing monument.
US surveyors are using an essay from 1870s. It's not even an official SC ruling. Yet, you are hiding behind it for the simple fact - you are afraid to sign off your name on a survey that you were paid to do.
A doctor would operate on a patient even if chances are slim for survival. If surveyor are working as doctors, they would refuse to do a prognosis because another doctor before them already made a prognosis.
Underlined, pretty colors and hyperbole...nice touch. Too bad you don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about. None what so ever.
(last time I'm looking at this post)
Ok sorry if I am uneducated in this. Firstly I am not a LS but Engineering Surveyor. I only do cadastral stuff maybe 1 time a week if that much. Please make me understand this. We have a diagram for a property (unless it is a subdivision,that diagram is the general plan of said township).
That diagram states a property is loacted in township X being situated on farm Y and was done by surveyor X in 19... and the will be referneced in some way with either angles and distances,cape datum coords or wgs84 coords (rarely other coords systems). Next township over will be similar,maybe 20 years later and the new township boundaries that are common should start and end at same coords,that surveyor should have found thise previous beacons. So that new township fits the next door. It might be off by 20mm or so but it all fits (mostly).
If I then buy a house my title deed refers to said general plan diagram,which defines my property as being X x Y distance. The distance is X and nothing can change that.
How can the deed and diagram differ? I agree to not move beacons, but if the diagram says my boundary is 100,00m long then is that not final? If I find all 4 oroginal set beacons,but the 100m line is measured as 90m from beacon to beacon then the beacons are wrong? Maybe set wrong,maybe moved, maybe not the original beacons. But if lets say I can with 100% confidense say they are the originals(maybe very unique description or age shows or something) then how are the beacons not wrong?
If my deed refers to diagram and diagrams defines my property as that length then thats what it is
Or am I missing a difference is way stuff is done?
Thanks
Sent from my SM-N920C using Tapatalk
I've enjoyed this thread in an odd sort of way, but I understand why one might want to delete it. I've had this sort of conversation with others. It gets to the point (like in politics) where you want to keep arguing, but know that you will never convince the other guy of what you are saying regardless of the strength of your point, or how well you present it. I'm just hoping it doesn't deteriorate any further.
but know that you will never convince the other guy of what you are saying regardless of the strength of your point, or how well you present it.
you can't be convincing to anyone when your initial concept itself is flawed.
Underlined, pretty colors and hyperbole...nice touch. Too bad you don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about. None what so ever.
but wasn't it you that quoted Cooley?I just looked him up and used another part of his essay to prove my point. why is it that you quote him for your point but say that I have not the slightest idea when I also quote him?
bad logic? or misunderstanding his essay?
Grasshopper, you have proved nothing.
Making a grand statement and expressing a point of view is mere talk and nothing more.
This is a place where the beginnings of what tomorrow will hold are brought to light.
Wendell has given us a soapbox to talk surveying and express our thoughts in the open and among professionals.
Today we work within today's laws and regulations.
Cooley was a Supreme Court Justice and his remarks come from the highest level and that part of our legal system and resound across the BOR of each state and and our mentor's lead for everyone to follow.
The other concepts are simply that, concepts of future thought and not anything set in stone for any to follow today.
Doing so at this time would be beyond the duties of the surveyor.
You can fight your cause in the courtrooms and among others with heart as you wish.
Until the time your quest has made your concept the law of the land, your are simply practicing surveying outside of the existing guidelines and beyond your duties you have sworn to as a licensed surveyor.
What you are preaching may be the way of your land, more voices from your country would give more insight.
We have laws that prevent removing ancient monuments set with the intent they mark the limits of ownership between neighbors because the math does not fit the deed.
There are books on shelves in reference libraries that instruct how to reconstruct the location of where missing monuments fall.
These do not give any instruction to ignore original monuments and move them when the math of a deed differs.
Herein we find ourselves at an impasse sitting between your concept and all other surveyors following "laws of the land".
Francis,
I quoted Cooley from a Michigan Supreme Court case. His point then - and it is still valid - was that when retracing boundaries, math cannot trump evidence of those boundaries. Other State Appellate Courts cite "Diehl v. Zanger" when adjudicating similar cases. As surveyors, we are being instructed in the States we practice how to approach and execute our retracements.
The essay you quoted was an address to a group of Michigan engineers. He was referring to extinct, or missing corner monuments. There is, indeed, a presumption regarding the work of the Contract U.S Deputy Surveyors that, in the absence of extrinsic evidence of the location of a missing corner, the field notes and plat are determinative.
The Manual of Instructions for Public Land surveys has been revised and updated periodically, most recently in 2009. The relevant sections for today's private surveyor relate to retracement principles.
The point I am trying to convey is that it is far better to have a somewhat faulty measurement to where a corner is than a precise measurement to where it isn't. I have seen that quote attributed to a number of illustrious surveyors, but it addresses a longstanding concern about maintaining harmony among dissonant components.
It may be that you have not had to trace any of your clients' or adjoiners' boundaries back in time through multiple subdivisions to a parent parcel of questionable diligence as to monument placement, but this is what U.S. Surveyors do. Who else, after all? The Courts depend on that expertise.
Who else, after all? The Courts depend on that expertise.
Very poor source of expertise. If you as surveyors have enough experience then you as a group whether on state or federal level would have suggested that you cannot have both monuments & deeds correct at the same time when evidence based on today's measurements show there is a discrepancy.
You as a professional surveyor whose main job is to measure the earth cannot turn your back and say monuments are correct. The 2 corners measure 100ft and the deed is also correct as it describe the line between the 2 monuments as 110ft.
The courts base their decisions on positions of those who do it for a living. You cannot have a situation where existing monuments are always correct even if the present surveyor cannot know for certain if it was moved intentionally or not.
You believe that your present system settles disputes between neighbors .But because of the difficulty to prove actual positions of monuments you also place a certain degree of distrust between them. Boundaries are based on where people think they are. Isn't that a silly concept? So a person who inherited a lot and has never lived there will have to trust that his neighbor who he has never met to tell him where his boundary lie? Why can't he turn to his deed description and have a surveyor lay it out based on this written record?This way you rely on a third party who has no interest in both neighbors and thus free to layout boundaries based on a written record?
Also saying that there are precedence in court cases means that it is final means that you have never heard of supreme court reversals?
FrancisH - You really just plain can't get your head around the fact that the laws and methods pertaining to boundary surveying in the US are different from the laws and methods of boundary surveying elsewhere, can you?
Kudos to all the polite and professional posters who tried. Your patience and willingness to assist others, even those who obviously seem to resist assistance, is why I frequent this forum so much.
I just can't see making a match to a minimum of three other monuments your threshold. If you find three monuments that were set erroneously (say from a false point of beginning) your whole boundary survey may be flawed. I think you would find that even more often if the three monuments were set by the same surveyor. I also would guess that I could find a series of monuments where three neighboring monuments matched well with each other, and another surveyor could come along and find some monuments I didn't find, and/or not all of the same exact monuments I did find, and end up in a different position for the same corners I set.
FrancisH, post: 397190, member: 10211 wrote: you can't be convincing to anyone when your initial concept itself is flawed.
Agreed.
I just can't see making a match to a minimum of three other monuments your threshold. If you find three monuments that were set erroneously (say from a false point of beginning) your whole boundary survey may be flawed.
Usually you get 3 points from 3 adjoining lots - left, right, top/bottom lots. The premise being these 3 lots surrounding your lot would not be erroneous at the same time since over time, these were surveyed/resurveyed by different surveyors. If those 3 lots surrounding you are in agreement then your lot won't have any gaps/overlaps with those 3 and you get the same peace from your adjoining neighbors. Only in our country, peace is brought about by actual measurements that agree with deeds. So if any of the 3 neighbors complain, then you show to that neighbor that the position of the lot surveyed was also referenced from a corner of his lot.So if he is saying my survey is erroneous then it also means his lot is erroneous.
You tie your lot to only the lots that abutt your lot? I'm done.
RSAsurv, post: 397188, member: 10950 wrote: Ok sorry if I am uneducated in this. Firstly I am not a LS but Engineering Surveyor. I only do cadastral stuff maybe 1 time a week if that much. Please make me understand this. We have a diagram for a property (unless it is a subdivision,that diagram is the general plan of said township).
That diagram states a property is loacted in township X being situated on farm Y and was done by surveyor X in 19... and the will be referneced in some way with either angles and distances,cape datum coords or wgs84 coords (rarely other coords systems). Next township over will be similar,maybe 20 years later and the new township boundaries that are common should start and end at same coords,that surveyor should have found thise previous beacons. So that new township fits the next door. It might be off by 20mm or so but it all fits (mostly).
If I then buy a house my title deed refers to said general plan diagram,which defines my property as being X x Y distance. The distance is X and nothing can change that.
How can the deed and diagram differ? I agree to not move beacons, but if the diagram says my boundary is 100,00m long then is that not final? If I find all 4 oroginal set beacons,but the 100m line is measured as 90m from beacon to beacon then the beacons are wrong? Maybe set wrong,maybe moved, maybe not the original beacons. But if lets say I can with 100% confidense say they are the originals(maybe very unique description or age shows or something) then how are the beacons not wrong?
If my deed refers to diagram and diagrams defines my property as that length then thats what it is
Or am I missing a difference is way stuff is done?
Thanks
Sent from my SM-N920C using Tapatalk
The basic idea can be illustrated like this:
Your deed begins at a big oak tree on the north side of east-west lane. Thence it proceeds north 500 feet to the center of big river. You go out and find the oak tree, it's marked as the deed stated, a fence heading due north extends to a big bend in the river that sets in a gulch, the river hasn't moved for generations.
You find out that the distance only measures 455 feet.
The deed north of the river also calls out for the river to be the boundary, and if you extend the distance along your line to 500 feet you will be in their pasture.
The legal principal is to hold the oak tree and the river, then the surveyor would report the 500 feet record dimension from the deed and the measured 455 feet that was determined on the ground and show it on his drawing.
The controlling elements for the this line in the deed are the oak, the river, then the direction and finally the distance.
This kinda thing is what surveyors run into all the time, it's up to us to come to our decision on where, in our opinion, that line is, monument it with "newer" monuments such as a witness monument on the line as it projects into the river and report new dimensions and even write a new description if the landowners are so inclined to use one.
The law likes boundaries that can be seen, touched, found and followed on the ground, not so much numbers on a piece of paper.
But clearly other countries have taken a different approach, I'm not saying that it's better or worse, however, I don't follow how old measurements that are clearly substandard gained such authority over monuments that the monuments have to move. Seems like it would be an endless series of takings.
If the true legal standing of unwritten rights of property owners were understood there would be no mess. Unwritten measured distances between established boundaries win over the written time after time. Surveyors have no right to try to influence change in the way property rights are interpreted. Surveyors are licensed to protect property rights. Nothing more and nothing less.