Francis,
Any year. These are retracements, and each one is looked at on its own merits. A 10 foot discrepancy in the Sierra Nevada Mountains over 640 acres of an 1860 original survey - meh.
A 5000 square foot lot in a downtown city, sure, a problem.
FrancisH, post: 397306, member: 10211 wrote:
[INDENT]And here I thought that monuments were placed so I would not have to pee at every corner of my lot.[/INDENT]
I still mark my corners, don't you?
Any year. These are retracements, and each one is looked at on its own merits.
Only in America!!!Where there are no survey layout blunders!!!
The monument may not be where I think it's supposed to be but the previous surveyor placed it there so he has good reason for doing so....so it must be valid!!!
Let's use that as the true corner monument regardless of any logic behind its current position!!!
Only in America!!!
So if I was a Mexican living near the US-Mexican border, I would start to place old looking monuments around my property because as the Trump Wall is going to be built , a US surveyor will see those monuments and include my property inside of the US territory!!! Immediate integration into the US territory!!!
All with the use of a few monument!!!
FrancisH, post: 397191, member: 10211 wrote: 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?
First of all the "primitive" survey more often than not was performed by the SURVEYOR and Cooley in his time understood the limitations of the survey equipment and the surveyor of the time. What you fail to understand are the limitations of the equipment of our time and I'll bet a lack of the basic mechanics required to achieve the best possible position.
Bottom line is our statutes have been tried and tested ovet 100's of years. Your methods over 25 years or so. Like I said earlier let me know when you have 200 years of statutes governing your system. Not 25 years of a government run system.
Like I said earlier let me know when you have 200 years of statutes governing your system. Not 25 years of a government run system.
Not because something is in effect for past 200 years means that it should go on for the next 200 years.
May I give some examples?
1. Slavery
2. Segregation
3. Women Suffrage
4. Abortion
5. Salem Witch Trials
6. Prohibition
Maybe I will some more as I research into strange US history.
Tom Adams, post: 397201, member: 7285 wrote: 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.
Exactly my point in an earlier posting. i found 5 or 6 corners of adjacent lots on a survey that agreed with each other. The problem was that I was surveying a lot on the outer limits of the subdivision, which if i held all the other point of the subdivision that work mathematically my original outer boundary would have had several fence and building encroachments. upon further investigation of those lots adjoing which were not a part of the subdivision of my lot, I discovered the subdivision had errors to the detriment of my lot. And was short by about 0.20'.
Using the methodology described for Singapore, I should have held the subdivision, because I had at least 3 corners of an adjacent lot that agree and I should have disregard the monuments of the 5 lots that abuted the opposite side of the lot, showed their buildings and fences as encroachments and been on my way. Yeah that will be the day!
Francis,
I'm curious about your use of ad hominem attacks. What on earth vested interest do you have in our collective methods of retracement surveying? We face vastly disparate historic footsteps. Our respective Courts' stare decises lay down what we are to collect, analyze, and report.
I'm impressed with how surveyors in the Colonial States do their research and mapping, as well as those from Louisiana (French civil law), Texas (admitted as a Republic), Alaska and Hawaii (indigenous issues).
The states in which I am licensed have different histories and methods, particularly with respect to water boundaries.
You have heard from a wide range of experts in this field (thank goodness for this forum).
Please consider learning from it, and show some respect and tolerance.
This thread is heading toward the second most commented on, and with good reason.
FrancisH, post: 397315, member: 10211 wrote: Not because something is in effect for past 200 years means that it should go on for the next 200 years.
May I give some examples?1. Slavery
2. Segregation
3. Women Suffrage
4. Abortion
5. Salem Witch Trials
6. ProhibitionMaybe I will some more as I research into strange US history.
What I find interesting is I don't see a Francis anywhere in the list of those registered to survey in Singapore. Unless you are posting as an alias you cannot or have not even met the minimum requirements to gain licensure in a third world country. And your 47 years old.....ha ha ha keep on preaching
Justice MarkieBoy thinks it time for the judicial use of the Ignore button.....
Please consider learning from it, and show some respect and tolerance.
Some of you could also use this advice yourself. My observation comes from a long history from another country.
Why is this forum only for US surveyors? Please point me to where it says only US practices are entertained in this forum.
Justice MarkieBoy thinks it time for the judicial use of the Ignore button.....
And yet you keep on reading and commenting
Wende
FrancisH, post: 397325, member: 10211 wrote: Some of you could also use this advice yourself. My observation comes from a long history from another country.
Why is this forum only for US surveyors? Please point me to where it says only US practices are entertained in this forum.
It doesn't but what we do is try to respect all aspects of surveying without disparaging surveying professionals with differing duties in regards to thier geographic location.
Which quite frankly you have done from the beginning of the thread. And is entirely indicative of your unprofessionalisim. My advice is keep running the total station in Singapore under those more qualified to understand the principles of surveying and professionalism.
And is entirely indicative of your unprofessionalisim
Please review who started the idiot barb.
Here would be my only issue... some (most) of the subdivisions in my area were and are not correctly retraced before subdividing.
When surveying lots in these subdivisions that border other subdivisions, the numbers on the map don't "line up" with the other.
If I surveyed a lot and set a monument and you surveyed the adjoining lot in the other subdivision, you would find my marker outside your tolerance and you would reset it within proper tolerance...to your subdivision numbers.
Then if someone comes back to the lot I did they would find your better one and it wouldn't conform within this lots tolerance and they would move it back.
And it would keep going back and forth.
What then? 2 different lines are monumented and there's a no man's land between?
Honest question bc believe me, around me this is a dilemma in many areas of adjoining subdivisions bc like I said, the retracements are all done by record dimensions.
I find other systems quite interesting and always intriguing to ponder. I don't think the thread is bad, just can do without the talking down and wise talk
Our respectiveCourts' stare decises lay down what we are to collect, analyze, and report.
Again please review your legal 101, decisions are based on previous cases, a new case brought before a court with different circumstances could negate all previous rulings.
You as a surveyor should understand that each encroachment or trespassing case is different and as such will have a different decision. Problem is you use a decision handed in the 1800s and carry it to present day. Circumstances are different 200 years ago.
FrancisH, post: 397337, member: 10211 wrote: Again please review your legal 101, decisions are based on previous cases, a new case brought before a court with different circumstances could negate all previous rulings.
You as a surveyor should understand that each encroachment or trespassing case is different and as such will have a different decision. Problem is you use a decision handed in the 1800s and carry it to present day. Circumstances are different 200 years ago.
Facts may be different but the principles and rules are the same.
Rich., post: 397336, member: 10450 wrote: I find other systems quite interesting and always intriguing to ponder. I don't think the thread is bad, just can do without the talking down and wise talk
Yes sir, I thoroughly enjoy discussions on how surveying is performed worldwide. But being called unprofessional and basically crooks for not following standards from another country and those that haven't been proven in a court of law, rubs me the wrong way.
My utmost concern when boundary surveying is that of my client and ultimately the adjoining owners. And I will do everything in my power to protect their respective interests. Which I believe in the US is common nature among surveyors. Without thought of financial gain. In fact most boundary surveyors in the US will loose money on a job to make sure every interest had been evaluated, before issuing a boundary opinion. Just my experience of course.
Francis,
Cooley ' s opinion in that case relates a guiding principle that is highly relevant today, and will continue to do so in future applicable circumstances. Universal truisms work that way.
Of course, different fact patterns will require the application of appropriate rules of law. To use the vernacular, I am seeing an apples to oranges comparison on your part.
Be careful about picking discrete portions of posters' overall comments. It ignores the meat and potatoes of the content (to mix metaphors).
Dave Karoly, post: 397338, member: 94 wrote: Facts may be different but the principles and rules are the same.
Wrong, principles here are right to exact property bought, right to protect your property from intrusion and trespassing, right to fix your boundary based on tangible description that does not have any ambiguities.
That is not happening today because no surveyor wants to go against ghe tide to fix a flawed dystem.