So until that time we must l8ve with the musings of a sad fractured concept from someone tooting their own horn.
well 90% of the world rely on accurate measurements for their boundary surveys. all of asean nations have a torrens system or similar to it that describes a lot's boundary down to the cm level. china started their modern cadastral system only in 1980s.
the only countries that I can think of that have ambiguous lot boundaries are located in central africa. someone told me that lions still mark their hunting boundaries by scrapping their their asses on the ground.
good news is that the lion surveyors can sniff those corners without the use of any gps/total stations!
[MEDIA=youtube]ZQkVNDYJhpw[/MEDIA]
It's that difference between a common law nation and a civil law nation once again.
All those Asian nations with "better" cadastral systems are much less concerned with individual rights and human rights in general.
Our system respects the individual and that's why we work at preserving it.
All those Asian nations with "better" cadastral systems are much less concerned with individual rights and human rights in general.
Our system respects the individual and that's why we work at preserving it.
WHAT????
your country respects the individual so it makes it makes it harder for individual neighbors to determine where their common boundary lines are located?
asian countries are less concerned about human rights???so it makes it easier for individuals to mark & guard their boundaries based on written records that agree with ground markers.....OK...not sure where human rights come in except that one of the basic human rights is the Right to Own Things. I think owning a piece of land can be under this human right.
And in order to own a piece of land, the landowner must know where is his piece of land on the ground right?it has to conform with what is written on the deed and not have it change every time his neighbors question it.
I think you have better visit asian countries like Japan, Singapore, HK, Malaysia, Philippines and see what human rights are you talking about.
FrancisH, post: 397830, member: 10211 wrote: And in order to own a piece of land, the landowner must know where is his piece of land on the ground right?it has to conform with what is written on the deed and not have it change every time his neighbors question it.
I know I said I was done, but the above statement just drives home the point all of us, except Mr Francis, have been trying to make. Without the monuments, how does anyone know where ON THE GROUND the piece of land is? A deed can call the piece of land to be out of the southwest quarter of section 194 T & P RR Blk Y all day, but without monuments, where the hell is Block Y? And if you have a surveyor come in and say Block Y starts at his rebar here because he measured from the center of the road in 1920, but the next surveyor comes in and says no, Block Y starts at the stone mound over there that he knows ties to the corner of A S & F RR Block 1, wouldn't the difference between the two surveyors be making the two neighbors change their lines everytime a surveyor came out with a different starting point than the original monument? If you hold the original monuments, then no matter what distance you refine down to, the amount of land between them stays the same piece of land it always was. The amount on paper may change due to better measurements being done with better accuracy machines, but the land is the same physical size it always was. Unless someone comes along and tries to make the land fit the deed, then all of a sudden all the land that touches this property has mistakes in acreage, and deed lines, because the physical size of the property has now been changed, making overlaps or gaps between neighbors.
Francis, Think about it. SOMEBODY BEFORE YOU had to define things. THEN you can survey the way you do.
We are that "Somebody before you". And, sometimes we get to wear the hat you wear.
We wear BOTH, and you are experienced with one. Apples, and Oranges.
You don't play one against the other.
You should not use tools beyond your training.
You should not take on jobs, that are beyond your expertise.
This does not mean that they don't exist. Put on your big boy pants, and open you mind. There is MORE in this game, than your take.
Nate
Seb, post: 397809, member: 7509 wrote: I have found this discussion very interesting. Tasmania is basically in between the two sides here (but probably closer to the Singapore end).
We have our share of the old surveys where occupation and old monuments rule. We have our share of conveyances (what you call deeds) where the title is described by words and the dimensions used in these conveyances are usually close to the truth but sometimes significantly different and so usually are only used as a guide.
What we do have is a system that stopped accepting conveyances a number of decades back and only accepts accurate surveys as the basis for new titles. We also have a system that every time a corner is marked, survey notes should be prepared for the Land Titles Office to be on the public record so all other surveyors can see what has happened in the past and it is rare to find undocumented corner marks in the field. We also have a rule that all surveys since 2005 have had to be coordinated and on grid datum.
Basically we are moving away from the USA system towards the SG system. Over time the cadastre is constantly being fixed, one survey at a time. Whilst some say we are slowly doing ourselves out of a job as is becomes easier and easier to establish a boundary location, I am happy with this. We live in a constantly changing world and we are using the modern technology available to improve the cadastre, which reduces complexity and uncertainly over boundary location and which improves the situation for the general public.
After all, the general public are the most important thing to consider. I do not understand non recording systems. If I survey a boundary, I have a duty to consider both sides of it (as we all do I hope) and part of the recording process is to protect the adjoining land owner who is not my client. If the plans, etc, etc just sit on a hard drive in one surveyors computer, it makes the adjoining land owner's job a lot more difficult to understand things when a survey next door should improve understanding and reduce uncertainty.
Keep up the discussion all. I enjoy hearing about how other systems work and even though this one seems a bit fractious at times, it has been very interesting and educational.
As an aside, if someone wants some bed time reading take a look here for our applicable case law ( http://dpipwe.tas.gov.au/Documents/FHoogesteger-11.2010.pdf http://dpipwe.tas.gov.au/Documents/FHoogesteger-11.2010.pdf ).
Great post! After reading the back and forth arguments raised on this forum dealing with surveying in America I too think we should move to a system that "Over time the cadastre is constantly being fixed, one survey at a time." for the publics sake. There are too many poor practitioners in America that are hiding behind the complicated land system used in America. I just see it becoming more complicated if we don't change our path. Very few can afford the court system to exercise their property rights. Thomas Jefferson had it right when he invented the PLSS, but it has been going downhill since that system was essentially finished, except for a few acceptations like the Map and Survey acts in California, and Recording and subdividing laws we have in place in a few states. My 2 cents, Jp
Monte, post: 397841, member: 11913 wrote: I know I said I was done, but the above statement just drives home the point all of us, except Mr Francis, have been trying to make. Without the monuments, how does anyone know where ON THE GROUND the piece of land is? A deed can call the piece of land to be out of the southwest quarter of section 194 T & P RR Blk Y all day, but without monuments, where the hell is Block Y? And if you have a surveyor come in and say Block Y starts at his rebar here because he measured from the center of the road in 1920, but the next surveyor comes in and says no, Block Y starts at the stone mound over there that he knows ties to the corner of A S & F RR Block 1, wouldn't the difference between the two surveyors be making the two neighbors change their lines everytime a surveyor came out with a different starting point than the original monument? If you hold the original monuments, then no matter what distance you refine down to, the amount of land between them stays the same piece of land it always was. The amount on paper may change due to better measurements being done with better accuracy machines, but the land is the same physical size it always was. Unless someone comes along and tries to make the land fit the deed, then all of a sudden all the land that touches this property has mistakes in acreage, and deed lines, because the physical size of the property has now been changed, making overlaps or gaps between neighbors.
Me too....I keep wanting to leave this thread and get drawn back in. Good point Monte. You have a Licensed Land Surveyor set a monument to memorialize the corner on the ground, visibly, so the client (and adjoiners) can use it. If it's going to change every time another surveyor comes out, then you should just be setting lath for the corners, since it's kind of a floating target. Put a disclaimer on your plat what other three corners this is based on, and that if another surveyor finds better corners, your locations are subject to change.
Tom Adams, post: 397859, member: 7285 wrote: ....I keep wanting to leave this thread and get drawn back in..
Trying to discuss US boundary principles with a someone that only has eyes for what he knows is like arguing the color of the sky with Ray Charles.
Francis, are you licenced in Singapore?
aliquot, post: 397865, member: 2486 wrote: Francis, are you licenced in Singapore?
It's actually about 1 AM Wednesday morning in Singapore right now. I bet Francis is taking a nap...not that he'd answer your question anyway.
The following link turned up using my google-fu.
No Francis in there assuming that's his real name. Judging from his open mind and inquisitive nature I would highly doubt it. Of course I stand to be corrected, not that I really care that much at this point.
Just because I'm paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get me.
I'm like a "moth to a flame".
I too keep getting drawn back in.
Deed Stakers vs Preservationists.
Classic.
Mapman, post: 397882, member: 6096 wrote: I'm like a "moth to a flame".
I too keep getting drawn back in.
Deed Stakers vs Preservationists.
Classic.
I agree. I kind of don't like the term "Deed Stakers" used for people who only respect the precise math. (I mean I get it and I don't make a big issue of it). Still if you are staking the "deed" you are trying to ascertain the original intent of the deed. And the point being in relation to this thread, you need to look @ all the evidence that may point to where that original deed points which should include fences and other field evidence. But sorry. I digress.
You're right in that we've had this conversation many times before. I am surprised more of our American surveyors haven't come up in favor of the math ruling over all else. I wonder if they've quit coming to this site.
[SARCASM]There are some that believe they can measure better than anyone else and then they go on to defend their math is better than anyone too..........[/SARCASM]
Every tract in the US is out of place by somebody's definition of the correct location. Thus, we would have to start all over. It would make sense that the very first thing to do is create some unalterable definition of the external boundaries of the US. That would take about 20 years. Next, I suppose, would come the unalterable definition of all state boundaries. There goes another 40 years. Heaven only knows how to "fix" the Colonial states. The PLSS would need to revert to day one of the very first establishment of the very first version of the PLSS somewhere in Ohio. Once the seventy-three versions in Ohio are ironed out it would be time to redetermine the "true" location of the numerous initial points with the associated baselines and meridians. I'm sure we are up to at least 2116 by that point.
The Surveyors' Perpetual Employment Act.
Somehow, I think that FrancisH has the flavor of an EIT. Engineer in Training.
Maybe his background is in that direction. Ie, like an architect. An architect is one who would design something, and then get fuming mad, when a survey came in, showing different dimensions. He is the one who could develop this... shall we say, animosity?
Cursed surveyor. I designed that building to go on a parcel of ____ shape, and now it won't fit....
Hmmm just musing here.
N
Nate The Surveyor, post: 397941, member: 291 wrote: Somehow, I think that FrancisH has the flavor of an EIT. Engineer in Training....Hmmm just musing here. N
You're too kind. I get the impression he is from some mixed cultural background that has fueled within him some great push-pull between differing ideologies...with some daddy issues and a failed attempt at higher education thrown in there. And there's also the apparent fact that he can't find anybody to hang out with at night in a city of 5.4 million other humans...so he trolls the internet looking for groups to antagonize.
But like you I'm just musing....
paden cash, post: 397944, member: 20 wrote: But like you I'm just musing....
;">Down goes Frasier! Down goes Frasier! Down goes Frasier!