After googling Singapore's statues, by all means in the 15 minutes I've allocated to this I'm surely not a well trained veteran, I am perplexed at some of FrancisH's statements. Part III of their Boundaries and Surveys Act of 1998 for instance. Section 12(5) of their Map act of 1998 for instance would allude that there ARE provisions for considering occupation under certain circumstances. I'm also not finding the 3 control point check requirement, but again, only spent 15 minutes on this, might be overlooking it:).
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.
Reason is I am retired (or tired - same thing). But being retired does not mean that you immediately forget what you learned through all these years.
After googling Singapore's statues, by all means in the 15 minutes I've allocated to this I'm surely not a well trained veteran, I am perplexed at some of FrancisH's statements.
It's because you are referring to the Cadastre Act, after lots are surveyed under the cadastre act, it becomes either private or public and are guided thenceforth by the approved cadastre map whose integrity is accepted as final.
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.
you refer to people having problems with their boundaries as being related to "Daddy Issues"? You who practice land surveying by not using a TS/GPS and asking the owner where he thinks his boundary lies and signing his name based on this history story telling report?
here it's called a SCAM, getting money from other people and not doing anything.
Owner - I need to have my lot surveyed to determine by correct boundary.
Surveyor - OK.....where do you think it is at the moment? Can you show it to me?
Owner - Ok, it's somewhere there over them yonder trees, you can find some kind of bottlecap there near the roor of the tree. It looks old. Not sure too if some kid just nailed it to the tree.
Surveyor - OK. Based on what you told me where you think your boundary lies and the fact there is a rusted bottlecap there and since no one can prove that's its not a corner then I have to say that that is where your corner is. My bill is $1000 for services rendered.
Owner - Ok............$1000? But I showed you where my corner was, I am not sure which is reason why I hired you. If you are going to say that's my corner based on what I think is my corner then WHY the hell did I hire you in the first place???
And this is different from the US system how again?
Comment was intended for your previous post, last one was just plain absurd.
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.
20 years? Really? All existing lots could be tied up to existing GPS control points established by your Land Survey Department. Why not use the existing OPUS to get a national reference position for each corner?
You are a bunch of cry babies.
Booo hoooo, job is too big, job is too difficult, just leave it as it is since we are making more money by having the same client look for different surveyors with each surveyor saying the same thing ----> blame it on the surveyor who did it 200 years ago.....and bill the client repeatedly.
what a great SCAM!!!
And this is different from the US system how again?
Comment was intended for your previous post, last one was just plain absurd.
before Cadastre Act, boudnaries are based on "where you think it is" and "existing fencelines". once it's entered into the cadastral map, you CAN'T move your boundary against existing records. so if you think you lost your corner, it has to be set at the coordinate based on cadastral map/.
FrancisH, post: 397958, member: 10211 wrote: before Cadastre Act, boudnaries are based on "where you think it is" and "existing fencelines". once it's entered into the cadastral map, you CAN'T move your boundary against existing records. so if you think you lost your corner, it has to be set at the coordinate based on cadastral map/.
Boundaries are not based on where you think it is or existing fence lines (without some other evidence) here.
This story is in much the same category as the bogus theory.
Never ending rhetoric of useless purpose just to satisfy an unfinished want to change what exists for what one dreams should exist.
:p
From what little I did read in you code, I didn't interpret that, but, I find the idea of the system interesting, perhaps you can point me in the direction of the relevant code.
Boundaries are not based on where you think it is or existing fence lines (without some other evidence) here.
yeah I stand corrected, as long as there is an old bottlecap within 200ft then that becomes the corner right???
please correct me if I am wrong in this? This is the gist of the Cooley essay right?
From what little I did read in you code, I didn't interpret that, but, I find the idea of the system interesting, perhaps you can point me in the direction of the relevant code.
http://www.sla.gov.sg/Portals/0/Circulars/att/LS/csc-S/e/CS-Cir-1-2006.pdf
Francis,
You seem to have developed a cynical view of dire straights vis a vis boundary issues in the U.S. based on a surveyors' forum. That's a bit myopic. We don't post very much about the vast majority of well executed, run of the mill jobs. Our focus, naturally, is on the head - scratcher projects. With the myriad of local practices to contend with in recreating established boundaries, we share our :hallenges with those of like sensibilities.
As you point out, this is an international forum, and it is satisfying to compare and contrast our approaches.
I'm glad to hear that you are enjoying retirement. I've been at this for 40 years, and learn more every day.
Cheers!
FrancisH, post: 397962, member: 10211 wrote: yeah I stand corrected, as long as there is an old bottlecap within 200ft then that becomes the corner right???
No, that would not be correct.
No, that would not be correct.
so what's the radius then? 100ft? 50ft?
so who is to say that 200ft would be a blunder? the neighbor? the owner? the surveyor?
from what i gather the surveyor won't say it's a blunder. for one he did not use his total station in the survey. he jut relied on what the 2 neighbors told him.
and also, if a bottle cap was there then some surveyor placed it there in the past 200 years so it must be CORRECT even if there were no bottle caps yet 200 years ago!!!
Thank you, but this opinion appears to deal with encroachments as opposed to profession judgement, or code solidifying comments you have purported to be fact, is there applicable code or legal opinion?
FrancisH, post: 397967, member: 10211 wrote: so what's the radius then? 100ft? 50ft?
so who is to say that 200ft would be a blunder? the neighbor? the owner? the surveyor?
from what i gather the surveyor won't say it's a blunder. for one he did not use his total station in the survey. he jut relied on what the 2 neighbors told him.
and also, if a bottle cap was there then some surveyor placed it there in the past 200 years so it must be CORRECT even if there were no bottle caps yet 200 years ago!!!
Nothing you wrote here is an accurate representation of U.S. boundary surveying practice.
Wherever it is you are really from sounds like they have pretty piss-poor surveying practices, in other words, takes one to know one.
Thank you, but this opinion appears to deal with encroachments as opposed to profession judgement, or code solidifying comments you have purported to be fact, is there applicable code or legal opinion?
the code is the Cadastral Act - refer to :
Map to be conclusive evidence
13.ÛÓ(1) Every map published under the repealed Act shall, until it has been declared to be superseded under section 7(f), be conclusive evidence in all courts of the boundaries of the land comprised in every land shown therein, subject only to any order made under section 12 for their modification, correction or alteration.
[37/2004]
(2) Upon a declaration under section 7(f), every map generated from the co-ordinated cadastre shall be conclusive evidence in all courts of the boundaries of the land comprised in every land shown therein, subject only to any order made under section 12 for their modification, correction or alteration.
In summary, you have to hold something as being FINAL, in this case it's the Description.
In your case, you don't want to change monuments or description so nothing is FINAL, it will just keep on jumping from monument to deed to monument to deed depending on which surveyor does the survey.
FrancisH, post: 397971, member: 10211 wrote: the code is the Cadastral Act - refer to :
Map to be conclusive evidence
13.ÛÓ(1) Every map published under the repealed Act shall, until it has been declared to be superseded under section 7(f), be conclusive evidence in all courts of the boundaries of the land comprised in every land shown therein, subject only to any order made under section 12 for their modification, correction or alteration.
[37/2004]
(2) Upon a declaration under section 7(f), every map generated from the co-ordinated cadastre shall be conclusive evidence in all courts of the boundaries of the land comprised in every land shown therein, subject only to any order made under section 12 for their modification, correction or alteration.In summary, you have to hold something as being FINAL, in this case it's the Description.
In your case, you don't want to change monuments or description so nothing is FINAL, it will just keep on jumping from monument to deed to monument to deed depending on which surveyor does the survey.
But sir, your reference yields to section 12 which I referenced before, it would appear that your code does allow for professional judgement and not simply math calc, by your own reference.................
:sleeping:
The link I followed led me to a memo that basically said if a private property encroached onto a state property, the private property owner had to have his problem fixed. That doesn't seem to fit with what I thought we were talking about.
