When we retrace prior surveys, yes, we measure more precisely - but to the place where it has always been.
Again this is where you are missing the surveying side of your work.
HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT THE EXISTING MONUMENT WAS NOT MOVED FROM A POINT AS DESCRIBED IN THE DEED?
You are assuming that a found monument is ALWAYS CORRECT. In short there are no blunders done in any past surveys in the USA?
No errors in surveying even if these were done by non surveying professionals?
Francis,
Don't you read entire posts? The question you ask was addressed in the same paragraph.
Maybe this will help. If not, I'm finished with the stubbornness. In Kentucky I have retraced a survey that quite literally called for paces (150 paces in a south-easterly direction to a stone at a wooden post).
Now when I go to remeasure that, how do you propose that I do this? It is up a hill that is a 5% slope. Should I pretend that this person has a perfect 3 foot stride and took into account slope distances? I measure, with my centimeter accurate GPS, to 450 feet and nothing, not even a fence. So then I backtrack and start over and I count my paces with the terrain of the land and voila, I am within 3 paces of the stone at the wooden post. Maybe the person writing the deed was 6'5" or maybe he was 5'2". Who knows, but those items affect his stride.
So do I held his measurement or the monument along with the evidence of the post and ancient fencing heading to it?
There were urban surveyors in Louisville that couldn't measure 100' within 1 foot, I swear it. I can find two corners that they set and check a 10' building tie within 1/2" all of the way around it, but the monuments measure out an entire foot! Why? Because they were awful! Their house ties are good because they directly occupied the monuments and held a tape/level rod sideways to get the house ties. I know that I found the monuments because of the house ties, which in turn will prove that they remain undisturbed.
It's not that we assume, and hold, every pin that we find. We just prove to ourselves that the ones we find are original and undisturbed by checking ties, bearing trees, curb cuts, etc.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
ÛÏNever argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.Û
He's just baiting you all. Let him believe the world is flat if he likes. It's not my job to convince him any differently.
Don't you read entire posts? The question you ask was addressed in the same paragraph.
The 1870 ruling was to cover all previous inaccurate surveys. It should not cover all surveys made after it using improved cm accurate technology.
Are you now saying there were NO NEW SURVEYS after Cooley's essay?
It's like present doctors cutting off your foot because of gangrene because this was what doctors 200 years ago did. You see, today we have antibiotics for those.
You're absolutely right. It's unassailable logic. I'll be turning in my license in the morning.
OK, lets look at it another way.
Are you Francis Heen? Who is Francis Heen?
I'm Nathaniel Dearyan PLS 1254, State of Arkansas.
What's your License number? What kind of legal system of activities are required for licensure in ... where you practice. Is is Singapore China?
Let's drop the small talk, and do a few introductions.
Kinda make me feel better.
Nate
I was unaware of this cm accuracy between 1870 and now. I am sure a surveyor in 1945 would have loved to have cm accuracy with everyone of his measurements.
I mean I can set my cm grade GPS up, apply a scale factor and still miss it by more than a cm with my fancy smancy 1" Leica MS60.
I must be doing it all wrong too.
Warren, I'm with you. I'm turning in my license tomorrow morning. Wanna meet up afterwards and celebrate? [emoji322]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
FrancisH, post: 399659, member: 10211 wrote: It's like present doctors cutting off your foot because of gangrene because this was what doctors 200 years ago did. You see, today we have antibiotics for those.
Yes, and over use of antibiotics has created large problems with drug-resistant bugs; very similar to today's substitution of expert measurin' for professional land surveying.
Here, here, Gene.
Yes, and over use of antibiotics has created large problems with drug-resistant bugs; very similar to today's substitution of expert measurin' for professional land surveying.
You know what the reverse scenario is?
A present doctor who still rely on voodoo and witch medicine to cure his patients.
In a sense very similar to you present professional surveyors.
Actually FrancisH, there are numerous examples of cm-level accuracy done by U.S. [Deputy] Mineral Surveyors back in the "old" days. I doubt that many surveyors today could match their work using a Gurley Light Mountain transit and a 500 foot steel tape in mountainous terrain.
Triangulation networks were established in 1880 in the Central City/Black Hawk and Idaho Springs mining districts. The Central City Triangulation network has over 80 stations, several of which I have found. When I reduced my static GPS observations I found some "minor" discrepancies in the original triangulation network. That is until it dawned on me that the old surveyors had reduced the distances to sea level, which was the practice in the time.
So spare me your false indignation about poorly measured surveys of yore. Besides, you must have been told (repeatedly) by now that original, undisturbed monuments are without error. And to yank you out of the mire of obsessing over some 1870s law, I will post a much later law (1904) for you to gnash your teeth on later this evening.
Where did you learn surveying, Mr. FrancisH?
What is your surveyor number?
Ok so I've been reading this for a while now and hopefully I see both sides of the argument.
The way I see it (in all my ignorance),the US,has a plattting/cadastre/deed system where US surveyors are using cm accurate equipment to retrace/find monuments (hopefully undisturbed/original) based on deed. But the deed dimensions and bearings were sometimes done by some random person (attorney). I can understand accuracy levels in 1850 were different then now,but in a previous post in was mentioned as a boundary being measured by paces? I mean thats just absurd. If in 1845 best available practise was using a chain or tape to survey boundaries,how could someone be allowed to monument a property using paces? Thats like me doing a subdivision and forgetting my GPS/TS and just saying "well my paces are about 1,00m apart,I'll just pace the 120m line using the sun as North". It might be the expection that happened there but still.
I mean in South Africa my property tax is based on my property size (in my case 1180m2) and value of house based on house floorarea which is about 220m2. The title deed area is based on what my property dimensions are, based on the general plan or maybe the eventual subdivision. I would be really pissed if I am paying taxes on a 1180m2 property only to later see that well actually the deed and plat differ,and after gettung a syrveyor to re-monument my property and he finds the originals so actually according to the monuments found my area is only 500m2 (extreme example). It means that I have been paying proprty tax on land I dont own. Or the reverse might be true.
Yes you do have a vast landmass. And yes moving everything would be a mess. But would it not be possible to say that OK I found this properties monument and yes it doesnt agree with the deed or plat. But I found all the original monuments to the best of my knowledge and experience, so let re-submit these (new plat and deed refers to plat) so in 100 years atleast the next guy doesnt have to dig random holes 100ft in the wrong place,when I've already done that? If you've done it,why let the next guy do it again? I understand the monument takes precendece (is that the right spelling?) but what if all the monuments are lost 5years after you did the survey,and the next guy cant find any evidence,so he uses the old bad deed data and then everything between neighbours gets messed up. Over here I always look for the most probable place where a monument mught have been placed based on age of survey and possible distubance etc etc. But I have never found monuments out by something like 100ft. Maybe 2m or 3m at most but then its on mountains or deep valleys when the monuments were placed in 1880. Nothing in the 10m range ever,never mind 100ft.
From what I have seen some states record and other dont. Thats a weird law to me. My point is that I think the Singapore system might have place and going back to fix everything is impossible. But going forward can the found and confirmed monuments not be used to start fixing the system. It might take years but its like eating an elephant,little bit at a time. It just seems odd that you might find the original data but the documents and the ground info dont agree,even after a survey has been done.
Not looking for a fight,merely trying to fully understand the situation.
Thanks
Dirk from Africa
Sent from my SM-N920C using Tapatalk
Dirk
You have it. Monuments hold. We update existing feeds/records in hopes of fixing the mess.
We surveyors are trying to record and update the cadastre system as time moves along. Every state has different laws on recording surveys so nothing is fixed from state to state.
I have had very large discrepancies in acreage 30 or more acres. This is why buyers are encouraged to get a survey when buying property. To avoid paying extra taxes and to ensure yourself of what you are buying.
Thanks for reading everyone's posts and taking the time to understand it.
It is much appreciated.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I realize that I'm late to the game arguing with FrancisH, but hey, it is the longest thread.
I only deal with mineral surveys in Colorado Francis, so I'll keep my comments to that oddity of U.S. surveying. I didn't invent the U.S. land tenure system, but I am licensed to work within it. You likely don't understand the concept that monuments control over course and distance here. It is paramount in importance to retracing mineral surveys.
Back in 1899, a person not unlike yourself decided that the patent description of mineral lands was to be held over pesky monuments. Sadly, he was the General Land Office Commissioner, so his decision was held. After five years of this idiotic policy, the U.S. Congress was lobbied by the mining industry to pass legislation to end this, "evil foisted upon the mining industry". The Act of April 28, 1904 is only two paragraphs long, but it succinctly summarizes the legal principle that monuments control over course and distance (at least here in the U.S.). Here is the text of the Act (in two quotes).
A bill (H. R. 13298) to amend section 2327 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, relating to lands.
Be it enacted, etc., That section 2327 of the Revised Statutes of the United States be, and the same is hereby, amended to read as follows:"SEC. 2327. The description of vein or lode claims upon surveyed lands shall designate the location of the claims with reference to the lines of the public survey, but need not conform therewith: but where patents have been issued for claims upon unsurveyed lands, the surveyors-general, in extending the public survey, shall adjust the same to the boundaries of said patented claims so as in no case to interfere with or change the true location of such claims as they are officially established upon the ground. Where patents have issued for mineral lands, those lands only shall be segregated and shall be deemed to be patented which are bounded by the lines actually marked, defined, and established upon the ground by the monuments of the official survey upon which the patent grant is based and surveyors-general in executing subsequent patent surveys, whether upon surveyed or unsurveyed lands, shall be governed accordingly.
The said monuments shall at all times constitute the highest authority as to what land is patented, and in case of any conflict between the said monuments of such patented claims and the descriptions of said claims in the patents issued therefor the monuments on the ground shall govern, and erroneous or inconsistent descriptions or calls in the patent descriptions shall give way thereto.
Please pay particular attention to the second paragraph (in boldface). Now, if I can hold your hand for a minute please consider that the term "patent" is synonymous with "deed" for the sake of further discussion. Please also note that the first paragraph includes this, "Where patents have issued for mineral lands, those lands only shall be segregated and shall be deemed to be patented which are bounded by the lines actually marked, defined, and established upon the ground by the monuments of the official survey upon which the patent grant is based".
I will close by attaching the Dept. of Interior Land Decision, Sinnott v. Jewett (33 L.D. 91), issued July 12, 1904. It is a bit long at 11 pages, but it unequivocally and repeatedly states that monuments control over course and distance! In fact, it is the favorite Land Decision of the author of the 2009 Manual of Instructions. Please pay particular attention to the last full paragraph on Page 4 of the PDF file (quoted below). We don't have a perfect system here, but somehow we are able to make it work.
The principle is thus stated to be settled and universal, that where boundaries of a tract are described in the conveyance thereof by courses and distances and by reference to natural objects or fixed and known artificial monuments, the latter element controls in the event of disagreement between the two. No authorities to the contrary are cited by counsel for the Silver Monument applicant (apellee here), and none exist so far as the Department is able to ascertain.
If you are interested, I wrote an article on the Sinnott v. Jewett Land Decision entitled, "The Sanctity of Monuments" in the journal Side Shots published by the Professional Land Surveyors of Colorado in their August 2009 issue. Part of my research for the article was a site visit where I located 13 stone corners with cm-level accuracy (RTK GPS) to prove the idiocy of the prior GLO policy of "staking the deed"! http://www.plsc.net/docs/SSAug09.pdf
I was a bit amused (and pleased) to see the article reprinted by the Florida Surveying and Mapping Society in their December 2012 issue of "The Florida Surveyor". Most of my mineral surveys have more relief than all of Florida. 🙂
It might take years but its like eating an elephant,little bit at a time.
US surveyors don't want to eat the elephant, they want to gnaw here, gnaw there then spit it out again. That way, they will always have an elephant to gnaw on and they can blame the guy who shot it for the smelly carcass on their lawn.
Every aspect of the surveying profession has improved over the years. CAD from pencil drafting; GPS from transit/chain; even transportation have improved - 4WD from horses and yet the surveyors from the country that developed all these wonderful innovations, can't get their act together to improve on their land boundary system!!!
[USER=10211]@FrancisH[/USER]
There is no direct correlation between smelly carcass, doctors, 4WD vehicles, horses, vodoo and all your other vain examples used in an attempt to discredit surveying in the USA.
It is obvious that your continued devil's advocate against our profession actually stresses on the fact you really need to stay in your own element and live on your island and contain yourself to the facts of why you believe the current system in Singapore is a success without pointing your finger over the pond.
Around here, it would be common to comment that you are asking for an ass whuppin'.
Getting into an argument as to whether you accept or don't accept monuments verges on the ridiculous. Everyone who says that math trumps over monuments is placing their corners based on monuments. Maybe they don't accept the existing lot corner, because they are accepting the "point of commencement" over that, but now they are accepting the point of commencement. If that point has been moved, you don't know it. If there is a new or moved "point of commencement" there are, more than likely three or more other monuments that match that math for the wrong POC. Now you can meet the Heen formula to match three other adjacent monuments.
Mr. Heen asks "how do you know the monument you are accepting hasn't moved?" Well....you determine whether the monument is in its original position by a preponderance of the evidence. So you aren't just tying to three monuments on adjacent properties, you are looking @ all the evidence. Old fences that point right to your monument, improvements that appear to adhere to that monument...etc.
And how are you basing your position on 5 shiny new monuments over monuments that have been there a long time? It follows to reason that a monument that has been there for 50 or 100 years might be a better indication of where your point of beginning originally was. Maybe it matches all of the old monuments much closer to withing the magic 2 or 3 cm's or whatever that magic distance-threshold was.
Saying you don't believe in monuments holding over distances and bearings, yet using distances and bearings from monuments is kind of contradictory. At least that's my opinion as a chicken-baby-afraid-of-lawyers-relying-on-old-and-current-law type of person.
But hey...Mr. FrancisH, thanks for bringing Mr. Kooper out from his dungeon to post. Anyone who can do that has my respect. Good do see you posting, Gene.
