Another ridiculous example of a licensed land surveyor not accepting another licensed land surveyor's monuments. The surveys are only a few years apart in age. I know both surveyors and they work for competing companies. The entire perimeter of the tract does not accept one single monument. The images below show three of the locations. The 0.01' takes the cake! I would be personally embarrassed to show that on my plat.
Stupid is as Stupid does.
They must hate each other to the extreme. Mr. Lucas could write a whole story just on this.
Randy
WOW!
> WOW!
WOW is right! Any bets that one or both of them did their work radially, from 200-300' away, with an 8' prism pole on a windy day with no bipod?!
As Jerry said... I would be embarrassed to show that on a plat.
> They must hate each other to the extreme. Mr. Lucas could write a whole story just on this.
>
Maybe in his next column. LOL
Looks like a contest to see who is dumber. That's a trophy worth showing off.
Whoever drew that plat should be threatened with a fine and a suspension.
> Whoever drew that plat should be threatened with a fine and a suspension.
Without knowing more about the nature of the first survey I can't say whether or not I might call any of those monuments out of position, but I can say that the second survey basically confirms the first, so I don't think I'd be upset to see it happen to one of my maps.
I kind of agree with Jim Frame, maybe the guy is trying to show he agrees with the first guy. The way I would have done it is show the corners as being used but show measure and platted on the distances and bearings.
In CA., wouldn't that have to be a physical pin cushion as well?
> In CA., wouldn't that have to be a physical pin cushion as well?
It would depend. I don't think I'd ever call a monument off by 0.01' (I don't work in downtown San Francisco), but I've called them off by 0.1' plenty of times when they didn't represent the best available evidence of the boundary location.
If you're not doing industrial quality work, you're in no position to call any monument out 0.01'.
I had the impression it was a calc plat of some sort showing a steady tapering off-line progression. Beginning with .01' and ending with .12'.
Like you said though, without seeing the whole thing it is difficult to determine a purpose.
Honest question: What was the better evidence? Occupation over a statutory period? Controlling corners nearby in much more stable condition?
Yes it would be interesting to hear something from the horse's mouth. Perhaps we will...
to this day
the most ridiculous surveying exercise i've ever been asked to perform was writing a metes and bounds for a 3 mile r.o.w. dedication in 2002. it was previously dedicated by a handful of various subdivision plats and smaller r.o.w. dedications, we were asked to compile a single description subsequent to a repaving project.
100' r.o.w. along the length, passing, oh, probably 60 different subdivision lot corners along the perimeter of the description, as well as various found PIs, PCs, and PTs according to dedication. i was an SIT, charged by my boss to write the description. i finished it, it was stupid long in the first place with reference to passing the assorted blocks of various subdivisions. my boss had, essentially, best fit the alignment based upon design centerline and established project control. this, of course, left virtually none of the couple hundred found corners EXACTLY where they were supposed to be, the vast majority were off by no more than a tenth. i made no passing calls to found ("erroneous") monuments in my original description, as it seemed to serve no practical purpose, instead referencing the blocks and passing only essential subdivision and/or block corners. i think it was on the order of an 18-20 page description.
the boss hit the roof (as he was prone to do anyways). told me i was incompetent, would never make RPLS, and that i needed to stop everything else i was doing and make proper passing calls to every single rod, nail, fence post, etc we found. so a day or so later i returned it to him and told him i was glad i couldn't sign it, as the next surveyor coming along would certainly want to murder whoever wrote a 48 page description full of "at 183.42 feet passing a calculated point from which a 60d nail found at the northeast corner of Lot 3A, Block A, Resubdivision of Lot 3, Block A, Resubudivsion Acres bears S18deg42'12"E a distance of 0.08 feet, at 288.43 feet passing..., yadda yadda".
48 pages. some of the calls were almost 2 pages long. all to prove he was a smarter surveyor. i quit about a week later.
OTOH - I sent out an ALTA yesterday on a parking lot with no improvements other than a guard house. It's a little over an acre and the land is appraised at $82,000,000. A triangle 350 x 0.12 would be worth around 38K.
to this day
LMAO
It seems like there was a time that was the prevailing way to make the calls back in the day. I remember Gary Kent making reference to that exact same methodology. I also spoke up about that. His and others arguments were that, no, they weren't calling the other corner off, they were just showing the difference between the deeded "corner" location and the "monument". Many of them said they weren't rejecting the monument, just showing the difference. It seemed like the were arguing to an extent, that they are just surveyors and it's really a court or the property owner that makes that determination as to which to accept. I totally disagree with that concept. The land surveyor is the only person qualified and "licensed" to make a determination and show his opinion as to where a property corner lies. If the property owner can't have you tell him where his corners are, then who can he go to? (the old "if not the surveyor, then who?")
I think there is much less confusion when you express the "record" and the "as measured" distance on your plat. I show the "as measured" even if it varies by 0.01'. I am showing the corner monuments I accepted, and I show what I measured. If it is within a few hundredths, it is more of "confirming evidence", not contradictory evidence. I am not saying I measure better than anyone else, I am only showing what measurements I made. You can tell if I don't accept an existing monument, because I would be actually setting my monument at my opinion of the corner. I think you absolutely should not call to some arithmetical corner that is not monumented and show its variance form the existing monuments. The homeowner needs to know what he can build to, not some airy-fairy non-specific location.
I started seeing plats showing cardinal "differences" that I think the surveyor is saying he accepts the monument but finds it "off" the perfect calculation by x amount, in the 1990's with the advent of GPS.
When I called the surveyor, they usually said they were accepting the monument.
Some surveyors, however, were saying that the PROPERTY BOUNDARY is away from the monument by x amount.
In both cases, I would presume that the surveyor is certifying a first order precision, which would be a waste of money in rural Colorado.
The former cases, are technically correct, but I have never seen why showing cardinal offsets are necessary or relevant.
The later case is illegal in Colorado, in most, but not all cases.
ww CO PLS
Have a nice day! Or, may your monument prevail over some guy's touchscreen.
I think it is easier to show an offset to the found cap vs showing the record and measured bearing and distance for each break in the boundary. A silly thing to do in my opinion. Of course showing the offset is not accepting it either, not good.