Somebody got CAD and have learned to rotate and twist then hit dimension for results.
[sarcasm]Yeah for them[/sarcasm]
Any surveyor showing a position out by 0.01' is really making themselves look ridiculous. Unless he can prove he has perfect closure and his survey contains no error, rounding or otherwise, it's a total farce to take acreages out to more than 3 decimal places or a position out by 0.01'. It's just flat out dishonest in my opinion to imply a level of precision that cannot be justified and in reality, doesn't exist.
Just because I'm paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get me.
I can measure to 0.01', but I cannot guarantee my accuracy is that close. Even if I had done two repeat 5-hour static observations on these points, I still don't believe the accuracy is there that would cause me to put a note on a plat that another surveyor's monument is off by 0.01'. Some surveyors get caught up in number games and lose track of reality. If this surveyor went out and repeated the same methods as he did during the initial survey, he would get different answers. That is just reality.
maybe it's only a rounding discrepancy. They very well could have measured 0.005' different from record, yet for drafting accuracies rounded up to the nearest 0.01' :'(
The surveyor allowed the cad guy to finalize the drawings and the drawing went out the door.
The registered probably didn't even get a chance to sign the darn thing. :excruciating:
> The surveyor allowed the cad guy to finalize the drawings and the drawing went out the door.
Nice try, Mr. Allower. Don't put your shortfalls on our backs, we are just putting in CAD form your stuff.
> I can measure to 0.01', but I cannot guarantee my accuracy is that close. Even if I had done two repeat 5-hour static observations on these points, I still don't believe the accuracy is there that would cause me to put a note on a plat that another surveyor's monument is off by 0.01'. Some surveyors get caught up in number games and lose track of reality. If this surveyor went out and repeated the same methods as he did during the initial survey, he would get different answers. That is just reality.
:good: :good: :good:
to this day
Better (tangential) story about this guy: his aforementioned temper was revved up one morning prior to me going out to shoot and supervise 3 crews on an as-built of a major highway interchange. Put me in a pretty weird mood, but we went out and got the whole thing done in a day, over 2000 shots with breaklines, leveled, the whole whip.
Out in the field the next morning I get a call: "got dambit, abe! There's a crossing break line in this, now I gotta edit topo! What the hell are all these 'deer' shots for anyways?"
"Oh, right... Well, the carcass was laying across the curb and gutter. How would you have shot it?"
He left me alone the whole rest of the day.
> What was the better evidence? Occupation over a statutory period? Controlling corners nearby in much more stable condition?
In most cases it's been a monument with no pedigree and no evidence of reliance. Whoever set it wasn't proud enough to tag it as required by law, and nothing suggested that it had ever been used by anyone for anything (i.e. no improvements), and there was other evidence (e.g. multiple monuments of record at along the same line that fit record dimensions).
Every situation is different, but the above generalization pertains to a lot of situations I've encountered.
Both using RTK
Actually, those sorts of errors look very typical of RTK x 2, i.e. monument positions determeined by RTK "checked" by RTK. Do either of the maps of the two surveys confirm that one (or both) was just another RTK misadventure?
> If you're not doing industrial quality work, you're in no position to call any monument out 0.01'.
:good:
Both using RTK
And there it is.
I would say the horse is dead, stop beating it... But that isn't the right analogy. Seems there was another guy that hijacked every thread into something about a bogus theory, this is a little like that. Like that, it is not productive.
You have good things to say about GPS use, but this just makes it hard for your messages to be heard.
I maintain that it is unprofessional to blanket an entire technology that is standard in the profession, proven in its use, and valuable to our clients.
This was common with most of the places where I worked in Mass, in the late 80's, early 90's.
As said, it wasn't necessarily calling anyone off, it was more along the lines of keeping the math of the record plan, and showing the offsets was showing how you measured the monuments. So, it definitely wasn't anyone saying that they're a better measurer.
This might have come about because of Land Court, as this was how they wanted things shown - keeping the B-D of the decree plan.
its just a virtual pincushion, no different and deserves just as much respect. You don't accept a monument and not show your measurements to it. showing it "off" record is not accepting it.
Both using RTK
:good:
Both using RTK
I am looking right now, at a 8.66' RTK misadventure.
Such it is.
N
> I can measure to 0.01', but I cannot guarantee my accuracy is that close. Even if I had done two repeat 5-hour static observations on these points, I still don't believe the accuracy is there that would cause me to put a note on a plat that another surveyor's monument is off by 0.01'. Some surveyors get caught up in number games and lose track of reality. If this surveyor went out and repeated the same methods as he did during the initial survey, he would get different answers. That is just reality.
I think you actually mean "precision" not "accuracy". 😉 Finding the actual corner is accuracy, trying to place a good measurement on the boundary is precision.
This isn't a measurement/precision problem, it certainly isn't a static vs RTK vs total station vs chaining problem, this is a "I really don't have a clue what the heck I'm doing out here; yes I happened to be licensed but like many in my profession (including many of the "learned authors") I have never learned anything about boundaries, the law, measurements, and how to retrace a boundary" problem.
Such a sad state of affairs in our once honored profession.
I have heard the same thing called COGO VOODOO
> > Such a sad state of affairs in our once honored profession.
i wouldn't bemoan this as some disintegration of former perfection- i've seen plenty of old sloppy, headscratching work around here. one of my favorites is a guy (now retired i think) who insisted he could tie boundary to cedar fence posts to the thousandths.