Show record dimensions. Show your dimensions. Same monument. Same physical points.?ÿ The end. It's what I do.?ÿ
Sometimes, if things are within some tolerance, I use record b/d.?ÿ
Question @dmyhill when you set corners, where you've got a target coordinate, and a final set "where it landed", which coord value do you publish?
Where it was supposed to be set, say at mid point, or pro-rated point, or where you actually set it?
🙂
Nate
I agree with Nate, record & measured dimensions, like this:
(not sure if that's actually big enough to read, bottom line: S7?ø04'54"W 83.69'(M) S7?ø16'16"W 83.95'(R1))
The more important thing to me is that we both reach a conclusion as to the validity of the monument (Is the monument the corner or isn't it) and tell the reader what that conclusion is. If it's the corner, great, make that clear, and if we are subdividing the property place our new monuments on the line between the held corners, not at some precomputed location that's not on the line. If it isn't the corner, say so, and say WHY, keeping in mind that "I would have put it over here" isn't going to be a valid reason to this particular PLS. (quoting from my standard teaching my employees routine here).
Finally as is mentioned elsewhere if we aren't accepting it as the corner, and have what we consider to be a valid reason why, then we'd better monument our position. That's where people get all excited and rethink their position (pun intended) when I make this speech. No one seems to believe enough in their "computed" or "true" or whatever position to want to pin-cushion the corner, but they sure are happy to pin-cushion it on paper. I don't think that does the landowners or anyone else any good. They paid us to survey their land and "find my corners" or whatever other term they used. They certainly didn't hire us to tell them the monuments that are there are slightly off, but not tell them where the right spot is.
?ÿ@dmyhill I'm curious, you say "Washington law essentially creates the issue above." 90% of my practice is in Washington, and while I agree that most people here in my area are in the "paper pin-cushion" camp, I've never had anyone tell me a valid reason for it other than "that's how I was taught to do it". I don't know of any RCW, WAC or case law saying that's the way to do things, but I do know that the priority of calls is clear in case law. To what law are you referring?
?ÿ
Show record dimensions. Show your dimensions. Same monument. Same physical points.?ÿ The end. It's what I do.?ÿ
Yes.?ÿ Either accept the monument, show record and measured to it, OR tell why you rejected the monument SET YOUR OWN, and give dimensions.?ÿ None of this virtual corner stuff.
Me?
When setting a corner, I state where I calculated it. I am sure that it is exactly the same as where the monument is in the field: You know my field crews always set it exactly where it is calculated!
🙂
As for how I show a found monument, it varies. If I am holding it as the corner (an original corner, a corner for a survey I am retracing, etc), then I would simply show my record calculated or deed information along with what I measured. (I am not occupying each corner and shooting the next).?ÿ
If I find something that may be a corner monument, or one set outside of the law (no record of it), then I will have a decision to make. Sometimes it stands as the monument, and sometimes it gets a call for how it misses record. Depends on the particular facts of the case. If there is a record, I am very unlikely to do anything but hold the monument as the corner.
?ÿ
(R) and (M) or some variation.?ÿ
What is sad is that we are now getting perfect descriptions that differ from the original descriptions that were written by the same signing surveyor.
Thence north 89 degrees 42 minutes 12 seconds east, 198.98 feet (M); north 89 degrees 42 minutes 37 seconds east, 198.99 feet (R1); north 89 degrees 43 minutes east, 199 feet (Deed)
All three are by the same surveyor but the Deed survey was 30 years ago, the R1 survey about 15 years ago and the M survey today.?ÿ In several cases the bearing changes by a degree or two but the distances are nearly identical.?ÿ It's a matter of using an early assumed bearing based on someone else's survey versus what the magic box tells you it is in state plane coordinates.?ÿ Very common along highway right-of-ways.
@holy-cow?ÿ I don't think it's sad.?ÿ I don't think there's anything wrong with acknowledging monuments move-- freeze/thaw cycles, subsidence, erosion, etc.?ÿ In fact, on a road trip last month I listened to a youtube video from a geodecist who described how eventually it will be necessary to add time as a dimension to surveys due to effects of the elements as well as plate tectonics.?ÿ Fortunately, isn't that what we're already doing with record and measured?
in 1975 or whenever the above occurred, how could Surveyor A accept a recently set monument that was off by 0.5' when the surrounding original monuments were still in existence?
Sounds like yet another instance of one surveyor being too lazy or too arrogant or too whatever to call the other guy and get to the bottom of things.?ÿ It's funny... the more I see stories like this and see how nobody ever makes an attempt to resolve the discrepency then I start to think I guess it must not matter.?ÿ If it mattered then someone would do more than just talk.?ÿ But huffing and puffing is all there is.
?ÿ
I agree with this 100%.
The more important thing to me is that we both reach a conclusion as to the validity of the monument (Is the monument the corner or isn't it) and tell the reader what that conclusion is. If it's the corner, great, make that clear, and if we are subdividing the property place our new monuments on the line between the held corners, not at some precomputed location that's not on the line. If it isn't the corner, say so, and say WHY
?ÿ
To what law are you referring?
Well, that is my point. There isn't one. You do not get to determine boundary in Washington. If we look into the law a lot of surveyors interpret it as creating a surveyor as a "deed staker". Some of the best surveyors I have ever followed are in this camp. Since the law does not clearly give you any judicial powers to make boundary determination outside of the plain language of the deed, and we are not a common law state, most surveyors will not put their neck out there. They show what they find and basically do not make a decision.?ÿ
My post above gives a clear example of two very good surveyors, their different approaches, and the resulting monument at the quarter corner, and a paper monument 0.6 tenths away. I fully agree with you. If you are willing to hold a position different than the monument, then you should obliterate it and place a new one. If you aren't willing to do so (either by ethics or law or fear), then those same things should keep you from creating a new position on paper.
My position is that our surveys (recorded) should carefully explain what we have done. In the end we must make a determination to the best of our abilities on the paper survey map and on the ground. Our record justifies our decisions and allows us to explain where we are not sure of our boundary. In fact, that is one of the main purposes of our narrative.?ÿ
?ÿ
The original description is still valid.?ÿ There is no need to create a new description every time some expert measurer gets a different number.?ÿ Adjacent descriptions should match, not have varying amounts of gores and overlaps every time someone measures it.?ÿ Showing differing measurements is fine on the plat but not to alter the record description.?ÿ There is no purpose for that.
Yes, but the answer is only if they are original, undisturbed and called for.?ÿ Just because a surveyor sets a monument to represent a corner does not mean it is the corner.?ÿ It only means that it is said surveyor's quasi-judicial opinion that it is the correct position.?ÿ If I find a such a monument and it does not fit my resolution, unless it is called for, original and undisturbed I do not have a problem calling it off.?ÿ Before everyone gets out the flame throwers, I'm not saying I will not hold the monument, just that I will hold other evidence above the monument.?ÿ I always create a detailed narrative of my boundary resolution that describes how I establish each line.?ÿ
Without meta data about the above depicted monument, it is hard to tell if it should have been held or not.
A couple of observations:
If we are discussing a prorated 1/4 that was set .5' "off" in 1975 and was computed from existing section corners 1/2 mile away it would meet any 1975 accuracy standards. So why would it be rejected?
If this is a 1/4 on an east-west line then half the time it should be about .5' from a mid point position. a couple of inches south of a mid-point and .33' east or west of mid-point. Basically in a township about a quarter of the 1/4 corners will fall east or west of mid point when correctly prorated.?ÿ
acknowledging monuments move-- freeze/thaw cycles, subsidence, erosion, etc.?ÿ
That's actually backing up referencing monuments, since they've moved, but the boundary line isn't supposed to, in theory.
The monument is the corner.?ÿ The corner is not an infinitesimal point created by algorithms.
So what if a large tree branch sheared off due to ice overloading, hit the top of the monument and moved the top a half inch.?ÿ The tree branch did not change the legal description.
Well, that is my point. There isn't one. You do not get to determine boundary in Washington.
I think a lot of people get bogged down on the wrong issue. Jeff Lucas puts it well in?ÿThe Pincushion Effect by saying that there are 2 questions when determining boundaries: "what" and "where". The "what" is a legal question and outside our area of practice as surveyors. The "where" is our area of practice. In other words, I can't say for sure that you actually own Lot 1 of the plat of Shady Deal Estates, since there are items well outside my area of practice that may affect ownership, such as adverse possession, prior title, etc. I can say where the corners of Lot 1 are. I think many people get too afraid to say anything that may be construed to be a legal opinion "what you own", and therefore fail to say "where are the lot corners".
So, on a smaller scale, you northern surveyors must experience this monument shifting annually due to frost heaving.
not sure if that's actually big enough to read, bottom line: S7?ø04'54"W 83.69'(M) S7?ø16'16"W 83.95'(R1)
@david-baalman?ÿ Me too except I don't append "(M)" to my measured values.?ÿ And if my measurement is within a few hundredths of record I'll tell a little lie and hold the record values.?ÿ I figure my measurement techniques are no better than a few hundredths (up to a several hundredths on mile+ long lines), i.e. I don't generate points accurate to the least count reported on my map (01" and 0.01'), rather I generate error ellipses and if the monument is within the ellipse I'll hold record measurements.?ÿ I've been chided for doing so, the claim being I'm not reporting my actual field measurements.?ÿ We're quibbling over a few hundredths here folks.
Whether a found undisturbed monument of record holds is a different issue, no amount of mathemagician flimflammery trumps its position as the "true " corner.?ÿ There are exceptions, for example lot sideline rear monuments abutting the subdivision boundary (a senior line) are closing corners and good for bearing, but not distance, though some may disagree.
Owners should be able to rely on their ancient monuments when exercising their dominion, more modern resurveys be damned.
?ÿ?ÿ
The monument doesn't even have to move.?ÿ It's the difference in the measurement process and equipment that provides plenty of these microscopic "CORRECTIONS".
I'm with you, man.?ÿ Traverse closure error at 0.2' and someone's going to put measured value up against the record by an amount that's far less than that.
Frost mostly raises things out of the ground if they don't extend deeper than the freezing.?ÿ Sideways motion is much smaller, and usually negligible for things like a rebar or pipe.
If you are willing to hold a position different than the monument, then you should obliterate it and place a new one.
Whoa, hold your horses!?ÿ I've never obliterated a found monument including those not of record except when working for the BLM on Federal lands when directed to do so.?ÿ As private surveyors I doubt we have the legal authority to destroy monuments.?ÿ I may be misconstruing your statement; are you writing that you'd obliterate the found monument and not report it or obliterate it and report its position in relation to your survey??ÿ If the former I think you're engaging in criminal activity and if the latter you've still perpetuated it but only through math, which is a poor substitute for its (former) physical location evidence.
One could conclude I'm advocating pincushion surveying but that's not the case.?ÿ Your "new" monument must substantially change the record, feet not inches and the rejected monument should remain in place?ÿ so subsequent surveyors can unravel the record.?ÿ Think of it this way, could be your survey is the one that's screwed up (no offense) and the previous monument should hold after 50 years of repose upon resurvey.?ÿ Not gonna help if it's gone.
Please don't go around obliterating monuments to "help" landowners and somehow validate your monument as the true corner.?ÿ In a small way we're archeologists and disturbing the on the ground evidence diminishes the record.?ÿ
?ÿ
