if a surveyor is going to set a boundary marker, it would save much embarrassment to pass a detector over said spot, to avoid this condition...
Is Maryland a recording state? In Nebraska you could research to see if it was done intentionally.
Is it just me or does one look like its numbered 262 and the other 264?
MD is an option to record state, for lack of a better phrase
one is 252, one is 254. should have cleaned them a bit better. trust me, i was shocked when i first thought i saw matching numbers...
one is a witness corner to the r-o-w
😉
The second one is just there to "enhance" the first one.
LOL @ RH
😀
Aren't there situations where this is legitimate? I'm thinking of a possible scenario which would explain the two markers a similar distance apart at the end of my street.
Smith sells off some land calling for a straight line boundary to Jones, and there is never any question about the end points of that line. Jones then subdivides it and has his surveyor places lot corner monuments a couple tenths over the straight line of the original boundary. When Jones sells those lots, he is trying to sell a sliver of land he does not own.
Later Smith subdivides his remaining land, and his surveyor monuments the lots of the new subdivision with a pin that is more accurately on the straight line of the Smith-Jones boundary. Thus the old pin would be held for line in the first subdivision but the new pin for distance.
What is wrong with this scenario?
Us....If this could just remind us.....
> Aren't there situations where this is legitimate? I'm thinking of a possible scenario which would explain the two markers a similar distance apart at the end of my street.
>
> Smith sells off some land calling for a straight line boundary to Jones, and there is never any question about the end points of that line. Jones then subdivides it and has his surveyor places lot corner monuments a couple tenths over the straight line of the original boundary. When Jones sells those lots, he is trying to sell a sliver of land he does not own.
>
> Later Smith subdivides his remaining land, and his surveyor monuments the lots of the new subdivision with a pin that is more accurately on the straight line of the Smith-Jones boundary. Thus the old pin would be held for line in the first subdivision but the new pin for distance.
>
> What is wrong with this scenario?
What is wrong with your scenario?
Well, maybe nothing. But it is simplistic in my opinion. Yes, maybe someone set a pin 0.1 feet off because they are sloppy and did a bad job.
But how do you know they did? How do you know they didn't come from original controlling corners that later moved? How do you know that their pins aren't more accurate to the original endpoints? Is his work within an acceptable precision for the job; precisions acceptable for the time it was surveyed? Has the landowner or other surveyors relied on the position of the pin you found for other boundaries?
Some of these questions have no real answers, but I would argue that you need real and convincing evidence to show that a corner-monument is in the incorrect place to be setting a new monument a small distance away. I am not sure that your measurements from monuments (that may or may not have more integrity than the one that you are calling off) is enough evidence to justify that movement of the corner by a small amount. Second, what is the landowner supposed to think if s/he sees to monuments for the (one) corner? Is he supposed to call a new surveyor every time to get a different opinion as to which one he needs to use? Why do you monument property corners anyway if not to put the public on notice as to where the land boundaries are? How can you justify "pincushioning" a corner location to "monument" the position? That only clouds the location of the corner. It doesn't clarify.
Just some food for thought. I would be hard-pressed to be setting a monument right next to another one.
> Aren't there situations where this is legitimate? I'm thinking of a possible scenario which would explain the two markers a similar distance apart at the end of my street.
>
> Smith sells off some land calling for a straight line boundary to Jones, and there is never any question about the end points of that line. Jones then subdivides it and has his surveyor places lot corner monuments a couple tenths over the straight line of the original boundary. When Jones sells those lots, he is trying to sell a sliver of land he does not own.
>
> Later Smith subdivides his remaining land, and his surveyor monuments the lots of the new subdivision with a pin that is more accurately on the straight line of the Smith-Jones boundary. Thus the old pin would be held for line in the first subdivision but the new pin for distance.
>
> What is wrong with this scenario?"""
that scenario does not apply to this photo. one marker is about 0.2' higher than the other. my suspicion is the low marker was set first by "252" (a common marker designation on this ROW). "254" retraced and set their own marker later, possibly without first checking that a marker was there, and at a higher elevation. this was a chamfer between an intersection and a subdivision.
http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/coagser/c2100/c2134/000400/000449/tif/ds00449-9.tif
us, if this could just remind us...
thanks, mr. adams. i'm with you on your general principle. this pin cushion looks like it is cut and dried.
as far as the grammar, I am remiss, still a bit tired from ecliptic declinations orbiting my daydreams. been an early morning
Physical represents the "error of closure":-/
ecliptic declinations......
orbiting in my daydreams.
yikes. Well who can we blame but us ourselves......
ha ha... Now excuse me while I clean the coffee from my monitor.
I have a hard time imagining why someone would want to monument two different points 0.13' apart.
I know what actually happened. A subdivision designer, just out of school, computed (on his shiny new computer) two seperate lot corners. The one on the left is for lots 2 and 3 to the north (up the photo), and the one on the right is for lots 10 and 11 to the south (down the photo). I've seen them almost that close. After all you have to get all the correct square footages.
You would have to be one helluva measurer and the confidence of David to come up with that scenario.
Thats actually some real talent...how could you pound the rebar and set the cap without hitting the previously set rebar!!
The "true" corner is obviously the centroid of the pin cushion.
:coffee: