Holy Cow, post: 348083, member: 50 wrote: Of course, it's simple habit as we are usually making a call to a tiny object compared to the massiveness of a 36" x 26" x 6" sandstone that is missing some chunks and was found lying on its side. Sure hope we rolled it the right way when we set it upright.
It all depends on the situation. In San Francisco's financial district, it's not uncommon to see boundary dimensions expressed to the nearest 0.001 foot and multi-million dollar lawsuits filed over half an inch. By the same token, I can recall being relieved and delighted to find a 1" pipe in a rural area bent over at a 45-degree angle and guestimating where its original plumb position was.
0.04 ft is not an amount to be concerned about when it is a number that lies within the best possible parameters expected
A Harris, post: 348100, member: 81 wrote: 0.04 ft is not an amount to be concerned about when it is a number that lies within the best possible parameters expected
+1
Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk
Jim Frame, post: 348092, member: 10 wrote: It all depends on the situation. In San Francisco's financial district, it's not uncommon to see boundary dimensions expressed to the nearest 0.001 foot and multi-million dollar lawsuits filed over half an inch. By the same token, I can recall being relieved and delighted to find a 1" pipe in a rural area bent over at a 45-degree angle and guestimating where its original plumb position was.
I am in lower westchester county ny so we have the same deal with property value. I just feel that there's no need to show a distance that varies from the record by 0.04' especially 0.01' .01 could be anything causing it from a slight sway of the pole or my machine a hair from the point it's over.
Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk
Foolishness runs rampant in the streets every day.:pissed:
This is much like using a magic formula where one of the constants is 0.24 and then producing an answer of 456795.4321905879. How much would that number change if the constant used was 0.23 or 0.25?
People enjoy living in fantasy.
It's not all that confusing. It stems from trying for consistency in the measurements from survey to survey. Most people have a hard time understanding when their deed and referenced plat and tax map tell them that they have a 100' x 100' lot, and then some surveyor gives them a plot showing the found pipes and dimensions of 99.92' x 99.92', or something like that, and they're thinking that they lost land. And the pipes are 3/4" or 1" or bent and mushroomed.
Then another surveyor comes along and gets somewhat different measurements, and then the general public starts thinking that their lot lines change every time a new guy comes around and surveys it.
Way back when I first started (let me shake the cobwebs from my mind) it was the custom/habit/local practice to do a inverse check between all the monuments, pick the two that check best, and then pick one of those to hold for location and the other to hold for line, then rotate and translate to that "Meridian."
Then we would check all the other monuments, if they were within a tenth they were called good, if more than a tenth they were then referenced as "out" and the offsets were shown. Of course you would hold the two monuments that were "good" that made the most of the other monuments less than a tenth out.
There were always the guys that would show every monument as "out" and then label the 0.01's even down to 0.01' this way and 0.01' that way. This became ridiculous in my opinion. Who could measure that "exactly"? I mean, you would be balancing out that much error in your traverse!
Then I was re-born a true believer, thank you Jeff Lucas, Don Wilson, and all the other presenters that opened my mind.
Now I don't reference much of anything, unless it is an obvious disturbed monument, or set in error.
I saw the light so no more double calculations holding what is "good" and then calculating from the actual location to meet setbacks etc. Remember those days? Your working plan would show the calculated location and the traverse location so you would have to be careful when you did your lot staking or house location computations.
I am lucky (?) to be working in an area that is very heavily monumented and recorded plans are available.
Hold the monuments as establishing intent unless you can prove otherwise!
Here's an example of something I don't understand. A "Tie Line" from monument to monument, except one end is 0.09' off the tie line? Why not just show the monument to monument tie? (the other end of the line shows a monument "Held for Line")
Go Figure?
Dtp
[sarcasm]"FOUND LR DAY'S PIPE & TAG 0.023' NORTH AND 0.016' EAST OF A POINT 345.26 FEET NORTH AND 125.74 EAST OF THE CALC'D POSITION BASED ON THE TOWNSHIP CORNER AND ORIGINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT."[/sarcasm]
Yeah, you got to think about those "old monuments" that don't fit as well to the new shiny ones that all seem reasonably close to each other. That old monument may have fit better to the original section corner or original subdivision corner that is no longer in. That old monument may be the best available evidence as to where the local properties were originally laid out.
I'm not suggesting that you ignore the new ones either....just don't discount those marks that don't quite look right. Maybe even dig a little deeper in areas that fit to that old fart.
0.24=456795.4321905870 (Excel won't handle your last digit)
0.23=437762.2891826460
0.25=475828.5751985280
foggyidea, post: 348120, member: 155 wrote: Way back when I first started (let me shake the cobwebs from my mind) it was the custom/habit/local practice to do a inverse check between all the monuments, pick the two that check best, and then pick one of those to hold for location and the other to hold for line, then rotate and translate to that "Meridian."
Then we would check all the other monuments, if they were within a tenth they were called good, if more than a tenth they were then referenced as "out" and the offsets were shown. Of course you would hold the two monuments that were "good" that made the most of the other monuments less than a tenth out.There were always the guys that would show every monument as "out" and then label the 0.01's even down to 0.01' this way and 0.01' that way. This became ridiculous in my opinion. Who could measure that "exactly"? I mean, you would be balancing out that much error in your traverse!
Then I was re-born a true believer, thank you Jeff Lucas, Don Wilson, and all the other presenters that opened my mind.
Now I don't reference much of anything, unless it is an obvious disturbed monument, or set in error.
I saw the light so no more double calculations holding what is "good" and then calculating from the actual location to meet setbacks etc. Remember those days? Your working plan would show the calculated location and the traverse location so you would have to be careful when you did your lot staking or house location computations.
I am lucky (?) to be working in an area that is very heavily monumented and recorded plans are available.
Hold the monuments as establishing intent unless you can prove otherwise!
Here's an example of something I don't understand. A "Tie Line" from monument to monument, except one end is 0.09' off the tie line? Why not just show the monument to monument tie? (the other end of the line shows a monument "Held for Line")
Go Figure?Dtp
One has to also remember that surveying in urban, suburban and rural areas are going to be done completely different. I wouldn't even venture to do a 200 acre survey in rural NY as I'm only used to doing small platted lands ranging from 50x100' to 1 acre. The methodology and surveying is very different.
Around me most lot corners are not originally monumented. Just a few monuments put in for control around the subdivisions. So typically we will shoot those (if found... or worse yet, if they were ever actually installed!) And we will also shoot house corners and other found non original pins and we will use all that info to make our best judgement (obv original found monuments being the best highest evidence and controlling)
So it would be hard for me to just find a pin or pipe and say it's good if it's non original and it disagrees with found original monuments on each block end. Unless it's within reason (.1-.12'?)
Now if I were to do a non platted survey, and find a couple deed called for monuments undistured, then I have no problem showing the measured distance.
I am actually working on one right now. If I get around to it, I'll post it later with a question.
Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk
Rich., post: 348072, member: 10450 wrote: I don't think anywhere says you need to accept found pins with caps unless they were set by the original surveyor during the original survey.
Interesting post. What if that original pin set by the original surveyor has been moved by a opinionated property owner?
If they were pins set by someone doing retracement there is no reason you must accept them. To me it's called a difference in professional opinion.
Where are you getting your rulebook? What if that found pin was set by a licensed land surveyor who is authorized and licensed to evaluate boundary and set property corners? Shouldn't you give those corners some weight?
What if you had better evidence than him? What if he had found evidence you didn't? Not all will come up with the same opinion and this is why I might show a pin found as being 0.3'N and 0.2'E.
Maybe you have foundbetter evidence than him, but he was there before you were, and there is more likely that there was evidence in the ground that is no longer there than the other way around. He has found evidence and left a trail of what he found and his determination by setting corners. Are you suggesting that a new corner should be set every time circumstances change and a new surveyor is hired?
Now, 0.04N 0.01E is on the money. That is getting reflagged and painted and shown as pin found at corner. Not that I don't trust my measurements but a half inch is a half inch. Over a 4 setup traverse there's enough random error that the precision of 0.04 would be silly to guarantee being more precise than another. At those 'offsets' the 'true corner' would still be on the plastic cap anyway!
Where is your å?" difference coming from? I mean, if you are measuring between two monuments and you get a variance of å?" how do you decide which monument is the one that has to move (or be reset) that å?" difference? What if a retracing surveyor came and found two original subdivision corners, and set his monuments based on that find, and you come along 10 years later when those subdivision corners have been uprooted and new ones set? You might be accepting new shiny subdivision corners, and rejecting the only "witness" in the ground to where the originals once were.
A better way to show your difference is, in my humble opinion, is to show the monument as the corner, and draw your lines between the monuments found. To show your å?", annotate the line as 104.14' as measured (104.05 record). That method shows anyone retracing your work that you actually measured the line, and that you are accepting the monument as the corner. I would considered the "as measured" distance as evidence that I am on the same point as the one that is called for on the original plat.
Don't misunderstand me, I have seen times where I think a monument is "errant". But I believe the presumption should be that the corner monument is more likely the property corner. The evaluation of additional evidence is to figure out if there is enough there to overcome the presumption. å?" doesn't cut it for me, when fences or other improvements appear to have been built to that monument
Your comment makes me think of a couple reasons a surveyor might not accept another's monuments: meeting minimum land area and minimum frontage widths. Depending on the circumstances, if I was dealing with a planning department that was incapable of seeing that a 0.997 acre lot (208.71' x 208.71', deed) met the 1 acre minimum, or that a 39.85' frontage (40.00', record) met the 40' minimum, I might do my client a favor and hold calc'd over some non-original monument.
Tom Adams, post: 348188, member: 7285 wrote: Interesting post. What if that original pin set by the original surveyor has been moved by a opinionated property owner?
---- Then this original pin wouldn't be undisturbed. Undisturbed pins are not in their original controlling location, correct?
Where are you getting your rulebook? What if that found pin was set by a licensed land surveyor who is authorized and licensed to evaluate boundary and set property corners? Shouldn't you give those corners some weight?
---- Of course you give those pins weight. afterall, they are opinions by a LS. why wouldn't you give them weight? But they cannot be affording more weight than an original monument found that does not agree.
Maybe you have found better evidence than him, but he was there before you were, and there is more likely that there was evidence in the ground that is no longer there than the other way around. He has found evidence and left a trail of what he found and his determination by setting corners. Are you suggesting that a new corner should be set every time circumstances change and a new surveyor is hired?
--- he very well might have had evidence you didn't find or is no longer available. I'm not saying he is wrong. If it not agreeing with you, it is best to call him (if the pin is marked with a name or lic. number) and collaborate together. Sometimes he will have better evidence, and sometimes he missed something you found which makes a difference. Just because he was there first doesn't particularly matter all that much. If the subdivision was from 1956 and the pin you found today was set 3 months ago, does that automatically afford him more weight? Probably not. If it was from 1960? Probably.
Where is your å?" difference coming from? I mean, if you are measuring between two monuments and you get a variance of å?" how do you decide which monument is the one that has to move (or be reset) that å?" difference? What if a retracing surveyor came and found two original subdivision corners, and set his monuments based on that find, and you come along 10 years later when those subdivision corners have been uprooted and new ones set? You might be accepting new shiny subdivision corners, and rejecting the only "witness" in the ground to where the originals once were.
--- i would never show a pin off 1/2". To me that would be silly. In my original post i said i would flag up anything within reason and accept them. 1" is within my tolerance on a small lot (50x100)
A better way to show your difference is, in my humble opinion, is to show the monument as the corner, and draw your lines between the monuments found. To show your å?", annotate the line as 104.14' as measured (104.05 record). That method shows anyone retracing your work that you actually measured the line, and that you are accepting the monument as the corner. I would considered the "as measured" distance as evidence that I am on the same point as the one that is called for on the original plat.
--- i do show differences. but not when its 1/2" What if the surveyor setting the pin just hammered it down 1/4" from where he wanted it? I can probably set up in a road, traverse back 3 set ups and be right on the money the next time i do. Theres random error involved as well from each surveyor so 1/2" is peanuts to me.
Don't misunderstand me, I have seen times where I think a monument is "errant". But I believe the presumption should be that the corner monument is more likely the property corner. The evaluation of additional evidence is to figure out if there is enough there to overcome the presumption. å?" doesn't cut it for me, when fences or other improvements appear to have been built to that monument
Sorry, i responded to each of your bullets above in the quoted section.
yes, 1/2" doesnt cut it for me either. maybe you misread what i said before, but i would be more than delighted when i see the pin only off 1/2" from where i would have set it. to me that's a perfect match.
Like i said, i am very very interested on how others survey based on these found monuments that may not particularly line up. (especially when 2 of 4 original monuments are found on lot corners and 2 are not) I am going to post something later pertaining to this with a PDF so you can tell me how you would handle the situation. it would be fascinating to me to listen to what your route would be. im still debating mine.
I apologize for misreading your post. That 0.4' X 0.1' from the platted corner to the monument is not a good way to annotate the difference in my opinion. It's confusing to the reader or property owner, who might be saying to him/her-self gee...the actual corner is this much by that much from this found pin.
Also, how do you know exactly where the plat puts the corner in relation to the found monument? You are fixing it at some monuments somewhere I assume. what if you should be fixing it at that monument you are calling "off" and showing those other corners being out 0.y X o.y feet.
Anyway, I'm sorry for misunderstanding you original post, after giving my long rebuttal.
It's a case of applying the "virtual hammer" to a found monument. If the calc'd point falls within the error ellipse of the tied point that means the difference is in the uncertainty in my measurement. So you apply the virtual hammer to make them match.
You East Coast surveyors work in inches?
Hey....Hey....Play nice. What you trying to call them anyway? Some kind of architect? Or Worse?
Yeah, us East Coast Surveyors can measure in any unit you decide to use. Like one 'old timer' once said on this board, "I can measure with a banjo if necessary." (TDD)
A lot of the deeds around here were written before decimals were invented 😀