David Kendall, post: 436625, member: 12659 wrote: If there are typical variations of 3-5 feet in a 1/4 mile then what difference does a foot or two make when backing in a monument from BTs??)
Sorry I missed that one the first time through. The answer, of course is that in Texas, unlike perhaps other places, the object of a resurvey is to actually determine where boundaries were originally marked from the best available evidence. a tie to a natural monument (a bearing tree) only 7 varas distant from a corner is such good evidence in the case that I posted that the corner can be reestablished within about 0.10 ft from them. On the other hand, the scatter of stones from the old mound is sufficiently indefinite that the center of the former mound is not as well determined by the scatter.
So, the general principle of all resurveys is to favor the most certain evidence over the less certain and when the more certain evidence fixes the corner within about 0.10 ft., that is where the corner should be marked. Had there been no calls for the bearing trees or had they only existed as stump holes in the former positions of the trees, the scatter would have been the best, most reliable evidence of where the corner was originally placed and that would have been where the corner should have been marked.
The series of decisions that I described was:
(a) erronously concluding that the bearing trees were not sufficiently good evidence that the corner could be replaced satisfactorily from them alone (this was the result of not spotting the actual scars of the original marks on the trees and using the center of the tree at the level at which marks were more typically made to test with compass and tape what I thought looked like the center of the mound that originally marked the corner.
(b) setting a Rod and Cap at what appeared to have been the center of the mound,
(b) discovering the scars of the old marks on the trees,
(c) making accurate ties to the scars "X" and to the centers of the trees at the level of the marks "X"
(d) making office calculations to determine where the pattern of evidence presented by the bearing trees and another original corner from the same survey more than 600 varas distant to the South would place the corner using the most reliable elements of the 1854 surveyor's record, i.e. the calls for the bearing trees and the call for the monument to the South.
(e) setting a Rod and Cap in the position of the corner as derived from the best evidence, a position with very small uncertainty,
(f) removing the cap from the first attempt and driving the rod down as far as it would go
(g) rebuilding the rock mound around the actual corner.
roger_LS, post: 436694, member: 11550 wrote: David- you've got to immerse yourself in this stuff, in this case the foot is VERY important. A rebar was set, then further investigation occurred, then a second rebar was set 1 foot away to mark the same corner. But now starting to wonder about this second corner because it misses the visual center of scatter. Fortunately Kent has set two rebars there which will both be mentioned in his report so future surveyors can make their own determination. Approx center of scatter or approx position by witnesses.
To answer your question about tieing BT from the actual corner, it makes absolutely no difference. Most important is that you have a tie to the scar and a position on the center of tree. Significant or not, and it can be in certain cases where trees actually grow and the land has actual value, using these two positions to calculate from would be the best practice to restablish a position that is now buried in the tree. It is surprising that Kent doesn't know this.
Actually, Texas surveyors were fairly good at marking trees facing the corner. In part, this was the result of the fact that the average size of a bearing tree in Central Texas was probably about 12 inches (so there wasn't much room for error) and rates of growth after marking have been slow (14 to 20 years per inch for Live Oaks, for example).
In the case of the 1854 survey, the Live Oaks were only 17 and 18 inches in diameter when marked, which likewise meant that it was easy to mark them facing the corner and they only grew an additional 12 inches in diameter afterward. That means that the scar of a mark that was originally made in 1854 in a position that was 0.12 ft. offset from a line connecting the corner and the center of the tree would be only be approximately 15/9 x 0.12 ft. = 0.2 ft. offset from the same line connecting the corner and the center of the tree. When you consider that the bearings to the BTs noted by the 1854 surveyor have an uncertainty of about 0?ø20' (standard error), that amounts to an uncertainty of 0.11 ft. in the bearing. In other words, errors of 0.08 ft. introduced by not accounting for any offset of the scar from the original mark is below the noise threshold in the original tties and is, in any event, not an observation that is as definite as evidence as the actual scar itself.
The one case that comes to mind where what you describe, i.e. computing the radial from the present scar to the center of the tree and computing the position of the orignal mark along that radial at the original diameter of the tree when marked, would apply would be the case of a Bald Cypress that was marked as a large tree and is now much larger. In the case of a large tree, it is entirely possible that the tree was not marked exactly on the line between the corner and the center of the tree and some correction may well be warranted.
Quality analysis, and proper resolution... much the same as we have out West.
there is that "manual of instructions" to "guide" us, and most times it is adhered too.
the difference between us out here, and Texas is in the documentation, and how it gets into the public record... if it ever does.
Kent: in Texas could a surveyor like you put the description of a survey in the record if there is no resulting land conveyance?
as an aside:
I have had occasions where I prepared a description (for something that did not require me to file a map, like a lot line adjustment or easement), but the clerk that typed the actual conveyance left out everything but bearings and distances.
Peter Ehlert, post: 436772, member: 60 wrote: the difference between us out here, and Texas is in the documentation, and how it gets into the public record... if it ever does.
I'd think that the main difference is better described as the expense of running the system that depends upon filing Records of Survey and Corner Records. Isn't the non-filing of Records of Survey a significant problem in California and isn't the reason for non-filing the expense involved?
in Texas could a surveyor like you put the description of a survey in the record if there is no resulting land conveyance?
Sure. A written description that represented the results of a resurvey could be recorded as an exhibit to an affidavit given by either the record owner or the surveyor, but that is something that is not particularly common since most resurveys are made in connection with land transactions. An affidavit given by record owner would be preferable since it would appear in a title search whereas affidavit by surveyor would not unless it was subsequently referenced in some later transaction. The cost of recording, of course, would be quite minimal.
I have had occasions where I prepared a description (for something that did not require me to file a map, like a lot line adjustment or easement), but the clerk that typed the actual conveyance left out everything but bearings and distances.
In Texas, the common practice is to just photocopy the metes and bounds descriptions prepared by surveyors, complete with seals and signatures, and to attach them to instruments as exhibits. There may be some backwaters where xerox technology hasn't been fully accepted, but retyping descriptions in law offices has become uncommon. That's not to say that there may not be some surveyors who provide their descriptions in some digital format that facilitates cut-and-paste drafting of deeds. I'm willing to provide a pdf that can be incorporated into the instrument for electronic filing, but for obvious reasons discourage cut-and-paste whenever the subject comes up.
Kent McMillan, post: 436773, member: 3 wrote: I'd think that the main difference is better described as the expense of running the system that depends upon filing Records of Survey and Corner Records. Isn't the non-filing of Records of Survey a significant problem in California and isn't the reason for non-filing the expense involved?
in response to:
Peter Ehlert said: https://surveyorconnect.com/community/goto/post?id=436772#post-436772&apos ;">??
the difference between us out here, and Texas is in the documentation, and how it gets into the public record... if it ever does.
===
California is "different" than "The Western States" in some regards.
Corner Records are two page 8.5x11. First sheet is a simple form to fill out, the second is a sketch. Not much drafting area but excellent for a case such as your original post. Search-able at the County Surveyor, but not in the chain of title. Mandated nominal filing fee, maybe $10
Record of Surveys are another can of worms. Search-able at the County Recorder, but again not in the chain of title.
Some counties apparently treat them as a profit center, or the County Surveyor has fears about "liability" and check way beyond the mandated minimum. They can be nearly free, to extraordinarily expensive. That is a problem that needs to be resolved.
The expense of filing should in no way deter any professional from filing, if they do they are subject to severe discipline. But we all know that to it gets included in the fee, but many common folk decide to forgo the survey because of it.
Chain of Title is actually no big deal for the normal surveyor. We search the County Recorder, the County Surveyor, vesting deed for the subject properties, and deeds of adjoiners as a minimum... sometimes much more
Peter Ehlert, post: 436776, member: 60 wrote: California is "different" than "The Western States" in some regards.
Corner Records are two page 8.5x11. First sheet is a simple form to fill out, the second is a sketch. Not much drafting area but excellent for a case such as your original post.
Color me skeptical that anything fit onto a letter-size sketch is worth having. The net result would seem to be to reduce useful survey data to molecules of information that need to be combined to have anything approaching something as useful as a well-written metes and bounds description, complete with narrative and remarks, a thing that would also be in the chain of title.
I realize that the Records of Survey are intended to perform the same purpose as a metes and bounds description, but in a form that has a simple graphical presentation. In an ideal world, that would be okay if accompanied by a narrative report, but I suspect that isn't what is typically produced. Isn't the real function of the Record of Survey to facilitate the oversight and supervision of California surveyors by the County Surveyor?
Kent McMillan, post: 436783, member: 3 wrote: Color me skeptical that anything fit onto a letter-size sketch is worth having. The net result would seem to be to reduce useful survey data to molecules of information that need to be combined to have anything approaching something as useful as a well-written metes and bounds description, complete with narrative and remarks, a thing that would also be in the chain of title.
I realize that the Records of Survey are intended to perform the same purpose as a metes and bounds description, but in a form that has a simple graphical presentation. In an ideal world, that would be okay if accompanied by a narrative report, but I suspect that isn't what is typically produced. Isn't the real function of the Record of Survey to facilitate the oversight and supervision of California surveyors by the County Surveyor?
Remember the War Galley scene in Ben Hur where the County Surveyor beat the drum and the Assistant County Surveyor wielded the whip? It's like that.
Kent McMillan, post: 436783, member: 3 wrote: Color me skeptical that anything fit onto a letter-size sketch is worth having. The net result would seem to be to reduce useful survey data to molecules of information that need to be combined to have anything approaching something as useful as a well-written metes and bounds description, complete with narrative and remarks, a thing that would also be in the chain of title.
I realize that the Records of Survey are intended to perform the same purpose as a metes and bounds description, but in a form that has a simple graphical presentation. In an ideal world, that would be okay if accompanied by a narrative report, but I suspect that isn't what is typically produced. Isn't the real function of the Record of Survey to facilitate the oversight and supervision of California surveyors by the County Surveyor?
you should be skeptical.
Apparently you have never seen one or the other, or a subdivision map (those are in the chain of title). Somebody please attach an example or two.
--
I have seen several of your descriptions, I believe we get the drift.
Peter Ehlert, post: 436794, member: 60 wrote: you should be skeptical.
Apparently you have never seen one or the other, or a subdivision map (those are in the chain of title). Somebody please attach an example or two.
No need. I just took a look at one California county's cookbook for surveyors running to over 1000 pages of instructions regarding the surveying and preparation of something as seemingly simple as a subdivison map, complete with specifications as to how to draw the map. Y'all can have that mess all to yourselves. It appears that the object is to idiot-proof the world, but in a way that only an idiot would want to follow.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc ="s&source=web&cd=9&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiG6I7Lq4XVAhVESiYKHXOZAv0QFghcMAg&url= https://dpw.lacounty.gov/ldd/lib/fp/Final%20Map/Guide%20For%20The%20Preparation%20of%20Tract%20Maps%20and%20Parcel%20Maps.pdf&usg=AFQjCNElDsNIpapVA-E41mFzvjrBJRdJG g"
Kent McMillan, post: 436748, member: 3 wrote: Actually, Texas surveyors were fairly good at marking trees facing the corner. In part, this was the result of the fact that the average size of a bearing tree in Central Texas was probably about 12 inches (so there wasn't much room for error) and rates of growth after marking have been slow (14 to 20 years per inch for Live Oaks, for example).
In the case of the 1854 survey, the Live Oaks were only 17 and 18 inches in diameter when marked, which likewise meant that it was easy to mark them facing the corner and they only grew an additional 12 inches in diameter afterward. That means that the scar of a mark that was originally made in 1854 in a position that was 0.12 ft. offset from a line connecting the corner and the center of the tree would be only be approximately 15/9 x 0.12 ft. = 0.2 ft. offset from the same line connecting the corner and the center of the tree. When you consider that the bearings to the BTs noted by the 1854 surveyor have an uncertainty of about 0?ø20' (standard error), that amounts to an uncertainty of 0.11 ft. in the bearing. In other words, errors of 0.08 ft. introduced by not accounting for any offset of the scar from the original mark is below the noise threshold in the original tties and is, in any event, not an observation that is as definite as evidence as the actual scar itself.
The one case that comes to mind where what you describe, i.e. computing the radial from the present scar to the center of the tree and computing the position of the orignal mark along that radial at the original diameter of the tree when marked, would apply would be the case of a Bald Cypress that was marked as a large tree and is now much larger. In the case of a large tree, it is entirely possible that the tree was not marked exactly on the line between the corner and the center of the tree and some correction may well be warranted.
There are places here where redwood forests were clear-cut near the turn of the last century. Utilizing the root network of the cut ones, new redwoods are able to grow quite quickly where they are now 36"-48" trees. But, I'd never be so arrogant as to believe that I'm getting to within a tenth of the original scribe by calculating back to the locus. To know for sure, you'd have to cut into it with a chainsaw.
roger_LS, post: 436889, member: 11550 wrote: There are places here where redwood forests were clear-cut near the turn of the last century. Utilizing the root network of the cut ones, new redwoods are able to grow quite quickly where they are now 36"-48" trees. But, I'd never be so arrogant as to believe that I'm getting to within a tenth of the original scribe by calculating back to the locus. To know for sure, you'd have to cut into it with a chainsaw.
They wanted to clear cut the old growth Redwood forest then convert it to pasture land but the danged trees kept growing back (often in circles around the cut stumps). The Giant Sequoias don't seem to do that as much, need to ask the forest manager about it.
roger_LS, post: 436889, member: 11550 wrote: There are places here where redwood forests were clear-cut near the turn of the last century. Utilizing the root network of the cut ones, new redwoods are able to grow quite quickly where they are now 36"-48" trees. But, I'd never be so arrogant as to believe that I'm getting to within a tenth of the original scribe by calculating back to the locus. To know for sure, you'd have to cut into it with a chainsaw.
I'll keep that in mind if I ever see a redwood in Central Texas. :> Here, the Bald Cypresses (Taxodium distichum) are the largest caliper trees a surveyor is apt to find used as a bearing tree and they grow at rates on the order of 10 years per inch. We have the tremendous advantage of most of the BTs having been Live Oaks (Quercus virginiana) which show the scars of old marks on their bark practically forever, although becoming fainter and more difficult to read with age. The oldest bearing tree I've found to date was marked in 1835, but marks newer than 1850 are more typical.
Kent McMillan, post: 436938, member: 3 wrote: I'll keep that in mind if I ever see a redwood in Central Texas. :> Here, the Bald Cypresses (Taxodium distichum) are the largest caliper trees a surveyor is apt to find used as a bearing tree and they grow at rates on the order of 10 years per inch. We have the tremendous advantage of most of the BTs having been Live Oaks (Quercus virginiana) which show the scars of old marks on their bark practically forever, although becoming fainter and more difficult to read with age. The oldest bearing tree I've found to date was marked in 1835, but marks newer than 1850 are more typical.
Okay..but how old were the tress themselves?
Here in the (real) West, Bearing Trees exceeding 1,000 years in age are not really that uncommon.
Loyal
Loyal, post: 436939, member: 228 wrote: Okay..but how old were the tress themselves?
Here in the (empty) West, Bearing Trees exceeding 1,000 years in age are not really that uncommon.
Oh, you're talking about the bristlecone pines that maybe got marked in the 1870s or 80s and were too far from anywhere to get cut down for firewood? Yeah, I'll bet that those were pretty much everywhere ... or maybe not.
Kent McMillan, post: 436940, member: 3 wrote: Oh, you're talking about the bristlecone pines that maybe got marked in the 1870s or 80s and were too far from anywhere to get cut down for firewood? Yeah, I'll bet that those were pretty much everywhere ... or maybe not.
Well, as usual, you have no clue what you are talking about when you comment about anything outside of Texas!
There are many species of trees in the Great Basin that live well beyond 1,000 years, not to mention the Redwoods of California.
Have you ever been out of Texas, or read a book that doesn't limit it's narrative to Texas folklore?
:rofl:
Loyal
Loyal, post: 436944, member: 228 wrote: There are many species of trees in the Great Basin that live well beyond 1,000 years, not to mention the Redwoods of California.
You meant to add "if they aren't cut down for firewood", right? When you consider the late date of settlement of most of the area you mention, are any of those old trees that survived the wood cutters things that were marked before 1890?
Kent McMillan, post: 436949, member: 3 wrote: You meant to add "if they aren't cut down for firewood", right? When you consider the late date of settlement of most of the area you mention, are any of those old trees that survived the wood cutters things that were marked before 1890?
NO, and YES!
And you didn't answer my question...as usual.
Loyal, post: 436950, member: 228 wrote: And you didn't answer my question...as usual.
Oh, I've traveled extensively in the Western states. I doubt much of it looks the same today and wouldn't want to see what became of Navajo Lake or Fish Lake in UT, Pioche, NV or Ash Springs, also in NV, for example. Silver City, Santa Fe, and Taos, NM, are a touristy mess, as are most of the Colorado Rockies. I doubt that I'd recognize Mendocino, CA or even some of the fishing villages along the coast north of there.
Loyal, post: 436944, member: 228 wrote: ...or read a book that doesn't limit it's narrative to Texas folklore?
:rofl:
Loyal
I'm sure Kent is well steeped in classical literature:
