Today delivered a possible explanation for why those "points" that at one time were popular for land boundary corners, particularly among civil engineers, can be so hard to find. The descriptions of record gave the game away, starting at the Points of Beginning:
"BEGINNING at a 3/4-inch diameter iron rod found ON A POINT in the northerly right-of-way line"
In other words, some dastardly individual had found the point and had driven a rebar right on top of it, thereby leaving the point under the rebar and out of sight. That was almost as much fun as the next description of a nearby tract that began:
"BEGINNING at a 60d Nail found in the TOP OF A FENCE POST on a point ..."
Didn't say, though, whether the Fence Post was found or set. Obviously, we'll never know.
Points are everywhere. We will never run out of them, so we just as well put them to work for us.
He said the nail itself was found, however I definitely think he set the 'point'
Rich., post: 367157, member: 10450 wrote: He said the nail itself was found, however I definitely think he set the 'point'
Yes, which leads to the deeply philosophical question: "!f a point falls under the buried end of a fence post, does it make a sound?"
At least you were able to find what was called for in the description.
Lately, it has been 50/50 for finding monuments mentioned as set in some of the most recent of descriptions.
Still searching for the author of a description that began at one of my monuments and in two calls and 1200ft later it called for the corner to be at a point being 0.03ft north of and 0.02ft east of one of my monuments that has been at the cul-de-sac of an oiled roadway for at least 8yrs. The next call went to the center of a witness tree that was mentioned in a deed from the 1930s (witness tree not corner tree). The next call went to a new set 1/2in rebar and was so off line did not find my monument 21ft north. Then a call 21ft too long to the POB.
No one has come forth to name that author..........
Many years ago a sharp ol' geezer told a mouthy young lad that said young lad had a point. He also told him that so long as he kept his hat on his head no one would be able to see it.
A Harris, post: 367160, member: 81 wrote: Still searching for the author of a description that began at one of my monuments and in two calls and 1200ft later it called for the corner to be at a point being 0.03ft north of and 0.02ft east of one of my monuments that has been at the cul-de-sac of an oiled roadway for at least 8yrs.
It used to be that you could identify the author of a metes and bounds description from the style of the description, both in word usage and in formating. This seems to be less true in the age of automation, though.
This is all getting rather pointless...
o.O
Loyal, post: 367163, member: 228 wrote: This is all getting rather pointless...
o.O
Loyal, post: 367163, member: 228 wrote: This is all getting rather pointless...
I think I see your point, Loyal. It looks as if someone has set a semicolon on top of it, though. That would be confusing.
Kent McMillan, post: 367162, member: 3 wrote: It used to be that you could identify the author of a metes and bounds description from the style of the description, both in word usage and in formating. This seems to be less true in the age of automation, though.
Known surveyors of an area have definite style and developed phrase character in their work.
These unlicensed operators that are attempting to use a loophole and claim they are operating equipment that clients rent to survey property have no style nor actual experience to write a proper description wish to remain unknown.
My search has entered me into a world where no one knows anything and do not want to talk about it anymore.
I hope my efforts has run them into hiding and not surveying again..........
Yet another pointed discussion by the sages here at BeerLeg...
What lovely, pointy discussion. I mean, I tip my hat, to the salient points made.
May your soil be soft enough, to set your points, "close 'nuff", that the point is not lost, on a pointless discussion!
A line consists of an infinite number of points. Therefore, as we set or find monuments on boundary lines, each one is centered on a point. THAT ONE is the point that Kent identifies as being THE ONE AND ONLY TRUE POINT. At times it may have been driven to refusal, but it is still the one and only true point. To confuse non-technical types, StarNet was invented to espouse the bogus theory that other potential true points exist in a scattered array around the one point the current surveyor has determined to be the one and only true point. The non-technical types then fall into the trap of believing that they are really, really stupid people and need to hire consultants to do their thinking for them, up to and including the need to hire a CPA to do their income taxes for them even though they have a simple W-2 income that requires a minimum number of entries on a 1040 EZ.
(should finish off the annual sacrificial rite to the IRS gods later today)
Y'all sure it was the true point and not the original corner?
The only time I use "to a point" is for the center of a road or creek or some other meander line where I didn't set the corners. Otherwise, I think it's silly.
Many canned legal writing programs default the course description to end in "to a point"
I suppose many got trained that way so they just can't help putting "point" in each course.
If it's not there they feel naked,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
After all, it's not called the "point of beginning" for nothingB-)
or maybe it is nothing,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Kris Morgan, post: 367198, member: 29 wrote: The only time I use "to a point" is for the center of a road or creek or some other meander line where I didn't set the corners. Otherwise, I think it's silly.
I was trained that way also
I "lak" that way o' thinkin', MightyMoe.
If there's a point of beginning or commencing, then there must be other points along the lines, including corner points.
Okay, I think the main conclusion that many of you should be making is that part of the reason you may not have found as many points as you've dealt with over the years is that possibly you have not realized that some of those points had been driven down into the ground when a rebar was set right on top of them. That means that the rebar would have to be carefully extracted to see whether there was a point jammed onto its driven end. Naturally, that possibly would not be the case if a pipe had been set on the point. If the bottom of the pipe was crimped, all bets are off, though.
You can see why fence posts create problems. Apparently sometimes the fence builders will relocate the point on top of the post where it will attract 60d nails and in other cases the point will settle into the hole to be mashed flat when the post is dropped in on top of it.