This illustrates an issue that took me a while to understand, although I have avoided adopting the practice. 0.01' out and therefore displaced? On a 1980 plan?
.jpg "IsThisAJoke (800x577).jpg")
Well, aint that just precious!
Say, I got's a few extra hunnerts... I can send ya some!!
Must be in Texas.
When I first started calcing and drafting for my dad, hundreths consumed me. He used to tell me that I'd get past it. Now, if I run a line and there are a lot of rods that make a line within 0.15', I call them on line.
Back when we still did lot jobs with tape and theodolite, I'm amazed at how much better those measurements reflected "record" than if I went and surveyed that same tract 25 years later. Maybe I'm just slow and late to the party, but at least I'm not the only one based on the plat above. 🙂 Try and lay it all out to the 0.01', then be kind when retracing the surveyor who tried to live up to that standard.
I was having this conversation with a surveyor who's been licensed about 3 years the other day. I asked him if he remembered what the congress said in the 80's when it defunded the arts over the Robert Maplethorp photo. He said no and I said they said they wouldn't fund pornography. When asked to define pornography, the senator/representative said he couldn't define it, but knew it when he saw it. That's how I feel about calling rods off or whether to set another one or break a line to a rod. I can't explain it, but I know it when I see it.
Look on the bright side, ALL those other markers must be incredibly spot on!
Kris Morgan, post: 424538, member: 29 wrote: When I first started calcing and drafting for my dad, hundreths consumed me. He used to tell me that I'd get past it. Now, if I run a line and there are a lot of rods that make a line within 0.15', I call them on line.
Back when we still did lot jobs with tape and theodolite, I'm amazed at how much better those measurements reflected "record" than if I went and surveyed that same tract 25 years later. Maybe I'm just slow and late to the party, but at least I'm not the only one based on the plat above. 🙂 Try and lay it all out to the 0.01', then be kind when retracing the surveyor who tried to live up to that standard.
I was having this conversation with a surveyor who's been licensed about 3 years the other day. I asked him if he remembered what the congress said in the 80's when it defunded the arts over the Robert Maplethorp photo. He said no and I said they said they wouldn't fund pornography. When asked to define pornography, the senator/representative said he couldn't define it, but knew it when he saw it. That's how I feel about calling rods off or whether to set another one or break a line to a rod. I can't explain it, but I know it when I see it.
You know Kris, those of us that have surveyed with taping chains and plumb bob centered optical instruments (that read to 20" or 30") definitely possess an understanding of the art of approximating mathematical derived plane geometric positions upon the surface of our meager uneven and sometimes brushy orb. But discussing with some people the fact that everything we stick in the ground is truly an approximation can be an ardent task. 😉
If it can be brought on line with a few taps from the 4 lb hammer, it's on line already!
foggyidea, post: 424530, member: 155 wrote: This illustrates an issue that took me a while to understand, although I have avoided adopting the practice. 0.01' out and therefore displaced? On a 1980 plan?
Is this Massachusetts Registered Land, by any chance? How are survey markers treated in the interpretation of the boundaries of registered land, i.e. are the metes held to control over monuments that are subject to displacement?
Kent McMillan, post: 424544, member: 3 wrote: Is this Massachusetts Registered Land, by any chance?
Oh, good! Now Kent gets to pick on somebody else and leave the PLSS alone for a while 😉
Kent is, or was, pretty much spot on. In the past the Land Court would hold that "the plan is a monument" and force all kinds of tedious contortions to "hold the plan".
Things have improved considerably.
The survey plan that Don posted is not Registered Land, though.
The surveyor that produced the plan recently passed away. His obituary told of a very well travelled, educated, and prolific man in a family and friends way.
And those are the only two monuments in the whole dang thing??
Engineering techs or just simply someone hung up on the accuracy of their newly found computer program.
It takes a lot of numbers after the decimal place to actually compute and represent a straight line along short segments between monuments. Who is gonna pay for use to measure beyond 2 decimal places, very few reasons for that.
Most of my data files have the location that I have made on monuments and many have another value described as corner that I use for cadd and description.
The reason is for example one of my recent surveys. I had established control with 4 GPS static points and then TS between field and woods to tie in most everything and found two monuments about 400å±ft apart that were a part of an RTK survey by another surveyor.
When I checked our differences, our values were within 0.05ft and the bearing was 0å¡00'42" different.
I was pleased as I could be because it was all within a tenth at worst for points in the middle of an oiled surface road.
I am not going to change the record information when my measurements are so close to my findings.
A harris, I agree.
Kent McMillionth, called me a "Frightened Fudger" for using the old record, when a few hundredths were in conflict.
so, I guess that's what it's called!
🙂
N
Stamped by an RCE?
astrodanco, post: 424540, member: 7558 wrote: Look on the bright side, ALL those other markers must be incredibly spot on!
The other monument shown is off by 0.03'. No need to detail those on a final. Perhaps on a worksheet for in house files.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Bob Freeman, post: 424549, member: 460 wrote: Kent is, or was, pretty much spot on. In the past the Land Court would hold that "the plan is a monument" and force all kinds of tedious contortions to "hold the plan".
Things have improved considerably.
The survey plan that Don posted is not Registered Land, though.
The surveyor that produced the plan recently passed away. His obituary told of a very well travelled, educated, and prolific man in a family and friends way.
Who completed the plan? What did I miss?
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
So when you re-monument the correct position how do you place your tag in a manor that doesn't obscure the ID of the guy before you? Scrap that, I'm still trying to figure out how to get my tack in the right place in the northwest corner of the subdivision. Fun stuff.
If he only had 2 monuments to hold, I wonder how he decided which one had more error than the other. Also, I guess he thought his survey had no error.
But the area reads to the nearest one square foot +/-. Just how much difference would that 0.01 in one corner amount to?
How big are the bounds? 4" x 4" or so? And they are knocked? Ridiculous. And Lot 49 doesn't close by 0.72' and Lot 50 doesn't close by 0.35'. I'd almost call this a cartoon rather than a plat.
And [USER=44]@Andy J[/USER], I'd say that there's a note on there stating that all unlabeled lot corners are rebar set or pipe set or whatever. That's quite common here. IMHO.