TP
. double post.
Beating the bounds
Maybe the idea of Beating the Bounds should be resurrected.
Beating the bounds
Perry,
That would imply that there are property buyers that actually CARE about their boundaries. As we see from this example, that often is not the case.
Andy
Just be aware that monuments control over measurements, except when they don't. In other words, the monuments you find may well be the correct corner location, unless of course they aren't.
And be sure your 100' tape isn't too stretchy. Some guys prefer the ones with 0.04' graduations.
Oh, and don't worry too much about the fact that you don't have the tools to determine direction and angles accurately. Your neighbor's surveyor will check that for you. I'm sure he'll let you know how you did.
And don't worry if lines of occupation don't line up with the monuments you find. Unless of course it means something of importance.
Happy surveying.
point taken, TP
Certainly, more data is better than less. In 40 years of practice, the only maps/plats I recall ever using coordinates were engineering surveys, simply due to the project standards.
I have never seen coords required for any Land Corner Record Map/plat, though allowed. They are after all, the bottom of the list of priority of calls. I have never added them to Record survey docs, including descriptions. I recollect not a single instance of coordinates in a deed.
Civil drawings certainly, but always to the hundredth. Have not done any neuclear accellerator surveys that danged well want to know about thousandths of a foot per mile or better.
I can certainly see where an eng. tech might be told to do some survey maps, and enthusiastically add a coord. list. Likely a grandfathered PE signs that stuff, not a PLS.
:good: 🙂
"An owner that won't spend some time searching for his own corners before calling a surveyor needs to be encouraged to do so..."
Really?
Amen
> "An owner that won't spend some time searching for his own corners before calling a surveyor needs to be encouraged to do so..."
>
> Really?
I guess it was always part of my culture in NH to learn where our property was. While not a traditional beating or the bounds, my father walked the boundaries of our land many times with my brother and I when we were young.
> Just be aware that monuments control over measurements, except when they don't. In other words, the monuments you find may well be the correct corner location, unless of course they aren't.
OMG, are you saying, It Depends???
And it depends upon a whole bunch of things surveyors know well, and land owner's rarely if ever do. Not at all difficult if you know how, a complete mystery if you do not.
>>
> OMG, are you saying, It Depends???
>
> And it depends upon a whole bunch of things surveyors know well, and land owner's rarely if ever do. Not at all difficult if you know how, a complete mystery if you do not.
On the contrary, sometimes ignorance results in the simplest, albeit not always correct solution.
Anyone else google "steppinthrax"??
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=33096040
I guess renting a metal detector wasn't the most successful plan.. again, good luck.
There is nothing inherently wrong with a property owner doing a search for monuments that MAY indicate the property lines. The problem, as most every surveyor can verify, is that not everything that looks like a monument is a monument or even the correct monument. I've worked in subdivisions with lot corners being within two feet of each other for somewhat back-to-back lots. Very easy to grab the wrong one in such a case. Many property owners are also prone to drive big items near survey monuments such that searchers find those items and quit looking for anything else. Assuming the center of pavement is the same as the center of the road right-of-way can be a critical error leading to great frustration. If survey monuments were set 29 years ago when the subdivision was new, there is a high probability that a utility line or fence or landscaping action or tree placement or..........will have taken out some, if not all, of the original monuments.
See I was right it was interesting. Did you learn what you wanted to know?
I totally agree. Nothing wrong with it at all. But also, between at least the two forums he posted to, there have been multiple comments about the value of hiring a professional. Will he? I hope so.
point taken, TP
> I have never seen coords required for any Land Corner Record Map/plat, though allowed. They are after all, the bottom of the list of priority of calls. I have never added them to Record survey docs, including descriptions. I recollect not a single instance of coordinates in a deed.
>
In Hawaii, all maps and metes and bounds description are based on local triangulation stations with the reference station having a coordinate of 0, 0. This means you may have a beginning coordinate like N 2,000.50 and W 1,200.00.
And, of course, the located original monumentation takes precedence over the actual coordinates, even if you were to start your retracement survey from the original triangulation station, to follow up on your point about their priority. The concept that the original surveyor performed the survey as accurately as possible holds, even if you could "prove" the coordinates are "inaccurate".
On the plus side, you could be in the middle of a field in the middle of nowhere, and if you happened to have control on a street in a subdivision based on the same trig station, you could get close enough, usually, to start digging.
First Good Point, The Map Information Is Accurate
I input points 317, 319, 325 and 24 into Carlson. I guessed that 317 and/or 319 would be on the cul-de-sac, 317 is, 319 is not.
From 325 I started around the lot clockwise, and missed 24 by 0.003', close enough.
The back line did not have a bearing, so we go back to the cul-de-sac. Solving the horizontal curve for distance 33.48' and delta 3°52'23" we get a radius of 55'. Extending the northerly line 55' into cul-de-sac and then create the southerly line. Connecting the endpoints yields the back line to be S 00°45'01" E 216.21'. Checking from the radius point to point 317 yields 54.998' again close enough. The lot area is on the nose, 43,560 Sq. Ft.
The math is good, whether or not the pins were ever put in or put in accurately is why we earn the big bucks.
Paul in PA
First Good Point, The Map Information Is Accurate
A better term than "accurate" might be "self consistent". That is a good thing, but isn't the same as accurately representing what was monumented, if indeed it was monumented.
Andy's link to another forum gets us to a post where he linked the whole subdivision plat (redacted).
It shows a lot of things that the small pic linked earlier does not, including curve table. The point of curvature from the drive entering the cul-de-sac as point 319, and the point of reverse curvature where the 55 ft radius begins as point 317. The esterly line of Lot 6 is S 00 45 00 E.
I'm not a Surveyor in disguise. I tend to get obsessively involved into topics that I know nothing about. It also gives me the ability to use the proper terminology when I'm asking these types of questions. I nearly a new homeowner that needs some clarification.
But yes, I've been doing a lot of research on surveying.
Actually when the home was purchased a new survey company came out and re-did the survey. They didn't set any pins. They did what's known as a location drawing. The new drawing is more detailed because it includes things such as the location of the pool, well head, septic, shed, etc... Things that weren't there at the time the original drawing was created. The degree markings and measurements seemed to be taken from the old drawing and used in the new drawing (since they are the same).