In Tennessee, the surveyor is required to denote on the plat of a survey if lines were shown from a different surveyor's work.?ÿ And not merely to note that the line was shown per the work of another surveyor, but to make reference to the surveyor who did the survey.
@lurker?ÿ
Exactly.?ÿ If I'm surveying a 100 acre parcel in order to cut out a 5 acre lot for the land-owner's nephew, I'm not going to survey the entire parcel.?ÿ Just the new lot, frontage, lines running from the road, etc, will be surveyed and dimensioned.?ÿ?ÿ The rest will be either shown as just lines, maybe with +/- distances, maybe not.?ÿ Or I may just have a larger scale locus map to show the rest of the parcel.
Back in the day; if we didn't put a tape on the line, then it wasn't "surveyed"
Today; we walk up to the corner with our GNSS and hit the button...
We inverse between the coordinates, so it was "surveyed"
If a surveyor looks at a corner and says; Yep, it's original and undisturbed. Is it surveyed?
Record lines adjacent to the surveyed area are frequently shown here with a dashed line type, more for context and orientation purposes. I'd rather see those than have a plat showing none of the surrounding record lines in any shape or form where the surveyed area is an island. My personal pet peeve are surveys that fail to show what was recovered and used to control the surveyed lines that are shown and easements that don't mention if they are of record (no source) or dedicated on the plat.
We had a firm that had at one time or another surveyed almost every parcel in the county over two generations.?ÿ You learned to look closely at their plats and if a field book and page were noted in the title block, they actually surveyed the property.?ÿ Without that, It was generally more of a deed abstract.
@jph then aren't you surveying it? It sounds like you are reestablishing the boundary position by the best available evidence. Just because that evidence isn't an on the ground measurement doesn't mean it's not a survey.?ÿ
@williwaw "My personal pet peeve are surveys that fail to show what was recovered and used to control the surveyed lines "?ÿ
These kind of surveys are a bane on our profession.?ÿ
Posted by: @jph
Exactly.?ÿ If I'm surveying a 100 acre parcel in order to cut out a 5 acre lot for the land-owner's nephew, I'm not going to survey the entire parcel.?ÿ Just the new lot, frontage, lines running from the road, etc, will be surveyed and dimensioned.?ÿ?ÿ The rest will be either shown as just lines, maybe with +/- distances, maybe not.?ÿ Or I may just have a larger scale locus map to show the rest of the parcel.
Aren't you concerned about potentially holding a disturbed monument??ÿ Or is the chance of that happening worth the risk of having to go back?
@jph then aren't you surveying it? It sounds like you are reestablishing the boundary position by the best available evidence. Just because that evidence isn't an on the ground measurement doesn't mean it's not a survey.?ÿ
Aren't on the ground measurements typically considered to be the best evidence?
If my survey takes me far off the subject tract, I'll dash (line not surveyed line-type) the adjoining boundary lines leading to it. I'll label the B&Ds and describe the monuments, but even though I have researched the adjoining boundary, I'm not being compensated for the liability of determining their boundary, so I don't show it as "Surveyed".?ÿ I doubt I would/could/should do this in the PLSS.
In an extreme example, if surveying all of the parent tract was required to reestablish the subject tract, how would my client view my services if I charged him $6K for a boundary survey, then gave the adjoiner the benefit of my seal for free by showing all their boundaries as surveyed?
As I've expressed before, my duty to the public is met by being honest, transparent, and exceeding the minimum standards of practice. Dashed lines provide a means to aid a retracing PLS without devaluing my work and upsetting the person paying for it. My duty to my client is paramount.
?ÿ
@jph then aren't you surveying it? It sounds like you are reestablishing the boundary position by the best available evidence. Just because that evidence isn't an on the ground measurement doesn't mean it's not a survey.?ÿ
Aren't on the ground measurements typically considered to be the best evidence?
In the case described there is nothing remaining to be measured.?ÿ
In general on the ground measurements are only supporting evidence that helps prove the identity of the found physical evidence. We usually show our measuments to help calculate area and to provide an aid to find the evidence we found and the evidence we create.?ÿ
When there is nothing left on the ground measurements can become the best available evidence.
no one with any grey matter really would touch this issue ncpls1981-1994, after hugo and tornadoes.the impoundment of waters?ÿ that were previously small branches,dadgum now with debris and mostly Beaver Ponds. a traverse to show closure along perimeter?????????? h*** with gps,you walk the lines for what evidence?ÿ
Go hard and be safe all.
break a large beaver built impoundment. N.C.D.O.T. AND U.S.A.C.E. they be like the U.S. Marshal service.
of course all is now under the purvey of Homeland Security. and it should be our requisite is protect the public.we are licensed as a quasi-judicial to serve. hold that one close.
My thought on the OP (I happen to be in NC):
If I am retracing a boundary and a segment is not a firm line (marsh, swamp, multi-threaded creek), I may rely on a previous map and "line not surveyed". Further, I believe we are provided that latitude in GS 47-30 (d) "...that the boundaries not surveyed are clearly indicated as drawn from information found in Book____, page ____;...".
Personally, I will attempt to confirm locations along lines that I choose to reference, "not survey", and satisfy my professional judgement prior to using such referenced information for my maps. Resulting disagreement can go to the extreme of informing the client of additional time/ effort to fully survey that section and map, accordingly.
A similar, sticky scenario for discussion (apologies for potential thread-jack).?ÿ
If a local surveyor has recently recorded a retracement of an existing parcel. Then a subsequent purchaser wishes to engage you to do a lot division, do you find the following acceptable?
Locate enough evidence on the recently recorded boundary to have confidence in that map. Create a new line for the division (2 lots, total) and set the new mons.
File a new map of record for the division, showing only the new line as "surveyed", with ties (B&D) to adjacent, parent monuments.?ÿ Any other lines on the parent boundary shown for context would be as "lines not surveyed" referenced to the map book and page of the recently recorded retracement.
?ÿ
If a local surveyor has recently recorded a retracement of an existing parcel. Then a subsequent purchaser wishes to engage you to do a lot division, do you find the following acceptable?
Locate enough evidence on the recently recorded boundary to have confidence in that map. Create a new line for the division (2 lots, total) and set the new mons.
File a new map of record for the division, showing only the new line as "surveyed", with ties (B&D) to adjacent, parent monuments.?ÿ Any other lines on the parent boundary shown for context would be as "lines not surveyed" referenced to the map book and page of the recently recorded retracement.
That way doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
I don't understand why you would verify the previous guy's work and then not say so on your map.?ÿ It seems like the perfect opportunity to do a record and measured drawing to me.
I have a survey of a parcel between landowners, the owner to the west with 800 Acres, the owner to the east with 30,000 Acres. So I can't show some lines of this survey as unsurveyed lines? The 90 Acres in question has to be shown in context of the entire acreages and they all have to be surveyed?
I'm surveying a Lot of a section, the Lot is created by a river, the left bank of the river is the meander line of the lot, but I can't show the right bank as unsurveyed?
I have a BLA between an 1800 acre and a 1200 acre ranch where they wish to clean up a 2 acre encroachment. Do I have to survey all 3000 acres??ÿ
