Or a bad hangover
Kent's notes
:good:
I like both of your responses.
[sarcasm]Looks like punch marks by shotgun[/sarcasm] :-X :whistle:
One original punch + two pin cushioners with double-vison.:-P
I hope everyone is looking at the difference between showing good measurements and good markings on the monuments you set vs. accepting monuments that are not to the same precision you measure. There's a difference between accepting an original monument and showing an "as measured" distance to it; and setting a monument at a location different from the original at the called-for location.
From reading Kent's posts, I get the impression that he makes every effort to find and accept original monuments in there original position, and tries to leave a well-marked path to whatever monuments he finds or sets that have reproducible bearings and distances to a higher order of precision. I don't consider this a discussion between setting pincushions or accepting fences.
actually, that looks like
our friends at ACME ENGINEERING, INC got carried away with their alignment design....
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. almost forgot the paint.
actually, that looks like
> our friends at ACME ENGINEERING, INC got carried away with their alignment design....
That looks more like ACNE Engineering's work. :>
> From reading Kent's posts, I get the impression that he makes every effort to find and accept original monuments in their original positions, and tries to leave a well-marked path to whatever monuments he finds or sets that have reproducible bearings and distances to a higher order of precision. I don't consider this a discussion between setting pincushions or accepting fences.
Odd, isn't it, how some surveyors have an almost unshakeable belief that one can't actually locate original monuments and perpetuate their locations with any great accuracy through survey measurements? The false choice for them is evidently whether to (a) actually find the boundary but do a sloppy job of reporting its actual shape and location by survey measurements or (b) make very accurate measurements to points that aren't actually on the boundary.
If the clarity can be called into question or misinterpreted then maybe it's not clear enough. But if land descriptions are only for land surveyors then by all means let's write them in a secret code.
> If the clarity can be called into question or misinterpreted then maybe it's not clear enough. But if land descriptions are only for land surveyors then by all means let's write them in a secret code.
Didn't you read your secret code book? Why do you think we put our measurements down in degrees feet and inches? (° ' ") Them chains and perches weren't confusing enough...
> Odd, isn't it, how some surveyors have an almost unshakeable belief that one can't actually locate original monuments and perpetuate their locations with any great accuracy through survey measurements? The false choice for them is evidently whether to (a) actually find the boundary but do a sloppy job of reporting its actual shape and location by survey measurements or (b) make very accurate measurements to points that aren't actually on the boundary.
Really???? Please put the straw man back in the barn.
I haven't heard anyone advocate the practice of actually finding the boundary but doing a sloppy job of reporting its actual shape and location by survey measurements". If you have actual examples of such, please post them.
I personally prefer (as I would assume most surveyors and clients would) to find the actual property boundaries and perpetuate the evidence of their location using several tools at our disposal such as reasonably precise measurements and accurate descriptions of evidence found and used, presented on a record of survey which is then filed/recorded in the public records. I still can't find any rational reasoning for surveyors who prefer to keep their surveys secret from the public.
BUT, if the only choices were either (a) or (b), I'd choose (a) in a heart-beat, every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
The secret code belongs in tax descriptions not legal descriptions. Why do we do anything other than a list of latitudes and longitudes to 7 decimal places? Heck, your smart phone will suffice after that. As far as trees go around here all you need to know is cedars and quakies, either big ones or little ones..
Just today a title company worker told me that she had received a deed yesterday from a local bank that called out a bearing as degrees/feet/seconds. They didn't know how to make the degree sign so they needed to spell it out. While they were at it, they decided to spell out feet and seconds, too.
Kent can't file his surveys in a public place. They don't allow such foolishness in Texas. Apparently there is no limit on a legal description though, 100 pages all abbreviated would be fine and a new one for each survey. Nope, I ain't moving to Texas, my instruments and computer aren't accurate enough (and I hate the heat also).
Or also degrees feet and inches:-)
> If the clarity can be called into question or misinterpreted then maybe it's not clear enough.
So, in Utah if someone says go to the nearest 36" Cottonwood, you start looking for 36-inch tall Cottonwoods? That has to be fun to watch.
> I haven't heard anyone advocate the practice of actually finding the boundary but doing a sloppy job of reporting its actual shape and location by survey measurements". If you have actual examples of such, please post them.
Well, that's pretty much the entire subject of the present discussion of actually giving boundary corners an exact position, isn't it? The folks who want to argue against the practice basically are saying that they don't want boundaries to be well defined, presumably for some irrational reason that is connected with the false choice I mentioned.
> I haven't heard anyone advocate the practice of actually finding the boundary but doing a sloppy job of reporting its actual shape and location by survey measurements". If you have actual examples of such, please post them.
You haven't seen the arguments on this site of the "deed staker" vs. the "fenceline surveyor" on this site? It's like political discussions between republicans and democrats. The name-calling term of deed staker is the guy that thinks his measurements are better than original evidence, and they love the precision of numbers; and the fenceline surveyor is the guy that will accept the first thing they trip over no matter how well or poorly it fits any calls. No in-between. You would think that everyone who likes "evidence" thinks that an accurate measurement device is his enemy, and that everyone that takes the time to measure precisely ignores even an original stone properly marked.
I have trouble believing that anyone hasn't seen this type of contrasting arguments on here.
> Kent can't file his surveys in a public place.
I think you may be making the fundamental error of thinking that a map of a survey is a "survey". Well written metes and bounds descriptions can represent survey results just as well. This should not be a novel concept.
So metes and bounds descriptions get recorded in the real property records in Texas, typically as exhibits to deeds of conveyance. This has been mentioned a *few* times in previous discussions, although it probably was more than a day ago.
Without all that the site would go dark!