FrancisH, post: 396272, member: 10211 wrote: well here I am, the fact that you could not decide what/which monuments to hold with the presence of several existing monuments that don't fit, points to the quality of land surveyors in america.
while I was on the other thread, I was almost convinced that US land laws are different. but I then thought ,,,,what's the purpose of the land law whether in US or in Singapore?. Isn't it to provide clear delineation on the ground of what every land owner really owns?
you keep on saying ..."that's the law" but then you forget that those laws were based on survey records of your own surveyors. courts had to make a decision based on faulty survey work over the years that keeps on propagating because of your "legal" mindset in doing an "engineering" survey.
if through all these centuries, the land boundaries in the US is in disarray between actual & written boundaries then it points to only one thing. US surveyors suck big time in their boundary work.
Wow. What a serious lack of understanding as to the role of surveyors in the US. We have 400 years of guidance from the courts regarding boundary location to reference. Have there been, and are there still many, surveyors who did not understand their roles or the rules which guide their work? Yes. Are there many conscientious surveyors who apply the local laws to their work? Of course. If you cannot comprehend that in the US boundary surveying is about much, much more than measurements and precision, then we cannot have a relevant discussion about this topic.
Perspectives from around the world are very interesting and much appreciated, however, the denigration of thousands of professionals because you don't understand the role we play within the US cadastre has no place among fellow professionals.
With all of the "modern" earth moving equipment out there, it is incredibly easy to trench or shove earth in any direction. It may have been done years ago and that allowed for everything to settle back to "normal" with an undisturbed appearance.
We often assume the case that the monument was undisturbed. But in the same vein we can't say for sure it wasn't. All we have in the end is whether or not there is harmony with similar monuments. Any outliers need to be re-examined for evidence of possible disturbance.
The fact that the improvements were in harmony with the record lines indicates a possible disturbance of the monument. Finding evidence of that is now a matter of asking the owners of any knowledge of earth moving near the area. Utilities often run lines along fences and wall without regard to our monuments.
Evidence, evidence, evidence. Observe and record. It's our burden, our duty and I love it.
roger_LS, post: 396221, member: 11550 wrote: I would be tempted to call the point off, especially due to the fact that holding the point would leave parcel B eight tenths short of record. Where disregarding this outlier allows for near record dimensions.
I would knock on the door and ask Parcel B if they know where their NE corner was located? If he walks you to the big a** monument and says "Here!" I would accept it. Also, I would see if the bearing on the garage match the N/S line, to perhaps prove it was built with a the rear line of Parcel B in mind.
As another has said, "So to hold the monument would give the monument precedence as it is clearly visible and inmistakable as to what it represents" I think the jury would agree.
Why set another monument? The ones by the wall are off by 0.5' but you will accept them due to the division wall? I am sure Parcel A and B accept the monument as their corner and they both know it's there. Accepting it and moving on will probably not upset anyone. Just put a kink in the line, that's what they are living by?
Rich., post: 396259, member: 10450 wrote: I don't have a picture but this is from Google Earth street view. It's unmistakably a survey marker.
[INDENT]Speak with your client and the neighbors. Show them what you found and ask their recollection of the monument. Are they honoring it? You may open a can of worms, but in my experience some people could care less about 8 tenths when you speak with them. They may tell you that something hit the monument and they stood it back up.[/INDENT]
YES, buildings are pretty much immovable monuments. Have you considered that the star monument may have been intentionally set inside the Lot B line? I would then note it as off or as within Lot B.
It is definitely a Monument to the Corner, but that does not make the middle of it the corner.
Surveyors have to consider the preponderance of the evidence. I believe you have indicated enough evidence that it is not an original corner.
Paul in PA
Mapman, post: 396314, member: 6096 wrote: With all of the "modern" earth moving equipment out there, it is incredibly easy to trench or shove earth in any direction. It may have been done years ago and that allowed for everything to settle back to "normal" with an undisturbed appearance.
We often assume the case that the monument was undisturbed. But in the same vein we can't say for sure it wasn't. All we have in the end is whether or not there is harmony with similar monuments. Any outliers need to be re-examined for evidence of possible disturbance.
The fact that the improvements were in harmony with the record lines indicates a possible disturbance of the monument. Finding evidence of that is now a matter of asking the owners of any knowledge of earth moving near the area. Utilities often run lines along fences and wall without regard to our monuments.
Evidence, evidence, evidence. Observe and record. It's our burden, our duty and I love it.
We had a case locally a few years back where a surveyor had tied a subdivision to a city control point. I can't remember how it came to light, but the monument had been ripped out and replaced by a utility contractor a year or so earlier. These monuments were cast in place concrete cylinders roughly 1 foot in diameter and several feet deep with 3 inch diameter aluminum disks on top and flush with or slightly below grade. I didn't see it personally, but was told that there were no visual indications that it had been removed and reset.
Stephen Ward, post: 396322, member: 1206 wrote: We had a case locally a few years back where a surveyor had tied a subdivision to a city control point. I can't remember how it came to light, but the monument had been ripped out and replaced by a utility contractor a year or so earlier. These monuments were cast in place concrete cylinders roughly 1 foot in diameter and several feet deep with 3 inch diameter aluminum disks on top and flush with or slightly below grade. I didn't see it personally, but was told that there were no visual indications that it had been removed and reset.
That's a good reason to have ties to two control monuments - as a check.
Rich,
Hold the record, show the monument as a witness corner. 😎
Kent McMillan, post: 396274, member: 3 wrote: If I'm understanding that, it suggests that the street lines were laid out first and the starred monument set in relation to a marker at the angle point in the street line on the same side of the street. In retracing and reconstructing old surveys, it's always a good idea to consider how the survey was actually made. In this case, I assume that would be by transit/tape methods, probably by running centerlines of the streets and turning angle bisectors at angle points in the centerlines to mark the angle points on opposite sides.
Here's another question that comes to mind: If the houses predate the plat of the subdivision, were some or all of the streets most likely laid out BEFORE the plat was prepared? Is there some separate record of the layout of the streets that would suggest that the subdivision layout was really made after the streets were in place and their lines marked?
Did they run centerlines on the East Coast? Or one of the sidelines then measure the full width to set the other side? I'm not sure.
Here at least from the 1940s they ran the centerlines in for construction staking then set the lot corners then after the streets were built they ran the final centerlines in, that is why there is often a systematic shift between the centerline pipes and the lot corners of up to 2 or 3 tenths even if they were being careful.
Rich., post: 396261, member: 10450 wrote: Yes could be. Although one thing I will say is when you parallel the street as located by the northerly monuments and they run right through both found on the southern side of the road, the angle point on the north side of Lot B (no monument found) would be just about the record distance from angle point to mysterious monument. Using the other side of the road parelled the shortage seems to occur between the North West corner of Lot B to the angle point.
If it was 1940 (just a random year I picked) and I was the local Surveyor tasked with setting Mr. Star monument I might set on the stone on north line of the street closest, sight east to the monument at the street corner, then measure the calculated distance along the R/W to a temporary point opposite the Star monument, then turn 90 and measure the street width across to set it. I wonder how those distances work or maybe i would've blundered on the distance calc?
I've noticed on old plats here from the 1920s when they first started building non perpendicular streets and curves they would still calc things like the whole subdivision is a perfectly square lot and block plat. For example, the half street width was 20' and the side street is at 80 degrees from the Main Street, they would still show the distance along the centerline as 20', not the longer distance it actually is.
Warren Smith, post: 396326, member: 9900 wrote: That's a good reason to have ties to two control monuments - as a check.
I learned that lesson early in my career, years before I was licensed. I was fresh out of school and had only been in the field for a few months. We were working on the surveying and engineering for raw cell tower sites. On of the requirements at that time was a "2C" letter that gave the position of the proposed tower to a tolerance of +-50' horizontal and +-20' vertical. We tried to use HARN points for control most of the time but around the edges of the state there just weren't enough of them. To keep our base lines short and reduce travel and occupation time we'd put our site coordinates into NGS and hope to find a point with good horizontal and vertical orders close to a road, park, or other location where we were reasonably sure we could run GPS. Of course, once we found a good point we'd use it for all of our work in that area. One such point was located just off a frontage road along the interstate with excellent access and sky view.
I was shown this point by a co-worker and used it repeatedly over several months without giving it much thought. A couple of years later with much more experience, I returned to use the point for a new project and made a horrible discovery. I realized that the center mark was an arrow rather than the dot inside a triangle that you typically see on horizontal & vertical control. I pulled the data sheet out of the folder, read closely and realized that I was on the azimuth mark. The point I'd thought I was on was about 25 feet further south along the frontage road and the same distance behind the sidewalk with a vertical difference of a couple of feet. Fortunately with the loose tolerances the previous work was still okay but it was a real eye opener for me on the need to double check everything. I learned a valuable lesson on the dangers of using a single control point or benchmark.
Paul in PA, post: 396319, member: 236 wrote: YES, buildings are pretty much immovable monuments. Have you considered that the star monument may have been intentionally set inside the Lot B line? I would then note it as off or as within Lot B.
It is definitely a Monument to the Corner, but that does not make the middle of it the corner.
Surveyors have to consider the preponderance of the evidence. I believe you have indicated enough evidence that it is not an original corner.
Paul in PA
No. I would have to assume they are not original corners. Old, yes. Very old, yes. Original, no.
StLSurveyor, post: 396316, member: 7070 wrote: I would knock on the door and ask Parcel B if they know where their NE corner was located? If he walks you to the big a** monument and says "Here!" I would accept it. Also, I would see if the bearing on the garage match the N/S line, to perhaps prove it was built with a the rear line of Parcel B in mind.
As another has said, "So to hold the monument would give the monument precedence as it is clearly visible and inmistakable as to what it represents" I think the jury would agree.
Why set another monument? The ones by the wall are off by 0.5' but you will accept them due to the division wall? I am sure Parcel A and B accept the monument as their corner and they both know it's there. Accepting it and moving on will probably not upset anyone. Just put a kink in the line, that's what they are living by?
This was my thought. The 2 triangle monuments on parcel A are different than any others. The third to the west that checks the 0.5 position resembles the rest. The 2 on the subject property though do not check the record distances even though the block monuments do. They also can be leaning somewhat, so that also must be taken into consideration tremendously.
Kent McMillan, post: 396269, member: 3 wrote: A couple of questions come to mind from looking at the photo above.
(1) Is the theory that the road was constructed after the stone marker was set and, if so, is the protrusion of the stone above grade consistent with that theory?
(2) Is the size and type of the stone identical to others more consistent with the pattern of the lot layout? Likewise any station mark in the top of the stone.
(3) Do all of the other stone markers protrude above grade by similar amounts?
My concern from afar is to wonder whether all of the stones are essentially identical in type, dimension and details of installation or whether there are features of the stone in the photo that are different from the rest of the group.
Great questions. The monuments in this area are a scattering of type. All stone. Some larger than others. some smaller. some stick up 6", some are flush, some are an inch below the current soil. Some lean, some dont. Some are greyish, some are blueish.
Here is some more fun stuff on the area....
This is actually framed hanging on my wall (funny where evidence can be)...
Interesting, this map is dated 1904. And as we can see, the houses already existed on parcel A & B. As did the roads.
Above is a pic of the 'Atlas' my grandfather had. We can see the monuments are are printed with the book. However not all were found when whoever made this book. (Or weren't there) but considering the NW corner of the block had a buried monument that fits the others, I'm assuming that was there, just not shown/found. Our star monument is not shown and that would be hard to miss.
Here is another block for comparison. It's hard to see but some corners have a penciled square that shows where a monument was found but not printed in the book.
Atlas was published 1905.
I'm going to dig far far back into the deeds of the properties and see what I find around the turn of the century
Have you checked to see whether Sanborn's Fire Insurance maps exist for that neighborhood at even earlier dates?
