Nate The Surveyor, post: 371035, member: 291 wrote: Mark, as I said, I was getting discouraged with the Javad, on this job. 30-45 mins is without GLONAS.
IF Glonass had been working... maybe 10-15 mins per corner. That would be 2-3 shots, (All in close agreement) along with raw data, and post processing to compare against. I still cannot shake my old habits... reshoot all corners, in multipath environments. Multiple times. At the time of corner set, I also rechecked some of them. Typical error was in the few hundredths.
When we understand that the description is to assist you in finding the corner marker, NOT to define where to move it to... we are on the right track. If I find a corner, a tenth off of my calc coord, I hold the marker.
N
How do you know that pipes found 30' out of reported position hadn't been moved?
Suppose it went down like this. Subdivider draws up some dimensions by which he wishes to sell off lots. He gives a sketch of that to C&T to lay out and prepare a plat. As C&T's work progresses subdivider loses confidence in the work being done. Subdivider is clever enough to prepare his own descriptions from his sketch, or to remove any references to the plat and its monuments that C&T may produce.
In other words, he makes a conscious decision to sell lots without reference to the plat or monuments. That could have happened. If it did descriptions would have been recorded without reference to plat or monuments. Which is what happened, isn't it? Does the act of having a plat done and recorded bind the subdivider to sell lot by reference the plat and no other way?
I'm not convinced of this "first" or "original" surveyor principle either. When a description that does not call for monuments is surveyed and monumented for the first time those monuments become binding on the adjoiners by operation of estoppel or recognition and acquiescence, and not by some "first surveyor" mojo.
There are systematic patterns, roads, and power lines. This makes it obvious.
There are roads, pwr lines, etc. It is somewhat obvious, Where to bigger busts are. There is a pattern. And slopes were not corrected very much. It gets obvious, after retracing close to 1/3 of the monuments in this project.
Dave Karoly, post: 371131, member: 94 wrote: The Plat is presumed to be the result of a Survey.
That flies in the face of the fact, though, that plats can easily be generated without a survey and many in fact are. Any "survey" in that context typically consists of at best only a survey of the boundary of the tract. In the 19th century, before modern computional aids became commonplace, irregular lot arrangements would have been difficult to calculate and one might draw the inference that the bearings and distances were likely the result of some measurement on the ground. In the case of regular lots not needing any computational effort, no such inference would be warranted.
Nate The Surveyor, post: 371134, member: 291 wrote: There are systematic patterns, roads, and power lines. This makes it obvious.
Do you mean that there are roads and power lines shown on the plat that are known to have existed before the plat was made?
Yes. And road names, are called for in descriptions. There is an inferred relationship to the plat via this. Also nearly all deed dimensions match the plat. (A few obvious blunders) deeds call for C/L roads.
Kent McMillan, post: 371137, member: 3 wrote: That flies in the face of the fact, though, that plats can easily be generated without a survey and many in fact are. Any "survey" in that context typically consists of at best only a survey of the boundary of the tract. In the 19th century, before modern computional aids became commonplace, irregular lot arrangements would have been difficult to calculate and one might draw the inference that the bearings and distances were likely the result of some measurement on the ground. In the case of regular lots not needing any computational effort, no such inference would be warranted.
I said it's a presumption...a presumption shifts the burden of proof. I did not say there are no protracted plats but you would have to prove the plat is NOT based on a Survey.
A lot of the problem is Surveyors have the presumptions backwards.
Nate The Surveyor, post: 371140, member: 291 wrote: ..... deeds call for C/L roads.
Said roads are called for monuments which should be held, presuming we are talking about constructed roads.
Nate The Surveyor, post: 371140, member: 291 wrote: Yes. And road names, are called for in descriptions. There is an inferred relationship to the plat via this. Also nearly all deed dimensions match the plat. (A few obvious blunders) deeds call for C/L roads.
Well, the question really amounted to whether there is something about the configuration or design of the plat itself that could only be the result of a survey on the ground having been made of the lots before the plat was drawn or could the plat as easily have been drawn up from other means. For example, if there was an existing road across the tract prior to platting, and the road is shown on the plat, but way out of position, what would one conclude from that?
Dave Karoly, post: 371144, member: 94 wrote: I said it's a presumption...a presumption shifts the burden of proof.
Well, when a presumption flies in the face of reason and experience, what does a presumption amount to other than formalism? Now a plat of a survey is a representation of that survey and is reasonably expected to yield to where the survey actually ran lines and established corners, but to consider every plat ever recorded as a plat of a survey is simply nutty.
Kent, it was surveyed, and monumented, and a plat drawn, and recorded. And land was sold via description, which descriptions nearly all fully match said plat. There are a couple deeds written later, that are obvious divisions of the parent previous lot, and a few desc. That contain blunders, ie, don't close, but there are enough calls for cl etc, to solve them. The developer was not concerned with precision.
He assumed lots = desc = land = deeds = ownership.
Sent from my VS880PP using Tapatalk
Kent McMillan, post: 371150, member: 3 wrote: Well, when a presumption flies in the face of reason and experience, what does a presumption amount to other than formalism? Now a plat of a survey is a representation of that survey and is reasonably expected to yield to where the survey actually ran lines and established corners, but to consider every plat ever recorded as a plat of a survey is simply nutty.
Well no, presumptions are based in reality and experience. Most Plats result from a Survey. If the Plat in your hand did not result from a Survey, you would have to prove that.
You seem to view a standard presumption to be an absolute, unbreakable rule which is not the case. The typical rules we are familiar with are rules of construction, not property. They are not absolute. As I pointed out earlier, even a call for a monument in a description is not absolute, it may yield to course and distance if holding the monument leads to an absurd result.
Mark Mayer, post: 371133, member: 424 wrote: Suppose it went down like this. Subdivider draws up some dimensions by which he wishes to sell off lots. He gives a sketch of that to C&T to lay out and prepare a plat. As C&T's work progresses subdivider loses confidence in the work being done. Subdivider is clever enough to prepare his own descriptions from his sketch, or to remove any references to the plat and its monuments that C&T may produce.
In other words, he makes a conscious decision to sell lots without reference to the plat or monuments. That could have happened. If it did descriptions would have been recorded without reference to plat or monuments. Which is what happened, isn't it? Does the act of having a plat done and recorded bind the subdivider to sell lot by reference the plat and no other way?
I'm not convinced of this "first" or "original" surveyor principle either. When a description that does not call for monuments is surveyed and monumented for the first time those monuments become binding on the adjoiners by operation of estoppel or recognition and acquiescence, and not by some "first surveyor" mojo.
Ok, suppose it went down like you said. Well, not so fast. You have absolutely no evidence that it "went down" like you supposed. Therefore your supposition is only that; and "suppositions" and "what if's" and "maybe's" and "could have happened's" and "if it dids" and all the other dreamed up facts not in evidence mean absolutely nothing.
Do you have a legal reference that binds a "subdivider to sell lot by reference (to) the plat and no other way"? I doubt it, but it could be out there somewhere............... More likely it is just another unsubstantiated surveyor myth that currently permeates our profession.
Why is it that whenever our modern measurements do not match original monuments with some unsubstantiated level of precision that we dream up, do we then bent over backwards and twist ourselves into ridiculous, illogical knots trying to find ways to reject the original monuments, when in reality we only are not comfortable with the level of imprecision used by the original surveyor? Maybe we really don't know what it is we are supposed to be doing out there?
We seem to have no problem holding an original undisturbed quarter corner stone that is out of record position by 100 feet or more, but yet we can't accept an original undisturbed monument in a metes and bounds or platted parcel that is only "out" by less than a few feet or even a rod or two? Please, please someone point out the legal difference.
I would love also to see the legal precedents that establish the levels of acceptable precision that vary depending on the value of the land. Good luck.
roger_LS, post: 371132, member: 11550 wrote: How do you know that pipes found 30' out of reported position hadn't been moved?
How do you know, for a fact, that they have been moved?
Nate The Surveyor, post: 371154, member: 291 wrote: Kent, it was surveyed, and monumented, and a plat drawn, and recorded. And land was sold via description, which descriptions nearly all fully match said plat. There are a couple deeds written later, that are obvious divisions of the parent previous lot, and a few desc. That contain blunders, ie, don't close, but there are enough calls for cl etc, to solve them. The developer was not concerned with precision.
He assumed lots = desc = land = deeds = ownership.Sent from my VS880PP using Tapatalk
Sounds like you have it well in hand Nate, remember original monuments all have the same error,,,,,,,,zeroB-)
Kent McMillan, post: 371120, member: 3 wrote: For a survey made in 1979, the standards of the day would apply. If errors of 5 ft. to 50 ft. were normal in Arkansas at the time and there were no minimum standards that applied, then 5 ft. to 50 ft. would be close 'nuf. I would expect that they weren't.
The only way the "standards of the day" would apply in any manner what-so-ever is in an administrative action holding the original surveyor to the standard of care. It would not in any manner change the locations of the boundaries as established on the ground.
So let's just say, for argument sake; the standard of the day was 1 foot in 5000. You find the 4 corners of one of these 3 acre lots and a couple of other corners adjacent. Your traverse closes better than 1 foot in 20,000, but you find that one of your corners is out as much as 3 feet and everything else is within a foot of your best fit placement of the calculated deeded block. What do you do? Pull the offending pipe and move it over to fit better with your map?
Thanks
Dougie
That poster: RADAR, sure is a swell guy
Brian Allen, post: 371163, member: 1333 wrote: Why is it that whenever our modern measurements do not match original monuments with some unsubstantiated level of precision that we dream up, do we then bent over backwards and twist ourselves into ridiculous, illogical knots trying to find ways to reject the original monuments...
We have descriptions here that do not call for monuments or a plat, and a plat that does not show monuments. I'm not sure which side of this debate requires twisting.
roger_LS, post: 371132, member: 11550 wrote: How do you know that pipes found 30' out of reported position hadn't been moved?
Because there is a pattern. When you add in all the natural mons, ie, roads, and pwr lines, And you do the "all things considered", and all, and consider that measurements between lot cors that face the road, all fit quite well, it becomes plain. There's alot of mons out there. Surveying is not just an exercise in jr Sr rights. Its a package deal, where common sense applies.
I have a bit more to add, but bday party is calling...
