- North Arrow issues. ?ÿAn expert report/witness??s north arrow is improperly labeled. ?ÿLabeled plat north for the subdivision of subject property, however, referencing two monuments in a junior plat for his basis of bearing outside the subdivision. ?ÿ
Can any aspect of his report be relied upon?
?ÿ
Does the bearing he used match the plat bearing system?
Some States do not allow reference to a document or system as a basis of bearings. Over time many surveyors have fallen in the habit of grabbing a line with two monuments and calling it the BOB. That doesn't make it good practice, but it can establish the standard of care in that jurisdiction.?ÿ
So to answer your qyestion, it depends...
Does the issue involve some kind of need to tie to some kind of external reference system? Most boundary disputes don't. All that matters is the relative positions of the parcels in conflict.?ÿ If this is the case here I don't see why this would make the expert any less trustworthy.?ÿ This is standard procedure in many places.?ÿ
@thebionicman To answer your question, No, it does not match the plat bearing. ?ÿIt matches a deed call in a junior lot/different subdivision?ÿ
?ÿ
@aliquot?ÿ
No, I don??t think so. ?ÿIt??s based on two monuments not identified in the subject plat. ?ÿDoesn??t have anything to do with the subject property. ?ÿ
@jmk83?ÿ
They don't identify the two monuments used? Thats a different story. Not necessarily disqualifying, but certainly raises some concerns.?ÿ
@aliquot?ÿ
they identified the bob is from a junior plat, said line being a subdivided line from the subdivision in the junior plat.?ÿ
@aliquot ?ÿalthough he has it labeled as plat north per the subject property, he admitted it??s not. ?ÿAdmitted his north arrow should be labeled the junior plat because that??s where he started.
@aliquot it says tie on the line, although, it does not adjoin. ?ÿDoesn??t adjoin the the subject plat of the subdivision
?ÿ
Hold on...you don't like the practice of having two physical monuments as a physical BOB? To be fair, it is essentially a matter of terms. Many refer to BOB as a certain plat, meaning that they held the angles on that plat. But, when you get into the field, it is useful to know what they started from, what their actual physically held monuments are...unless ALL the monuments fit.
IMHO this is something that needs to be nailed down a bit in our profession. A sort of standardization.
@thebionicman I'm confused. By statute we have to use a line monumented at both ends for our basis of bearing. How is that bad practice? Why do you refer to it as "falling into the habit". I'm sure you meant something more but I'm curious what that is.
probably not a popular opinion, but from a practical perspective: I don't really care about what the basis of bearing is, as long as all math shown is relative to itself. I'm going to tie into existing features regardless, these days the most use I have for a north arrow is general context to help me zoom to the area on google maps.
@aliquot on the subject of raising some concerns, in addition to the north arrow issues and BOB, he doesn??t hold the iron corner that has been in place for 60+ years. ?ÿIt??s mentioned in all adjoining deeds as found and described as the corner of four parcels in three instruments. ?ÿHe stated, ??it??s not far enough over? and set an iron 3?? next to it. ?ÿThen applied the BOB from a different neighborhood that is a junior plat.
@out-of-level I get what you mean. ?ÿI just assume that having an accurately positioned north arrow, as a mapper, is basic level mapping standards, similar to writing your name on a test. ?ÿI
