Numerous corner pins & Survey PR

> Do you think that having numerous pins at property corners helps the land surveying profession?
>
> Georges

No, of course not.

Georges-

Many pins/bars at one point are mainly the work of mathematical surveyors who are not too cognisant of those who are to follow the intended boundary.

Cheers

Derek

Hello!

Anybody listening?

> Georges-
>
> Many pins/bars at one point are mainly the work of mathematical surveyors who are not too cognisant of those who are to follow the intended boundary.
>
> Cheers
>
> Derek

I would agree with the esteemed Mr. Graham. However, there are instances where surveyors evaluate evidence differently, which leads to a different boundary resolutions and conclusions as to where a corner might be set. It's a professional opinion. That is another reason why you see more than one. It's usually the former (mathemagicians v. following the footsteps/best evidence) instance and not the latter that cause the problem.

All of this "depends" upon many variables too numerous to enumerate here.

That is what you will find with surveying, "it depends". It's not just math, it's consideration of many forms of evidence. Your anchor bolt analogy doesn't have many forms of evidence to sway or change it's location.

Georges,

You're absolutely right. Multiple markers at one corner are the very confusing and are a sign of poor surveying, whether recently or long ago. Unfortuately, once they have been placed, it is not proper for another surveyor to remove them. The best we can do is proper research and measurement to determine which one is correct and indicate it on our plat of survey. I believe the worst thing we can do is set another marker to add to the confusion. I know this doesn't clear it up much for the property owner, but perhaps some others on this board can offer comments that will help. If you search the term "pincushion" on this board you will find that most surveyors hate to see this. There are a lot of very good surveyors out there, but it only takes a few bad ones to make us all look bad.

> Georges,
>
> You're absolutely right. Multiple markers at one corner are the very confusing and are a sign of poor surveying, whether recently or long ago. Unfortuately, once they have been placed, it is not proper for another surveyor to remove them. The best we can do is proper research and measurement to determine which one is correct and indicate it on our plat of survey. I believe the worst thing we can do is set another marker to add to the confusion. I know this doesn't clear it up much for the property owner, but perhaps some others on this board can offer comments that will help. If you search the term "pincushion" on this board you will find that most surveyors hate to see this. There are a lot of very good surveyors out there, but it only takes a few bad ones to make us all look bad.

Well said Mr. Billingsley. I meant to mention the pulling of pins issue.

> Your anchor bolt analogy doesn't have many forms of evidence to sway or change it's location.

This is true. However (on large jobs) the QA surveyor would also check the location of that bolt. If our locations disagree, we would solve the problem until one location remains, regardless of who made the mistake.

- - - - -

I don't know, about the original question. Maybe there would be ways to record the location of other found pin(s) in some kind of officially recorded field notes.

In the province of Quebec, there was a cadastral reform that started back in the 90's. Here's the link:

http://www.mrn.gouv.qc.ca/english/land/cadastre/index.jsp

I don't know if this a viable solution to this kind of multi-pins dilemma. Besides, it is probably not that common either.

I just put myself in the client's shoes. He has a couple of pins at one of his corner, an invoice his hand and he is probably scratching his head, thinking: "well my problem is not really solved."

Surveyors are not the only people setting corner markers and creating pin cushions.
I have found many times that Mr. Helpful Lot Owner has set what he believes to be "more permanent corners" i.e. bigger rebars next to original rebars, large diameter pipes on top of or next to original corners, or buried and encased all of the above in concrete. Unfortunately, it is quite legal for land owners to set whatever corner markers they want wherever they want; so that new rebar in the pin cushion might really be the most reliable corner marker.

My solution is better than your solution .

Your Anchor Bolt Analogy...

Your anchor bolt analogy should not work because construction layout is a matter of math and careful measuring. The layout is either correct, within acceptable tolerances, or it isn't. When the QA surveyor remeasures the point, if found to have been previously set out of tolerance, it is the right thing to do to correct that point.

Unfortunately, because so many boundary surveyors approach the evidence puzzle of boundary determination as if it is an engineering or construction staking QA check, they will set a new point based upon their measurements and the (often unfounded) presumption that their measurements are of better quality than those of all who came before.

The only legitimate reason to ever set a new point is if the surveyor disagrees with the previous surveyors' evaluation and use of the evidence pertinent to the boundary locations, and then only if it is clear that property rights have not attached to the supposedly incorrectly set monument in existence.

Multiple monuments in place where one corner exists in title certainly does provide poor witness for our profession. It is a clear sign to any landowners who view the situation that one, or perhaps all of the surveyors represented by the monuments placed lack the expertise, and perhaps the intelligence and sense to properly identify and locate property boundaries.

Surveyors who set new monuments where there are one or more already existing often suppose that they are impugning the expertise or abilities of those surveyors who came before. But I wonder if they ever consider what reason their client has to trust them any more than the previous surveyors, or if they do?

A lack of knowledge of the use of evidence, together with a lack of respect for other surveyors measuring abilities, lack of respect for the accrued rights of property owners to have and enjoy stable boundaries, and an ego that presumes that one's own reputation or abilities are so obvious that one's survey results are above the same scrutiny as those who previously monumented the points can be nothing but damaging to the profession as a whole, as well as to the reputation of the surveyors in disagreement.

> Surveyors are not the only people setting corner markers and creating pin cushions.
> I have found many times that Mr. Helpful Lot Owner has set what he believes to be "more permanent corners" i.e. bigger rebars next to original rebars, large diameter pipes on top of or next to original corners, or buried and encased all of the above in concrete. Unfortunately, it is quite legal for land owners to set whatever corner markers they want wherever they want; so that new rebar in the pin cushion might really be the most reliable corner marker.

That's a good and valid point. But the surveyor also has to be cognizant of how and why Mr. Helpful Landowner set those points.

In Arnold v Hanson, Mr. Helpful Landowner, with the help of the chainman who had worked for the original surveyor of the subdivision, set iron pipe next to all (all that could be found, which were most) of the redwood hubs that were set as the original lot corners.

Years later, another surveyor comes along to survey one of the lots, doesn't find the hubs, rejects the iron pipes as non-record monuments, and proceeds to reconstruct the entire block according to his newer, superior measurements. The Court ripped him up pretty well for rejecting physical evidence perpetuating the locations of the original corners. It did not matter that a licensed surveyor had not set the IPs. It only mattered that they could be shown to have been placed at the same locations as the original hubs.

Obviously if the hubs were still there, one would use them and treat the IPs set by the landowner as guard stakes. Lacking the original hub, the IPs are the best evidence of the hub locations. The court was not concerned about the tenth or two difference which may have existed between the IP locations and the original hub locations. For boundaries, even in subdivisions, and especially in older subdivisions, judges seem to understand better than most surveyors that such minor differences are trifling - unworthy or consideration.

The moral of that story is that even when coming across non-record monuments (not called for in deed or on the record map), the surveyor needs to attempt to discern the history of the monument to determine if it is pertinent, or possibly even controlling of the boundary.

Your Anchor Bolt Analogy...

:good: :good:

[sarcasm]you forgot to add... [/sarcasm]"you jack leg-surveyor, you...";-)

Your Anchor Bolt Analogy...

Well said.

Just to close the books on this anchor bolt analogy, all I am saying is at the end, there's one mark for that bolt. There should be one pin for one property corner.

:beer: