Opinions sought...

They were all within a tenth of where the record shows them to be, or maybe a bit more! His error elipse was large enough to justify the record math I reckon.

I agree - the original work was close enough to not justify saying anything different. That's the way we do it in my neck of the woods. But then we don't have "record of survey" here. Sometimes surveyors actually put stuff where it belongs - as they should.

I would be highly dubious. I'm pretty sure I couldn't run the same survey two days in a row, set up, crank angles, shoot (or pull) distances, and get the EXACT same results. Much less follow someone else, 5 years apart, and get the same results.

Andy

WOW, what are the chances you have not ONE, but TWO Perfect surveyors on the same Plat? Amazing that the first one set every monument exactly where they proposed and then the second one comes along and measures all of them exactly the same way. Call Ripley's, but I don't believe it.

Jim, we have some newer subdivisions around and the differences in calls versus founds are well within the positional tolerance by the state, plus the .1' we are given.

If all of the calls are still on the rod, why mess with something that's working.

Have you measured any of the distances or angles in the block? If so, have you found any discrepancies in the recorded data? If so, how much?

:good:

I did some well plats in a brand new resurveyed township. I just showed record on them. Everything was within a few tenths so the BLM got plats with nearest minute and .01 chains. They didn't like it but.....

"What do you make of this?"

A Surveyor with common sense.

Have a great weekend! B-)

> "What do you make of this?"
>
> A Surveyor with common sense.
>
> Have a great weekend! B-)

I agree.

:good: :good: :good:

Since when is it already Friday afternoon on the East Coast?:whistle:

> > "What do you make of this?"
> >
> > A Surveyor with common sense.
> >
> > Have a great weekend! B-)
>
> I agree.

Agreed

> A Surveyor with common sense.
>

I go back and forth with this, particularly with the way MTS is written in Florida. As current MTS code states, "A comparison between recorded directions and distances with field measured directions and distances when they vary."

I brought this up in a surveyor's meeting last month and asked what defines "when it varies." I was then told that it was up to me as a surveyor to determine that. However, when you review the disciplinary actions against those surveyors turned into the board, they often charge the defendant with not showing the field vs record discrepancy.

I wish Florida would just put wording in their standards as to what defines "good enough", particularly for lot and block type surveys. Unfortunately, it just causes confusion amongst the profession in order to "protect the public".

> :good: :good: :good:
>
> Since when is it already Friday afternoon on the East Coast?:whistle:

Charge twice as much, work half as long, right?

> They were all within a tenth of where the record shows them to be, or maybe a bit more! His error elipse was large enough to justify the record math I reckon.

Agreed

Washington states that a Record of survey is not required when:
..(iv) Differences in linear and/or angular measurement between all controlling monuments that would indicate differences in spatial relationship between said controlling monuments in excess of 0.50 feet when compared with all locations of public record: That is, if these measurements agree with any previously existing public record plat or map within the stated tolerance, a discrepancy will not be deemed to exist under this subsection.

Not that I agree with a half foot slop point to point but its Intent gets down to our ability to repeat our own measurements based upon procedures, equipment and boundary law. Why throw consternation and calamity into the equation because you can measure better than the last guy.

Oregon is a bit closer in that they require the plat surveyor to set monuments within one tenth of a foot of the record location.
92.050Requirements of survey and plat of subdivision and partition. .....
(2) The survey for the plat of the subdivision or partition shall be done in a manner to achieve sufficient accuracy that measurements may be taken between monuments within one-tenth of a foot or one ten-thousandth of the distance shown on the subdivision or partition plat, whichever is greater.

Like Rich implied, there isn't much to make until you find out what really exists in the field.

Two possibilities:

1. Both surveyors measured carefully using similar equipment and the 2nd surveyor found no monuments to be more than amount of the measurement uncertainties inherent in his equipment and methods, and so chose to not unnecessarily report minor differences that cannot be proven using reasonable levels of care in repeating the measurements.

or

2. He came off two irons at one end of his survey, checked close enough to record to not cause himself any alarm, radially sprayed in the corners of the lot he was hired to stake, then drew his map showing the whole block because it was more aesthetically pleasing and looked more credible than showing one 50' backsight for control.

If #2, he is a cut-rate, slip shod no account bum that we all wish would find another line of work.

If #1, he showed a level of wisdom that surpasses, actually flies right over the heads of most other surveyors.

> If #1, he showed a level of wisdom that surpasses, actually flies right over the heads of most other surveyors.

:good: :good:

“I go back and forth with this, particularly with the way MTS is written in Florida. As current MTS code states, "A comparison between recorded directions and distances with field measured directions and distances when they vary."

Me too. Today’s Florida Board of Land Surveyors should absolutely reconsider this rule. I ignore it for the most part. It serves no purpose other than to confuse the people who use the survey.

Have a great weekend! B-)

I don't understand the resistance to simply reporting on your survey what you measured. I just have a layer for record boundary and a layer for field boundary, different label styles for each and label both boundaries on my maps. Why not ?