Call Eamon McReilly, my leprechaun buddy.?ÿ If he can't find your bar in the arborwhatsit, he can set your bar and cap for you.
@tim-libs Well, I had a Judge rule that a 5/8" rebar where 3/4" smooth iron pins were specified on the Plat and whose position was 280 feet off from calculated position from the original stone GLO corner was the original pin. So I'd say 281 feet is probably about right.
Lot corners set from preliminary control before the plat monuments and the paving?
That's a solid possibility, but only speculation at this point.
?ÿ
Yeah, 1995 around here it largely depended on what you needed to do to get the plat recorded. Some places you could record before anything was set...
But, I like your approach. My tendency is to hold rebar with original caps as the corners, and a random rebar with no cap gets a bit more examination. Occupation matters, of course.
I wasn't willing to offer an opinion based on the information in the original post.?ÿ Once you told all that you knew it was evident that given the complete story most surveyors will arrive at the same opinion.
?ÿ
There's a lot of Washington surveyors that follow the math; exclusively...
I was talking to a bunch of prominent surveyors from around here, once; I said: there are several reasons to reject a monument, math isn't one of them. I got a lot of blank stares
...
As long as I can defend my decision in court, I will sleep better at night...
?ÿ
I was talking to a bunch of prominent surveyors from around here, once; I said: there are several reasons to reject a monument, math isn't one of them. I got a lot of blank stares
The question for them is "How do you pick which one to start the math from ?"
@dougie?ÿ
I'm from the east.?ÿ Most of my experience is retracing deeds that have a 100+ year old description.?ÿ The math almost never agrees with modern technology.?ÿ I never say never but a subdivision corner that conflicts with a senior right will be shown as being across the line on the senior right.?ÿ Occupation can change my opinion but it will need to be a long standing straight as a string wooden or metal fence at a minimum.?ÿ Too many corners in subdivisions have been set down and dirty, cheap and easy.?ÿ?ÿ
It's the Willamette Stone, of course...
I point out that the Willamette Stone was set 34 years after the spot was originally established and marked with a cedar post. The stone is then known to have had its top broken off twice in the ensuing 103 years before it was replaced with the stainless steel cap that marks the point today. And that cap bears the marks of vandals.
?ÿ
?ÿ?ÿ
Does 'original' also mean 'called for' in the most recent deed?
@dave-o?ÿ
You generally don't see called for monuments in deeds around here. Even if it's a M&B or aliquot portion; you are left to you to your own devices...
@dave-o?ÿ
You generally don't see called for monuments in deeds around here. Even if it's a M&B or aliquot portion; you are left to you to your own devices...
hm.?ÿ How is 'original' determined in a case like this one??ÿ That it looks like something a surveyor would stick in the ground, is referenced by some other stamped but unrecorded survey, or some other way?
@dougie?ÿ
Same thing here.?ÿ Metes without bound calls.?ÿ See what you find.?ÿ Could that have been set in the time frame of the survey you are dealing with.?ÿ If it's the 1930's, it might be a window weight or a big bastard file or a chunk out of a leaf spring or a ...............................................................
You generally don't see called for monuments in deeds around here.
I've always found weird little regional conventions no matter where I have worked, but this is one of WA's that really bugs me.
Yeah, it's a recording state. Fine. Yeah, ROS are public record. Fine too. People can look those up. But the description is where surveyors start, and sometimes all they have, to determine where that property lies on the ground; it damn well ought to include the monuments that we set or find...in the ground.
If we deem monuments important enough to show on an ROS, they ought to be important enough to reference when writing descriptions that run to/from the corners they represent.
How is 'original' determined in a case like this one?
In the legend, Bob noted that he SET No. 4 REBAR W/CAP L.S. No. 12870, and that is what I found.
they ought to be important enough to reference when writing descriptions that run to/from the corners they represent.
They probably would be; if surveyors were the ones writing the descriptions. Sadly, anyone can write "legal" descriptions...
I think the Attorney's like it this way; keeps them busy...
I was talking to a bunch of prominent surveyors from around here, once; I said: there are several reasons to reject a monument, math isn't one of them. I got a lot of blank stares
The question for them is "How do you pick which one to start the math from ?"
Typically how it works in most firms around here (to my knowledge):
-Calculate the Plats around the area to see if they fit together mathematically before heading out to a job.
-Find as many road centerline monuments as you can in the area, along with property corner monuments on the subject parcel.
-Bring the data back into the office and hold/rotate the plats based on the road monument locations.
-Call misses to monuments found at property corners based on the calculated plats (even if original).
-Set missing corners/line bars based on calculated plats (which are holding centerline of road monuments).
-Pin-cushion property corner if existing monument is more than 0.5' away from the calculated position.
To build a fence on the property line, essentially you are supposed to measure the the distance stated as a "miss" from the existing monument, and start your fence there. Then at the other property corner monument, measure your "miss" again to find out where you property line really is...
I completely disagree with this method, but I feel like I'm breaking the mold by not calling out misses to found property corners on my surveys.
I completely disagree with this method, but I feel like I'm breaking the mold by not calling out misses to found property corners on my surveys.
I agree, and this is what I always get into arguments over - if it's a found property corner, or more accurately a monument of a found corner, there cannot be a "miss" for it. It's literally impossible to miss a monument that is being held. It's pretzel logic. You either hold it or not.
And if not, it needs to be specifically called out as being rejected, and for what reason.
How is 'original' determined in a case like this one?
In the legend, Bob noted that he SET No. 4 REBAR W/CAP L.S. No. 12870, and that is what I found.
Ah, I didn't notice that.?ÿ I did notice though that he was using a (6 sec?) Wild T1-A.?ÿ That'd have to be at least 30 years old in 95 and might go into the column of "reasons why found rebar might be original and undisturbed".?ÿ I guess it doesn't help with the possible encroachment into the r/w.?ÿ What do you do with that? Label it as possible encroachment?
Subdivisions seem to be hit or miss, one might have everything fit within a few hundredths then the next one will have random multiple tenths floating around.
Had one where two well monuments 130 feet apart were 3 tenths off record distance between them. It??s like they didn??t care. Big engineering firm.
The work from the 1950s is more reliable than the 1990s.