The work from the 1950s is more reliable than the 1990s.
1950s, hey they actually measured that... 1990s, early RTK with no real checks, magic coordinates from the sky.?ÿ
The work from the 1950s is more reliable than the 1990s.
Every region must be different.
The plats of the subdivisions my church is in (straddles lots in two) from about 1958 don't close on paper by up to a foot on straight lines. Some curve data doesn't check with itself as either arc or chord formulas. Some measurements match plat well, others not.
I looked at another 1950's small subdivision plat where the exterior angles (not bearings) have a 40 minute bust and no single error will make the interior fit. I haven't looked for mons.
My 1970's house lot checks within the stability of the rerods (t-posts were driven beside some and later pulled.
My brother's acreage and the adjacent rural subdivision from ~1980 don't mesh by 3 ft on one side.
The few 1990's areas here I've looked at have perfect plats, but I don't know how good the measurements are.
It's a mixed bag, most (not all) old subdivisions circa 1900-1920 were good. A few more rural ones of that vintage are mostly lines drawn without bearings or distances. The surveys from the 20-50's can be great to terrible, 60-70's had some really bad ones, after that it got much better.?ÿ
Every region must be different.
I grew up Old School; plus things were a lot different in Eastern Nebraska. In Omaha, it was fairly common to find property corners, no matter how old the plat and most of the properties were in plats. You didn't find plat mons; section mons were rare, in urban areas; you didn't need them if the original, undisturbed property corners were there. You started at the property you were surveying and if you found all the corners, you checked the distances and found corners near by, to verify the ones you found were in the right spot.?ÿ
There was 3 ways to measure a distance:
- On Line; if that wasn't possible, then
- On an Offset Line: if that proved to be difficult, then
- Triangulation (traverse)
We had a client complain that the plat said his lot was 100' wide and our survey said it was 99.91'; how come we're cheating him out of 0.09'?! After that, if it was within an acceptable tolerance, it was R&M (record and measured). If a corner was missing, you prorated; your goal was to put it back as close as you could, to where it was originally set.
Today, Triangulation is the only way; or better yet, RTK. There's nothing wrong with that; but now, you have a dilemma. What do you do when you find an original, undisturbed property corner, over 0.5' from where you think it should be.?ÿ
In Washington, it's different; a lot of the properties were created by deed, and probably not surveyed; or at least not publicly available. my clients are shocked when I tell them the fence is off 10, 20, 40 feet; that the line runs through the neighbors house. It is what it is. Washington is a recording state, but that didn't start until 1973. A lot of plats weren't staked, and if they were, it was a wood stake. Things changed, after the recording act; you needed to mark the points you set with your license number, and more corners were being set.
The terrain is a lot different too; in Nebraska, you could see the horizon. I stood on the Willamette Stone, in Oregon, looked up the steep slope to the North, and said; You want me to go to Spokane from here? 66' at a time? Using a Solar Transit? It's raining!
So your right; every region is different, but the bottom line is the same; maintain harmony in the neighborhood (as best you can)
?ÿ
?ÿ
It's been my observation that overall judges tend to have dimmer view of original monuments than surveyors in determining boundaries. Most court opinions I've read do not mention original and undisturbed monuments. There is less importance put on the fact that a monument is original and undisturbed and more importance placed on the facts pertaining to the lawful boundary location. Undisturbed is a tough sale when determining facts. A surveyor might feel a monument is original and undisturbed because the monument description matches what was found and it it located reasonably well where the surveyor might expect it to be. It's a fact that a monument found matches the description. It's a fact that it harmonizes with the neighborhood to one degree or another. It's rare to find witnesses to the fact that the monument is in the original location and that it has not been disturbed. Neither the measurement or the description are witnesses to that fact. The judge is not concerned with that. The judge is concerned with settling a location by applying facts to the law. A survey monument of any kind is a piece of evidence of the lawful boundary weighed against other facts. Surveyors play the quasi-judicial role of making the first and most often final lawful opinion of a stabilized boundary location by setting or finding monuments and preparing associated documents. Where I work original and undisturbed is rare when seeking facts pertaining to boundary location. I'm more interested what is best evidence and why based on the facts and the law.?ÿ
Another observation I've made is that surveyors tend to reject monuments placed by other surveyors with poor reputations for measuring using reasoning such as improper location. Our old friend Keith called it a bogus theory.?ÿ
Would you hold the found corners? Where would you set the SE corner?
Proportion between the SW pin and the next found pin to the east on that line??ÿ It's hard to say since you didn't mention any found fences or tree lines, etc.
?ÿ
EDIT:?ÿ Oh, there is a fence; helps to read the entire thread first it seems. ??? Anyway, if the end of the fence is in the ballpark of the calc point for the SE corner then maybe I simply call the fence post the corner.?ÿ Maintain harmony in the neighborhood and all that...
@norm?ÿ
Exactly! The pertinent question is, what's the best available evidence??ÿ Even if the rebars are not original, they are better evidence of the boundary line's location than the math used to find them.?ÿ I'll consider whether the irons could have been moved or if the particular surveyor was a bum or a professional, but if the adjoiners have globbed onto the monuments, what better evidence is there of the boundary's location? Hypothetically, is the paved over original monument that hasn't been seen in 100 years better evidence of the boundary??ÿ
The final question I ask myself before signing a plat is, "have I solved problems or created them?" This question doesn't often make me change anything on the face of my plat, but it reminds to think about how the information will be viewed by clients and abutters. It might prompt me to call the old widow and explain that she still owns to the ditch, but my plat will show a different distance than her old deed.?ÿ
As I pointed out in another thread, a pin that appears to be original may have been disturbed for some reason.?ÿ In my case, it was a case of pulling the pin to put a fence post at the true property corner rather than at some offset.?ÿ If they would have removed the pin, the recent surveyor would have recognized the post was on the corner.?ÿ But, when they stuck the pin back in the ground next to the post, the recent surveyor accepted it as being in the original location.
As I pointed out in another thread, a pin that appears to be original may have been disturbed for some reason.?ÿ In my case, it was a case of pulling the pin to put a fence post at the true property corner rather than at some offset.?ÿ If they would have removed the pin, the recent surveyor would have recognized the post was on the corner.?ÿ But, when they stuck the pin back in the ground next to the post, the recent surveyor accepted it as being in the original location.
This is why something more substantial than a rebar with a plastic cap is good idea. A missing cap, a misaligned cap, a pipe not set firmly, damaged flanges, missing magnets all help identify a monument as disturbed.?ÿ