ftp://ftp.geostor.arkansas.gov/Monthly_Plats/Montgomery/216795.pdf
Look at the plat. And, the method of documenting the corners.
Nate
Love the photos. The rest of the map could use a bit of work, but the photos are great. I've been arguing for years that this is the sort of thing we should be doing for our clients. (And charging them for the extra value provided.)
Larry P
Interesting. I like that type of monument perpetuation.
But why are the rebars set and found at each corner not called for in the legal description? Regional difference? Is it because AR is a PLS State? Just curious.
My old employer has been doing this for years. Photos of dense linework areas to illustrate, photos of outlet structures, buildings, panoramas of the job, etc. all with numbered indicators of where the photos were taken and what direction taken in. The photos were on the face of the survey if room, or a sheet added with all pics numbered like they are on the sheet. Clients loved it.
Overkill with the pictures but he missed with the lack of fundamental info.
How much was that fence encroached on the front? Is that a public or private road and what is the right of way width? Who are the adjoiners? (Maybe that is a state to state thing, but it is required and common practice where I am). Bearings only to the minute but distances to the hundredth?
The pictures are a nice touch though.
Pictures on the job>Snoop
Encroachment? 🙂
Yes, there are regional differences on the use of monument descriptions in the boundary description. Also, yes, on the lack of need to provide the extra details about type of road, minor differences in apparent possession versus survey line, etc.
The pictures belong in a survey report rather than on the final plat. They are a nice addition to the information easily understood by the client and, to a much lesser degree, to future surveyors. As a property owner, I would protest the inclusion of photos of my private property (as an adjoiner) into the public record without my permission.
I also really like the pictures. The issue for me is the plat itself. Where are the adjoiners? Are there conflicts with their deeds?
Ok im missing something on the pictures...
Whats the value of them again?
To me it sseems more effort was takin' in displaying the GPS than in the drawing itself.
Lots of pictures...tiny drawing.
I think this could be a neat supplemental plat such as Page 2 or something, but in this case a picture is not worth more than words. Each location would have been better represented by a line drawing showing the monument location in relationship to the fences or other physical objects.
This is all kind of scary to me.
The pictures are nice but they take up a lot of info space.
I would rather have seen a table of all corners found and set with a brief 2 point tie description in the space.
or one could layer the tie description on the photo with a basic photo edit software.
AND
like Snoop mentioned, one must show the ingress/egress to the property here stating info like type etc.
It does look like something is amiss at the gate.
Click here for the neighbors...as far as the tax man knows
http://www.actdatascout.com/default.aspx?CI=23&SS=29-01S-25W&SI=5
Note the BLM vs. Forest Service
ftp://ftp.geostor.arkansas.gov/Monthly_Plats/Montgomery/00033180.pdf
Here we try exchange deeds...
ftp://ftp.geostor.arkansas.gov/Monthly_Plats/Montgomery/00039263.pdf
Looks like the fences match...
ftp://ftp.geostor.arkansas.gov/Monthly_Plats/Montgomery/00055537.pdf
I don't know but I think the plat Nate mentions is to document what Mr. Freddie Minton had left(possessed when he died). I guess if Nate really wanted to know, he could call Phillip and ask.
DDSM
> ftp://ftp.geostor.arkansas.gov/Monthly_Plats/Montgomery/216795.pdf
>
> Look at the plat. And, the method of documenting the corners.
>
> Nate
Saw several differences between what the plat depicted and what the pictures showed. 🙁
The basic premise is good though.:-)
GPS? Basis of Bearings?
Hi Nate,
Thanks for sharing your plat. Being able to see the products and methods of other surveyors is what I really enjoy about beerleg.
My questions about your plat are off-topic, but here they are:
1)Is it standard practice in your area to use GPS to set monuments on a small lot? It seems like it would be more efficient and accurate to traverse the boundary using a total station.
2)I noticed that your Basis of Bearings is "True North." Is there a reason you prefer to use true north, rather than hold the record bearing of a section line or street centerline?
Jeff
