Sure I see it, so what, show me something that harms anyone and I will recommend a reevaluation. What he has shown very clearly is what was located there, the pincushion existed and was shown, he provided a relationship between all of them and did much more good than harm and should be commended. I find the fault finding, shallow and vindictive more than educational and have yet to see an attempt to explain what they would have done to clarify the existing evidence in place, could it be it would be removed or just ignored in the record of survey, both a much larger transgression than showing something to hundredths. Nothing ignored, hidden or removed here and all who follow, if they research the record, will know just what to expect when they visit that corner, they then make their own choices on what to honor and what to reject. I review others work all the time as the County Surveyor, statute requirements I can enforce, I can require more or better refinement of details for clarification, but I can't tell them how to survey or as long as the required data is on the face of Record of Survey and Plats, I have no authority to demand more. I draft my way, others do it their way, guess what there are many ways to do things that in the end do no harm to anyone, this instance fits that criteria, good instincts are there, more refined learning will come, in the meantime no harm to the public has occurred, quit bitch'n about the small stuff.
jud
Do really believe that the practice as shown here is not detrimental to the land surveyor image?
If you are talking about the example at hand, no. The emotional attack is much more detrimental to the image of a surveyor than showing a measurement to hundredths which in fact, is required in this state, the letter of the law says both measured and record be shown even when they match within a hundredth would apply, most would not show the small difference but they would be out of strict compliance by that choice. What is more detrimental to the image of a Professional Surveyor is the desire and demand to be more important you really are. Respect as a Professional will come from the results of ones actions and thoughts, that alone will gain the respect needed for others to seek you out for an opinion or to take action in their behalf beyond the physical act of surveying. If unwilling to pay the dues, a good surveyor you may become, a professional and accepted by the public as such, never.
jud
> I really think it is a matter of liability; they very erroneously believe that a precise measurement of the deed distance will relieve them of any law suit! After all how could anybody measure better and show that their survey is wrong.
>
> Does not belong in the survey world that I know about.
>
> Keith
And some of them very erroneously believe that they are measuring precisely;-)
Sure there is liability; if someone wants your money bad enough, you can be liable for most anything.
What they are failing to realize, is that there is an allowable error in everyone's measurement, past, present and future. If you find evidence within those limits, there is no need to describe the error.
Accept or reject, explain why and move on.
Cheers,
Dugger
PS-Didn't have Time for a Root beer Keith?;-)
I see the best way to represent the position you are accepting as calling to the monument found as the corner, and putting on your plat the distance of record and the distance you measured between accepted monuments. If you are not matching the record by 0.01' then what you are showing is that you measured the same as the call within reasonable tolerance.
I don't like the general method of showing a monument 0.01' X 0.01' from the mathematical location. It is confusing what you are trying to say. I think this is standard practice by many. I remember going to a talk on ALTA's by the respected Gary Kent and his example plat used this same method of delineating the monument locations (0.01X0.01 from the "true" location). I voiced my disagreement in his way of displaying his plat at that lecture as well. Gary's argument was that he was accepting the corner monument but showing how close it matched the math. I don't see it that way. The land owner might not either and feel that he has to measure over so much distance to the "true" corner.
Also, which one is the original monument? Did the guy that is only 0.01 X 0.01 feet out not accept an earlier monument that is original? I also suspect that it is 0.01' X 0.01' feet out when measured from the same monument the guy who did the plat used. That monument he came off of may not have been in the "original" location either.
Just some thoughts on an old topic.
I don't either adamsurveyor, but it is not my place to correct them or deride them if they choose to do so. Suggest maybe or if I believe an error was made to voice my concerns and why, anything beyond that should result in a flattened nose.
jud
> If you are talking about the example at hand, no. The emotional attack is much more detrimental to the image of a surveyor than showing a measurement to hundredths which in fact, is required in this state, the letter of the law says both measured and record be shown even when they match within a hundredth would apply, most would not show the small difference but they would be out of strict compliance by that choice. What is more detrimental to the image of a Professional Surveyor is the desire and demand to be more important you really are. Respect as a Professional will come from the results of ones actions and thoughts, that alone will gain the respect needed for others to seek you out for an opinion or to take action in their behalf beyond the physical act of surveying. If unwilling to pay the dues, a good surveyor you may become, a professional and accepted by the public as such, never.
> jud
I disagree. Calling a rebar with a cap off by that little makes us look like morons in the eyes of the public. What this guy is doing is not showing the difference in measured and record distances. He's claiming that the monument on the corner is not on the corner by 0.01'! Assuming that the cap is a 2" cap, that means that this mythical point is about 1/16 of the distance from the center to the edge! What the heck is this guy measuring with? He better not have set a prism pole on that point to be claiming that kind of accuracy. There better be a tripod on that point, and it better have been occupied.
I am holding to my previous opinion that if this surveyor doesn't have any more sense that that, he needs to have his licensed revoked. If someone can show me a good reason why he did this, I'll gladly apologize. I just don't think such a reason exists.
> I see the best way to represent the position you are accepting as calling to the monument found as the corner, and putting on your plat the distance of record and the distance you measured between accepted monuments. If you are not matching the record by 0.01' then what you are showing is that you measured the same as the call within reasonable tolerance.
>
> I don't like the general method of showing a monument 0.01' X 0.01' from the mathematical location. It is confusing what you are trying to say. I think this is standard practice by many. I remember going to a talk on ALTA's by the respected Gary Kent and his example plat used this same method of delineating the monument locations (0.01X0.01 from the "true" location). I voiced my disagreement in his way of displaying his plat at that lecture as well. Gary's argument was that he was accepting the corner monument but showing how close it matched the math. I don't see it that way. The land owner might not either and feel that he has to measure over so much distance to the "true" corner.
>
> Also, which one is the original monument? Did the guy that is only 0.01 X 0.01 feet out not accept an earlier monument that is original? I also suspect that it is 0.01' X 0.01' feet out when measured from the same monument the guy who did the plat used. That monument he came off of may not have been in the "original" location either.
>
> Just some thoughts on an old topic.
We had this discussion on the old board more than once. My opinion is that you need to pull your panties up and set your own monument, or accept the one that's there. If you can't set a monument because the other one is in the way, maybe you need to rethink your process of boundary line reconstruction.
I agree Tommy.
Jud, the problem I see with calling monuments "off" rather than accepting them, is that land owners tend to rely on the monuments when they want to build something. I can't understand why a surveyor would reject a monument that's off by 0.01'. If it's such a big deal, grab the point node in AutoCAD, move it over 0.01', and call the corner "found", and no one will ever argue with you.
Sure, this is an extreme example, but I've seen surveyors call monuments off by more than a foot before, without setting a new corner. IMO, either find something you're willing to hold, or set a monument that the owner can rely on. That's what we're hired to do.
I often wonder, when I see survey that says "Found 1/2" rebar, 0.7' N, 0.5' E", if the owner relied on that monument to build a fence, would the surveyor later come back and tell him his fence is over the line?
I Am In Awe....
I am in awe of that surveyor's measuring capabilities! I wonder what equipment he was using. Did he repeat his measurements 16 times to get a statistically better value of that nail n shinnnnner? I wish I had the skills to meausre that well.
Oh, I almost forgot... [/sarcasm]
I wonder if that surveyor was trying to impress someone who doesn't know better or if he is th eone who doesn't know better.
I Am Enbarassed!
I have not read all of this thread because I can't!
I am sorry but some of this stuff sounds like kids with a new toy.
Land surveying.....some don't have a clue about it.
Keith
Idiots Abound
One blew into my county to do a bit of work for a very simple DOT project. He surveys an entire section, except for one extremely important corner, then proceeds to set bars at the outer corners of numerous blocks bordering the street where the improvement is to occur. The improvement will not impact any area within the blocks themselves, merely a bit of the existing roadbed. There are a couple dozen prior surveys of record for lots within those blocks. None of the existing monuments agreed with his PERFECT solution for all the blocks being precisely as platted in 1872 relative to a section line for which he apparently didn't find the distant end, only the one near those blocks.
Nevertheless, the DOT will accept his garbage and pay the bill. Future surveyors will stumble onto his PERFECT monuments and gladly accept them over the ones that have been relied upon for many years already.
I Am Enbarassed!
>
> Land surveying.....some don't have a clue about it.
>
> Keith
Keith,
You're my kind of guy- You sound like a surveyor's surveyor
-
My sentiments exactly!
I am embarrassed too
What have we become?
&
Why did we let it happen?
-
So much for monuments controlling...
I guess math, CAD, fancy equipment & ego prevail over basic logic and sound land surveying principles. No wonder people don't want to hire land surveyors anymore.
The surveyor will likely disagree with existing markers and create a conflict.
-- Way to go guys --
Idiots Abound
I could say what I really think, but won't!
Keith
I Am Enbarassed!
Amen!
I Am Enbarassed!
It is simply that enough of us do not say knock that crap off and try to rationalize this in your own mind and quit paying attention to those who are the nations talkers who have not been in the field for more than a week!
Keith
I Am Enbarassed!
For crying out loud, what sort of a surveyors mind will accept the fact that he has to call for the true corner that is the distance of my finger nail away?
Speak up you measuring experts!
Keith
I Am Enbarassed!
And on top of all, there is a State Survey Board that has not read any of the Manual,except for Chapter 3.
We will have lots more to say about that when it is appropriate and that Board is shown their ignorance!
That Board will be on here big time.
Keith
My guess is that the surveyor in responsible charge never gave the map more than a glance. He sent a crew out to do the job, a CAD tech laid the record boundary on 2 monuments that seemed to fit and called the other monuments off as determined by coordinates, then sent the map to the surveyor for signature, delivery and billing.
I have no problem showing found monuments in relation to an unmonumented corner, but even I wouldn't call a capped rebar off by 0.01'. That said, I doubt that anyone was harmed by the mapping as long as the boundary is as close as the map indicates.
Very few of my clients -- whether they be large corporations, small commercial owners or individual homeowners -- would be perturbed by seeing a monument called off by a distance small enough for me not to set my own monument. (If I find one out by more than a couple of tenths, I'm going to set my own. Ditto if the situation is such that a few hundredths is likely to matter.) If they look for the monument at all -- and most of them have no interest in doing so -- they'll take their measurements from the mark they find and it'll be close enough for whatever construction activity they might have in mind.
