If you have skyscrapers out there close to your surveys, then pay attention to those finger nail distances!
If your first paragraph is accurate, then we know the problem. The surveyor does not have a clue and his license is dependent on the measuring technician.
Keith
Maybe I will call it a night, before I post what I really think!
Keith
We have met the enemy... and he is us.
Does this surveyor even know what the accuracies of his own equipment is? I'm totally in agreement with Keith and am embarrassed for our profession if this is where we are at and where we are headed in the future.
We have met the enemy... and he is us.
This is a good argument FOR education requirements.
Mentorship obviously doesn't work.
(If that were field notes, it would be one thing, but to publish this, it isn't right.)
>
> 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.
re: old discussion, we have had it many times, but I think it is a good topic to discuss. I would rather argue over this topic again and again than P & R. Actually they should start a political-type category called pin-cushion; and then for P&R, they should just have the same words re-typed over and over again in an endless loop. Oh wait: that happens already all by itself.
I also agree regarding the setting of monuments. You should never leave the "true position" (I mean your interpretation of the true position) unmonumented. If you think you're that much better than the pins out there, you should set your own, and not just give distances from some invisible floating point to the monuments that exist. But second-of-all, I am hard-pressed to reject a monument that seem reasonably in the correct place. You should definitely show the monument that you are accepting and call it accordingly. The implication on the plat above is "well...it could be this one, and it could be that one....and of course you could go to this theoretical position until I come back and measure it again.
>
> I also agree regarding the setting of monuments. You should never leave the "true position" (I mean your interpretation of the true position) unmonumented.
>
> If you think you're that much better than the pins out there, you should set your own, and not just give distances from some invisible floating point to the monuments that exist. But second-of-all, I am hard-pressed to reject a monument that seem reasonably in the correct place. You should definitely show the monument that you are accepting and call it accordingly. The implication on the plat above is "well...it could be this one, and it could be that one....and of course you could go to this theoretical position until I come back and measure it again.
"true position"? --- Really?
So then, what you are saying is that an existing monument, established by a previous land surveyor to perpetuate the location of the boundary that you were retained to ascertain that does not fit your 'theoretical' position by a distance of 0.014', then you are willing to state and document that the existing monument is wrong by 0.014' ?
WOW!
By that logic, 40 Chains means 1320'
errr, in mean 1320.00'
We have met the enemy... and he is us.
> This is a good argument FOR education requirements.
>
> Mentorship obviously doesn't work.
>
>
> (If that were field notes, it would be one thing, but to publish this, it isn't right.)
RFB, I HAVE to disagree with you on this one.
Proper mentorship will STOP this sort of thing. Too much theory, and NOT enough practice will do this.
We have all found a rebar that was .01' 0.09 0.25' 0.52' 0.85, 1.15, 2.45 3.25 4.2' etc. off. What to do, should be mentored. And, by WHAT standard are they off? ie, how good is YOUR work.
I don't see how that THEORY can take the place for practical experience in this.
What about finding a pin that is "0.25' off"?
I did last month. ONE of my own pins had been set. Then, some yellow machine hit it, and bent it. Then, another surveyor came along, found my bent one, and SET ANOTHER, alongside it, where he THOUGHT it went vertical. He did NOT adequately dig. It went vertical at about 0.50 deep. So, his rebar was 0.25 off.
I dug it all up, and replaced MY rebar where it originally was, and called it a day.
You would not find this, without adequate digging, and knowledge of the area.
This was a case of shovel failure. But, we were quibbling over 0.25'. So what? Well, you learn principles, at times like these, and then apply them, when all that is different is the numbers.
To be "Off 0.01' EW, and 0.02' NS equates to an ACAD survey!
OK, your turn!
BTW, this is a great discussion. Need more of it, for the inept, or those overdosed on acad, or cogo!
🙂
Nate
A common procedure seems to be:
You cogo the Deed (or Lot) geometry. You go out there and find a bunch of monuments. Of course they don't fit the Deed geometry perfectly. So you pick one to hold and one to rotate to. The rest are "off" a little or maybe a lot.
So why are the two you picked any better than the others out there?
Sometimes a more complex approach is used. Say you are in a block. So you go find 4 non-original monuments at the block corners. They have been accepted on numerous maps so you use them as the best available evidence of the block boundaries. Then you breakdown to your lot. This is very common in Carmichael and Citrus Heights here (1900± subdivisions which are now Sacramento County communities). Then all the monuments found on the interiors of the block are off a little or a lot. Why are the non-original interior monuments not as good as the non-original block corners? I guess the math looks prettier on the map.
And then there is the reality that imperfect boundaries get established over time by acceptance by the property owners as a practical matter. These imperfect boundaries of course don't perfectly fit with the Deed (or Lot) geometry.
If I find a monument and I think it controls then I give my measurement to the monument. If I find monuments at all of the corners of the property and I think they control the boundaries (despite they don't exactly fit the Deed or Lot geometry) then I give the bearings and distances from monument to monument.
Expecting perfection is unrealistic.
The "true" position often means different things depending upon the surveyor. Take the Center of Section for example. I maintain that the "true" position is where the first surveyor placed it if it was done by correct methods (intersection of quarter section lines). Now along comes another surveyor and he maintains that the "true" position is 5.34' north and 2.79' west of the monument because it fits his calculation of the intersection of quarter section lines.
We have met the enemy... and he is us.
There has to be a happy medium...a proper dose of education and experience/mentorship. I tend to lean toward the four year degree/four years experience track. The first couple of years of surveying for a person fresh out of school is learning that they don't know everything; then they realize that someone else may be able to teach them something; the next couple years they learn how to survey. Should we start a new thread? lol
We have met the enemy... and he is us.
I think a degree requirement should be implemented.
The big question, though, is what do you teach in this degree program? Are the existing engineering-based programs adequate or desirable?
Academics and practical experience are both necessary. It seems like right now there is 200% emphasis on Academics and 1% emphasis on practical experience. I see this in the engineers too. They come out of school with a huge pile of theory and think they are engineers but they aren't engineers. Engineering is a practical profession just as Land Surveying is a practical profession.
An engineer can calculate the size of beam needed to span the distance but do they have the practical experience to know how the beam is put in place? Some don't even seem to know that water runs down hill of if you have two buildings on an existing flat pad and you set the finish floor of one 1.5 feet lower than the other many truck loads of dirt will have to leave the site and go somewhere.
Much condemning and anguish from adults who have seen a small corner of a larger drawing and making judgement calls on what was held and rejected or why, no-one asked for and looked at the whole but jumped to a conclusion based on a perceived action that another may lead you to, There is nothing in what you can see in that partial that can fix what was held, rejected or the whys. Those who are so condemning and opinionated and expressing outrage based on this segment of a drawing are not displaying a dispassionate review of or even accepting that there should be more evidence available to consider or that supporting data might have been withheld for reason. That displays a much larger problem for the public because those who practice surveying, those who should know better jumped to an unsupported conclusion from a very small segment of a drawing when they knew there was more, then did not ask for it. Simply stated, we see an emotional reaction to something not properly supported by the whole picture. This segment by it self has done no harm, supported by the rest of the drawing may be excellent work. None of us know. Maybe not how I would have done that part of the drawing without a supporting a narrative or detail that would explain much more about my thinking and what was held and why, I see nothing is the segment presented that proves or implies that there is not more supporting data presented on the remainder of the drawing.
My objection to this whole mess was not directly state but was the reaction to evidence that was unsupported other than the set up, it was initially set up for fault finding by using, "pin cushion", as a header. I suspect the response was anpicipated and most should feel like a bunch of sheep.
jud.
I really don't feel like a part of a flock of sheep, but do feel like a part of the land surveyor profession that is totally embarrassed at the insane notion of calling for a "true corner" at my finger nail distance away from an existing monument!
At least in my opinion, the profession can either address this as an issue, or look the other way and continue to look like fools!
Sincerely,
Keith
Expecting perfection is unrealistic.
Well, yes and no.
Here is a 1/4 corner recently found; nice marked stone between two nice marked section corners.
What is the "error" in the quarter corner? Zero, because it monuments the corner.
Same with a monument marking the corner of a lot-it has zero error. It's perfect.
I don't believe we are very far apart in this issue and am not opposed to discussing it at all. What I am opposed to is basing it on a very small part of a whole and then condemning without at least inquiring about that whole. An example using the whole document would have been be the way to have posted this initially and it might have triggered a discussion based on what was truly on the document, to much jumping to conclusions, that distresses me.
jud,
Well said. Too much stock placed in math. The measurements are merely a "map" to the monument that represents the property corner.
The 'true corner' is the monument because monuments control.
The record description merely tells the surveyor where to look for the monuments.
There will always be some difference between the various measurements made by different individuals, that is why Wigmore said:
From Wigmore;’s compendium on “Evidence”, 2nd. Edition, Vol. 5 Section 2476:
“It is not necessary, and it is not humanly possible, for the symbols of description, which we call words, to describe in every detail the objects designated by the symbols. The notion that a description is a complete enumeration is an instinctive fallacy which must be got rid of before interpretation can be properly attempted. …”
Surveyors interpret record descriptions.
A record description is not a controlling element in boundary determination.
Richard Schaut
Questions for Jud, and others
Jud, since you are being Devil's Advocate here, I have a question or two for you. When a surveyor shows the corner in this way (and I’m talking about all cases, not just 0.01’x0.01’), do you think he's showing the found monument to be wrong and unacceptable as a property corner? Is the monument the actual property corner, and the offset distance just a record tie to it –or-- is the true property corner an imaginary node in AutoCAD, and the monument a reference to that node?
And just to follow-up, do you think land owners who generally use markers in the ground as their boundaries would find this approach confusing? Would a surveyor have liability if a zero lot line building was built over the line due to this confusion?
We have met the enemy... and he is us.
The trend when I was in school was that in more and more of the technical, or math based classes, some element of computer programming was being required. I suspect that the trend has only continued.
Computer skills are good, but I have not worked anywhere that programming beyond use of a spreadsheet program, or setting up a data base (Access) are/were required. As an employer or manager, I have not been interested in paying someone to write programs when there are so many commercially available that do what I need them to do, have been tested and (more or less) debugged, and cost a fraction of what I would have to pay an employee to write, debug, and document a similar program for.
IMO, less time should be spent programming and more time spent focused on the practical applications of what is being taught. When programming, I spent as much or more time learning the dang programming language as I did learning the concepts, theory and applications of the subject matter.
For many schools though, that change in focus would take many instructors well out of their area of expertise. All the schools, in order to meet ABET or state guidelines for accreditation place an emphasis on advanced degrees for instructors, PhDs preferred. Most with that education got there by making a career of academia, beginning as a student and moving into teaching with little if any practical experience outside of academia.
For those courses which are math intensive and/or delve into the inner workings and theory upon which some of our technology is based, an instructor with an advanced degree whose career has been heavily or entirely in academia may be the best choice.
But in those classes which focus on practical application, generally those courses with field labs, description writing, PLSS, etc., an emphasis on the experience of an instuctor with the level of formal education being a secondary consideration would be far more appropriate. An overlooked potential asset for every BS degree programming in surveying would be having one instructor with a JD coupled with an undergrad degree in surveying and/or several years of practice.
Since measuring is becoming easier and more accessible to laypersons as time goes on, the "expert measurer" role of a surveyor, except in specialized circumstances is becoming increasingly irrelevant as a licensed activity.
IMO, in addition to, or perhaps as the professional extension of an emphasis on practical application, the degrees should place a greater emphasis on knowledge of the laws, and teach something about interacting with agencies in permitting/entitlement processes.
I'm getting way off topic here. Sorry. Now back to our regularly scheduled programming...
It's bad enough that someone would call a valid monument off by 0.04', but 0.01' x 0.01'?!?! someone needs a refresher in error analysis!
[Carry on...]
> >
> > I also agree regarding the setting of monuments. You should never leave the "true position" (I mean your interpretation of the true position) unmonumented.
>
> >
> > If you think you're that much better than the pins out there, you should set your own, and not just give distances from some invisible floating point to the monuments that exist. But second-of-all, I am hard-pressed to reject a monument that seems reasonably in the correct place. You should definitely show the monument that you are accepting and call it accordingly. The implication on the plat above is "well...it could be this one, and it could be that one....and of course you could go to this theoretical position until I come back and measure it again.
>
> "true position"? --- Really?
>
> So then, what you are saying is that an existing monument, established by a previous land surveyor to perpetuate the location of the boundary that you were retained to ascertain that does not fit your 'theoretical' position by a distance of 0.014', then you are willing to state and document that the existing monument is wrong by 0.014' ?
>
> WOW!
>
> By that logic, 40 Chains means 1320'
> errr, in mean 1320.00'
What I am saying is what I said. you took out two words out of context and wrote 60 words telling me what those two words meant. Why didn't you read all of my other words explaining what I meant? They weren't close to your interpretation. Did you read my earlier thread?
What did this mean? in the above "I am hard-pressed to reject a monument that seems reasonably in the correct place. You should definitely show the monument that you are accepting and call it accordingly."
Don't you think that a monument "I am accepting" would be "my interpretation of the true position"? Did you see that I put "true" in quotes and qualified what I meant by that in parentheses?
Now to your statement:
> So then, what you are saying is that an existing monument, established by a previous land surveyor to perpetuate the location of the boundary that you were retained to ascertain that does not fit your 'theoretical' position by a distance of 0.014', then you are willing to state and document that the existing monument is wrong by 0.014' ?
I might reject a monument pin that is missing my math by 0.01' (okay 14-thousands if that is how you want to express it), but most likely the only time I would reject it is if I was accepting one of the other pins out there that is farther "away" from the 'mathematical' position. I might decide that one of those was an original or more close to the original position by prepondering the evidence. If you are accepting the closest pin to your math, I would suspect that you are very possibly accepting a "pin-cushioned" corner monument. Do you suppose that those other monuments on the above scenario, might have been there before the guy who set the 0.014' monument in question? Why did he reject existing evidence and drive his monument? that 0.01 is a difference based on a measurement from another monument? What if that other monument is out 1'? Maybe some of the other pins out there are a better indication of the original.
