Pin cushion

I don't think there is a magic tolerance number. The test, to me, is to determine where a corner was originally set, if it is a "second-generation" corner (or later...I just mean not original), did they use adequate tolerances and techniques, maybe the control they came off of was different than is what is in today.

To me, it is an evaluation of the overall evidence, and not just a bearing and distance. To me, also, I look at it from the perspective of having "found" the corner, and what evidence might be there that disproves that corner monument. I would have to find reasonable evidence to disprove it in order to not accept it. The distance is only one aspect.

ON a "pin cushion" I would ask which one was there first, and has it ber relied upon as the boundary monument. I would wonder why the subsequent surveyors didn't accept the first one. Hopefully you can contact them and find out what they found and why they are overriding the "original" monument.

OK I'll bite.

> All of us are quick to demonize the ugly "pin cushion". My question is ..what exactly is a pin cushion?

A pin cushion is a corner that has more than one "monument" that supposedly occupies the corner. These usually come about due to "surveyors" relying only on measurements instead of boundary law.

>Assuming we are not talking about an original corner but a retraced corner.... what is an acceptable tolerance?

We need to remember that in a retracement/resurvey our ONLY duty is to find the location of the original corner, and that is not soley based on measurements. Yes, measurements are a form of evidence, but we need to remember that nearly every type of evidence is a higher form of evidence than mere measurements.

>... what is an acceptable tolerance?

When you find out please let us know. The truth is, there is no "acceptable" tolerance, and the problem is that many surveyors think there is, and even more of a problem is that the "acceptable" tolerance will vary with each "surveyor" for each situation, hence the infamous pincushion is borne.
That is why under the law, there is no "acceptable" tolerance. If there was, the location of a boundary corner would be question of law, when it is actually a question of fact. The best available evidence will determine where the corner is located, not the most precise measurement.

> I am interested in what my fellow boundary surveyors consider reasonable. If you find a monument 0.1' from your calculated corner I assume that you do not set a new corner. How about 0.3' or 0.5'? Of course it differs from one setting to another. Is the survey in a rural or urban area.

I'm sure you will hear many different answers.

> OK I'll bite.
>
> > All of us are quick to demonize the ugly "pin cushion". My question is ..what exactly is a pin cushion?
>
> A pin cushion is a corner that has more than one "monument" that supposedly occupies the corner. These usually come about due "surveyors" relying only on measurements instead of boundary law.
And if there was no original monument at a particular corner you would of course agree that boundary law would dictate you use measurements to produce the corner from other monuments?
>
>
> >Assuming we are not talking about an original corner but a retraced corner.... what is an acceptable tolerance?
>
> We need to remember that in a retracement/resurvey our ONLY duty is to find the location of the original corner, and that is not soley based on measurements. Yes, measurements are a form of evidence, but we need to remember that nearly every type of evidence is a higher form of evidence than mere measurements.
> See above
>
> >... what is an acceptable tolerance?
>
> When you find out please let us know. The truth is, there is no "acceptable" tolerance, and the problem is that many surveyors think there is, and even more of a problem is that the "acceptable" tolerance will vary with each "surveyor" for each situation, hence the infamous pincushion is borne.
> That is why under the law, there is no "acceptable" tolerance. If there was, the location of a boundary corner would be question of law, when it is actually a question of fact. The best available evidence will determine where the corner is located, not the most precise measurement.
If I understand you correctly there is no acceptable tolerance from the true lot corner. If that be the case then if you find a monument 0.1' from what you are certain is the true location of the original corner you will set another monument?
>
>
> > I am interested in what my fellow boundary surveyors consider reasonable. If you find a monument 0.1' from your calculated corner I assume that you do not set a new corner. How about 0.3' or 0.5'? Of course it differs from one setting to another. Is the survey in a rural or urban area.
>
> I'm sure you will hear many different answers.

I have to imagine this would qualify:

> And if there was no original monument at a particular corner you would of course agree that boundary law would dictate you use measurements to produce the corner from other monuments?

If there never was an original monument, do you really have an existing corner to find?

> If I understand you correctly there is no acceptable tolerance from the true lot corner. If that be the case then if you find a monument 0.1' from what you are certain is the true location of the original corner you will set another monument?

If you find the true corner, everything else is either a witness, reference, or junk, but seldom will measurements alone make the determination of the location of the corner. If a "monument" is 0.1' away - you'd better have a dang good reason to call it junk.

Hack,

Example:
Surveyor A creates a 10 acre tract off the East side of an 100 acre tract, which bounds an Interstate Highway, lets say. He does a good job of setting markers, EXCEPT the corners set extend out into the interstate right of way two feet. He did a lousy job of locating the monuments that were THERE AND CORRECT.

Five years later surveyor B comes along and finds the markers and recognizes the fact that the markers along the highway were not set on the line between the existing monuments. So rather than be liable to the next owner for land that is outside the senior line, the monumented right of way that could be in contention, he sets his marker at the intersection of the tract line with the right of way line (senior line). The is called by some as a PIN CUSHIONER. This is not a pin cushion in my opinion. This is called getting it right.

On page 49 of the latest American Surveyor (opposite the pic of the cracked paving) is a fundamental principle of Curt Brown; AS A GENERAL RULE FOR ALL CONVEYANCES, IF
AN ORIGINAL MONUMENT INTERFERES WITH A SENIOR RIGHT, IT MAY BE USED TO CONTROL THE DIRECTION OF A LINE, BUT NOT ITS TERMINUS. That is not exactly what would fit my example but close enough.

Another example is a surveyor that doesn,t put enough effort into finding markers that really exist on record lines, and just set by course and distance. That guy is a PIN CUSHIONER.

Others will have a better explanation hopefully.

One of the posters here that seemed to feel he had it all pretty-well figured out had his straight-forward solution. He would go to set the monument and so-as to not "pincushion", if he found a monument that fit to withing 1.0' he would locate the monument and show on his plat the "true corner" position, and state that he found a monument a certain distance n-s and e-w off the true corner. If the monument was > a foot away from his math he would set his own corner.

(Personally, I tend to look at all of the more specific information on each individual property survey.)

KISS: Keep It Simple Stupid.

Rural areas (Acres of land) apply "bushel basket rule".
If you can cover the corners with a bushel basket, only one monument is needed.

City areas (less than acre) apply "coffee can rule".
If you can cover the corners with a coffee can,only one monument is needed.

That's the way i was taught by the old boys and even a professor mentioned it once at the university.

Keep Surveying.
Scott

I believe the whole pincushion topic is far more political than anything else. Mostly it is about ego. Or its about one surveyor calling out another. Sometimes pincushions are used to get attention and maybe a few clients.
But I digress...

Corners are not monuments and for the most part visa versa. Rarely is a monument where another surveyor would mark the corner. Mostly it is how much one is willing to accept.
But I digress...

My first question always when I find a monument is: Was it recorded or called for in a deed? If so, when? Now I begin to decide what to do with it. Unrecorded monuments have no real legal standing. I may or may not be in agreement with it. Was it identified? If so, contact the surveyor and see how the monument was derived.Unable to contact prior surveyor? Now what to do? Use best judgment of course. Each situation is independent of the next. Try asking the property owners who may have second hand knowledge.

If not identified, and it was in rural undeveloped land, well.... its fair game. Provided all adjoiners are agreed. Developed land requires a lot more finesse. If willing to stamp and record then I believe we are the authority in our time and place. As long as we try to maintain harmony with our clients and his neighbors.

Reasonable tolerance is what the locality will accept. Pincushions - there are a few that have valid reasons for them and I can accept that. Its just not a practice I would condone - if it can be avoided.

Let's eliminate some of the moving parts here. Let's look at a simple example. You have a plan calling for a 300' x 300' square. The plan shows four granite monuments, one on each corner. Three monuments remain one is obliterated. Your survey shows that the three bounds work perfectly. Your client asks you to stake the corners. You find an iron pipe with another surveyor's cap at the 4th corner. It is 0.25' out from the mathematical location.

What do you do? What do you do if it is 0.15' out and so on? Do you have a rule of thumb?

The Rebar & Cap was set second

I just found one 15' from my calculation-section breakdown and I accepted it. A rebar for the NW corner of a parcel (NW1/16) set in 1971.

no rule of thumb here. Either I accept the monument and show on my plat the bearing and distance per the plat and the "as-measured" bearing and distance (as I measured it). Or if I don't accept the monument as the corner position, I contend that you should set your own.

In my mind the client wants to know where his corners are and I think they need a realistic mark in the field that they can rely on, set or accepted by the surveyor they hired.

I make my decision as to accept or reject the existing monuments by a preponderance of all the evidence. In most cases, I will probably accept the rebar and cap if I have no reason to believe it has been moved. If I am in a real quandary over it, I might contact the surveyor who set it and try to find out how they came up with their position. Maybe they found something I missed.

I don't think you should use a "how close is close enough" value.

I am in agreement with Tom A. on this one from His first post. There is no magic tolerance number. It is the overall evaluation of available evidence.
That is my disclaimer.

In reality. If it is within 1' and setting a new point would disturb the "off" monument. I would not set anything permanent. Instead, I would inform the adjoiners and client of my findings. File the appropriate records and make the monument position a matter of record. Provided the monument had some sort of pedigree.

There now. I know that will set off a firestorm, but that's me and how I do it.:-D

> Corners are not monuments and for the most part visa versa. Rarely is a monument where another surveyor would mark the corner. Mostly it is how much one is willing to accept.

True. And what you are willing to accept should be based on evidence and sound boundary principles, not fiction or some willy-nilly once heard/learned "rule".

> My first question always when I find a monument is: Was it recorded or called for in a deed? If so, when? Now I begin to decide what to do with it.

Great, you are gathering evidence, a great start.

> Unrecorded monuments have no real legal standing.

This statement is not true. I have plenty of court cases in many juridictions that contradict your statement. This is one of many "rules" that have taken root with no legal foundation in our profession or the law.

> I may or may not be in agreement with it. Was it identified? If so, contact the surveyor and see how the monument was derived.Unable to contact prior surveyor? Now what to do? Use best judgment of course. Each situation is independent of the next. Try asking the property owners who may have second hand knowledge.

Great, again you are gathering evidence.

> If not identified, and it was in rural undeveloped land, well.... its fair game.

Really? Fair game for what? Based on what legal foundation/principles?

> Developed land requires a lot more finesse.

Developed and undeveloped land fall under the same rules of law and surveying. Reliance (evidence) may be more apparent and easier to find in "developed" land, but the same rules apply on both.

> If willing to stamp and record then I believe we are the authority in our time and place. As long as we try to maintain harmony with our clients and his neighbors.

We have no authority, we can only issue a well reasoned opinion which can either be accepted or rejected by the landowners.

> Reasonable tolerance is what the locality will accept.

Reasonable professional opinions built upon relavent evidence and formulated within the bounds of the law is what the locality should accept. Anything less is mere technician work.

> Pincushions - there are a few that have valid reasons for them and I can accept that. Its just not a practice I would condone - if it can be avoided.

Sometimes there are reasons to reject junk close to a corner, but it should be based on the best available evidence and the law, not false "rules".

i've run into two heinous pin cushions in the last two weeks, both appearing to result from what i've found them to typically result from over the years- different surveyors making their piece of the pie jive. in other words: all metes, no consideration for bounds.

i have no rule for tolerance- circumstances vary too much. that said, if i find myself doing, say, a platted subdivision house lot title survey (which doesn't happen too much any more) i kind of go with a window of .2-.3 as acceptable, again depending upon circumstances- but always checking immediate adjoiners at a minimum. bigger tracts, rural conditions, priority of calls- blew off a 20+ foot discrepancy (over 600 feet) on a 10 acre tract recently because i found the trees called for on the ancient plat, and the barbed wire fence that had 6+ inches of tree growth around it.

but i also, just last week, found a "common" corner out of a long-ago subdivided city lot where there were, no joke- 5 rods within a half-foot diameter. 3 lots, each of which had been surveyed numerous times, and who knows how many guys thought they knew better than the last. none of whom who'd bothered to look beyond the boundary of the slice they were surveying.

there's also the issue of connection- a year ago i quit after a decade at a large civil firm. back in 05-06 we were running 15 crews. that's 15 party chiefs of various skill level, experience, and personal familiarity. but the bottom line is i know several of them just did what the coordinate told them to. field work has been dumbed down to the point where there are tons of button pushers, guys who can make data collectors and rovers play symphonies, but who couldn't find their own arse with a mirror- technology and liability issues have removed a good deal of the critical thinking type responsibility from a ton of field guys. that's part of the reason i finally got out- i know i have work out there that is mathematically, ethically, and legally defendable but otherwise embarrassing to a bunch of guys like you.

Is it going to help future surveyors and the landowner, or not.