Ted Madson has made the claim that most current surveys are re-surveys. I dispute this. As part of my argument I stated that most counties here in my state (WA) only started to require a reviewed and surveyed process for the creation of lots starting in the 1970's. Boundary adjustments are not required to be surveyed by a great many counties and cities here, nor are the required to be prepared by a surveyor. The state law requireing recording of surveys here also only dates back to the 70's.
Ted thinks this is not the case for most states.
What is the situation in your state and locality?
We are not required to record a survey in Kansas. I think we should. If we do record it, we are charged a review fee. In some counties it can be several hundred dollars, so most quit recording. If they were to charge a standard rate (reasonable) in each county more surveys would be recorded. It's hard to justify charging an extra $400 review fee to our clients, when we can finish the field work in 3-4 hours (finding controlling monuments, calculating, and setting corners) and draw a map in 2 or less. We can file a copy with public works offices in most counties, without the review fee. Our only requirement is to file a Corner reference report on all Section Corners found, including 1/16 Corners.
Most Surveys are retracement Surveys but usually the information is old and of lower accuracy plus they aren't georeferenced.
So no, there isn't a trove of data just sitting there waiting to be plugged into a GIS map.
I remember doing an update survey, the third time in two years.
The third time we discovered the building five foot in front of
the building line.
In a recording state where an area has been well covered and records of those surveys are available then maybe a new survey being done with the records of survey in hand, might be considered a resurvey but it would be a dependent resurvey, new lines would be different even if part of the work was a retracement to verify the found evidence was in agreement with the record. Without the filing of surveys and using them as a data base for searching the past efforts in an area, it seems that every survey is an original event dependent on the recovery abilities or lack of recovery ability's of the surveyor. I like the history to be available, it insures that as time passes the individual tracts and there common boundary lines will remain stable and someone moving a monument is quickly reveled.
jud
Around here most of the titles of the survey start out with "Dependant....". It could be a re-survey, original segregation, or a subdivision. But they all are dependant on something.
Our recording fees are nominal. $24 for 18x24 or 24x36 mylars, $10 for 8 1/2" x 11" bond. There are no review fees or process involved - strictly up to the surveyor of record to get it right. The basic rules for recordation are: 1) if you set any corners; 2) find a material discrepancy of previous records; 3) because you want to. I've recorded surveys I didn't need to just because I wanted it in the public record, and people will use my data.
If it is a minor land division with up to 5 parcels, it's called a Parcel Plat. The county/city charges around $7-800 for the possible re-zone, review and approvals. All improvements are not required and are at the discretion of the owner. More than 5 parcels it is a subdivision and all the rules change and improvements are mandatory.
I think ALL states should have some kind of recordation law. Ours is pretty straighforward and seems to work pretty good. I think the excessive review fees are simply overkill and a waste of peoples time and money. The surveyor of record is on the hook, so just leave it at that.
You could say they are all resurveys if you would also say that a survey could be performed by pacing and a hand compass.
I recently worked on the Little Quason Division of 1730. The division shows a number of lots with distances along the easterly and westerly sides, distances along the most northerly and most southerly lines. So, I would qualify that work as a retracement.
BUT, the LQ lots were divided out by deed. The survey performed on these lots should be considered part of an original survey. Oddly, the GIS does not show these later lots...
I think this got a bit off track. I was afraid of this when Ted used the term "Resurvey". This is an official term defined by the BLM and applies to surveys of federal (Government) corners but is often used on a local scale to discuss the difference between a re-tracement or original survey. resurveys are either Dependant or Independant based on either restoring or establishing lines and or corners.
BLM Glossary
In this case, I don't think this is what Ted had in mind when saying most of the surveys we do are re-surveys. Since the discussion is about putting surveyors out of work by using GIS, I take it he means that most of what we do is marking the boundaries of lands that have previously been marked by another surveyor. I know that in my case that this is just not so.
The vast majority of the existing parcels, including many city lots, were created prior to the requirement that they be created by a surveyor or that when they were created they had to be surveyed. In WA, the state platting (subdivision) law dates only back to around the 1930's. Prior to this, plat were really nothing more than a means to convey real property. (As a side note, this is the position of our state's AG's office and has led to some controversy wrt the legality of the lots created..but that's for another thread!)
So my question really boils down to this:
Are most of the lots you are currently surveying ones that have been previously surveyed and marked and have the majority of the parcels existing in your area been previously surveyed and marked?
I assume Ted's assertion is that if we could get laws passed that all surveys were done on NAD 83 (or something like it), then once a survey was done, it could be entered in a database (GIS system) and forever forward it would not need to be surveyed again as one could simply pull the coordinates out of the GIS and using the super powers of RTK, resurrect the lost corner without the need to call a surveyor.
It's a nice thought, but not realistic as any of us that deal with these systems on a regular basis already know.
If his intent is putting us out of business with GIS, he's a fool. I'm constantly running into encroachments, and the defense is the GIS shows.... It's not for boundary locations, but a rough idea.
In all cases, inless you are performing an original survey, ie, creating a new parcel that has never had its boundaries placed on the ground previously, you are performing a resurvey. Those are the only types of boundary surveys we perform, either the boundary has been created/marked on ground or it has not. Kinda like pregnancy, you are either pregnant or not. There is no "inbetween" or alternative.
Just because a parcel's boundaries have not been placed on the ground by a "surveyor" performing a formal or legal "survey", does not mean the boundaries have not been created. That is the first question we have to answer when surveying property; are we creating/marking a boundary, or are we finding a previously created/marked boundary?
Even when performing an original/creating survey, it nearly always involves some "resurveying". For example, when cutting 5 acres out of 20, unless the entire boundary of the 5 acres in within the parent parcel, at least 1 boundary of hte 5 acre parcel is a resurvey, you have to find at least one existing boundary of parent parcel.
So, as to Ted's assertion that most of our current surveys are resurveys, I agree.
Tell me where it is that you get your definition of resurvey. What you are stating is not the definition from the BLM (which does not apply to non federal surveys anyway).
By your definition, even a newly created lot is a re-survey since the plat existed and the lots defined therein before being surveyed. If someone preapares a boundarly line adjustment that does not require surveying, then some years later I am asked to mark the corners, by your definition I am accomplishing a re-survey. It is certainly not a dependant resurvey, and I am not superceding a previous survey, so it is not an independant resurvey either. It is an original survey.
A description is not a survey. A survey requires either setting or recovering of controlling monuments and or markers.
Besides, you missed the point. I don't think this is what Ted is talking about at all. I don't think he has any idea about the rather esoteric discussion about dependant or not. He is concerned with Joe landowner being able to take out an RTK device and mark his own corner because a surveyor once before calculated the coordinates of that position and it is now available to him via GIS. Hence, no futher need for Land Srveyors!
I agree except very little on GIS follows Joe Surveyor. Some GIS guy makes best fit and calls it good. Kinda like throwing rebars near the corner and setting them.
> Tell me where it is that you get your definition of resurvey. What you are stating is not the definition from the BLM (which does not apply to non federal surveys anyway).
No, I do not perform federal interest surveys, so I was not referring to the BLM definition of a dependent or independent survey, as my resulting opinion does not need the approval of the BLM. I am referring, obviously, to the resurvey of private lands. A resurvey means I am locating previously established boundaries as opposed to an original survey which is the "survey" that first marks the boundaries on the ground.
> By your definition, even a newly created lot is a re-survey since the plat existed and the lots defined therein before being surveyed.
No. If you are marking the boundaries of the "newly created" lots on the ground for the first time, it is an original survey.
> If someone preapares a boundary line adjustment that does not require surveying, then some years later I am asked to mark the corners, by your definition I am accomplishing a re-survey.
> It is certainly not a dependant resurvey, and I am not superceding a previous survey, so it is not an independant resurvey either. It is an original survey.
If the boundaries have not been previously marked on the ground, and you are marking them for the first time, you are performing an original survey.
> A description is not a survey. A survey requires either setting or recovering of controlling monuments and or markers.
I agree, I never said a description was a survey. I agree with your last sentence. But I would state it as such: "An original survey requires the setting of the controlling monuments for the first time. A resurvey requires the recovery of the controlling monuments."
> Besides, you missed the point. I don't think this is what Ted is talking about at all. I don't think he has any idea about the rather esoteric discussion about dependant or not. He is concerned with Joe landowner being able to take out an RTK device and mark his own corner because a surveyor once before calculated the coordinates of that position and it is now available to him via GIS. Hence, no futher need for Land Srveyors!
Maybe. I've about given up, based on few recent posts by the esteemed Mr. Madsen, fully understanding his "points". I was only agreeing with the assertion that most of the current surveys, we private surveyors perform, are resurveys.
> Tell me where it is that you get your definition of resurvey. What you are stating is not the definition from the BLM (which does not apply to non federal surveys anyway).
>
> By your definition, even a newly created lot is a re-survey since the plat existed and the lots defined therein before being surveyed. If someone preapares a boundarly line adjustment that does not require surveying, then some years later I am asked to mark the corners, by your definition I am accomplishing a re-survey. It is certainly not a dependant resurvey, and I am not superceding a previous survey, so it is not an independant resurvey either. It is an original survey.
>
> A description is not a survey. A survey requires either setting or recovering of controlling monuments and or markers.
No it isn't. You are retracing boundaries if you are surveying a previously established boundary.
Sorry Brian, guess I really miss-read your post.
It's very different here where most of the parcels in existence were created via "subdivision by sale" and no survey was ever done, and if one was done prior to 1974, there is likely no record of it anywhere. As a consequence, most of the boundary surveys I do are on parcels that have never been surveyed before.
Even if there is some record of a previous survey, for older surveys, there are no notes and often times even the map or record (in some cases called the plat) of the survey gives little clue as to how it was accomplished and tend to be no more than graphical depictions of the description.
My point is that I may be retracing boundaries if there is some indication, officially recorded or otherwise, that it had been previously surveyed. Simply surveying an existing parcel is not a retracement, in my opinion anyway.
As I wrote elsewhere, it just strikes me as odd that most surveys are re-surveys of previously surveyed parcels when, at least in my area, the vast majority of existing parcels were created without benefit of a survey.
> My point is that I may be retracing boundaries if there is some indication, officially recorded or otherwise, that it had been previously surveyed. Simply surveying an existing parcel is not a retracement, in my opinion anyway.
>
> As I wrote elsewhere, it just strikes me as odd that most surveys are re-surveys of previously surveyed parcels when, at least in my area, the vast majority of existing parcels were created without benefit of a survey.
It is the same in my area. For the vast majority of the existing parcels there is no documented record of a prior survey, however, the boundaries, for the most part, have been placed on the ground, possibly by the landowners themselves, generations ago. Generally, this is a valid creation of boundaries on the ground, thus a re-survey is what is called for. I'm finding many modern surveyors think unless they find proof of a proper survey, performed by a trained surveyor, using proper methods, they have to toss all previous landowner actions out the window and perform an original survey, placing the boundaries "where they should have been", instead of where they currently are, and have been for many, many decades. This is clearly erroneous. For this "theory" to be correct, we must assume that peaceful actions of the landowners over the past 100 years or more means absolutely nothing, especially before the passing of surveyor licensing laws. I've yet to find any basis for this "theory" in the law. And no, I'm not advocating the blind acceptance of any and all fence/occupation lines. But one had better understand the law, that's why the thorough, proper, and complete gathering of evidence is what is necessary.
I would have a little different take on what a resurvey is. I agree with keeping long held established boundaries in place. I would classify a survey of an established boundary as a retracement survey.
A resurvey in my book is when the lines can't be located by existing established evidence or it could be just making new lines like the BLM's independent resurvey. The BLM only does independent resurveys of their own land and they go around previously patented land leaving it in its original location. They can do what they want on federal land because they are the authorized agent of the landowner.
A dependent resurvey is a hybrid of retracement and setting lines anew where they are considered lost. So it's a retracement with rules to reset what is missing. It gives me heartburn to allow surveyors to set lost corners without authorization of the affected landowners but is done as a practical matter, the government is hard to go against.
I think it's pretty clear in the law that surveyors are not authorized to do resurveys where lines are set anew. The famous Florida case lays out what surveyors can do, retrace and set new original lines for landowners. Many other cases lay out what a surveyor is authorized to do. A resurvey is setting the lines between parcels when the original line can't be retraced. So the question for me is where is the authorization. The BLM won't do a resurvey of private land unless 75% of the landowners agree to accept the results (authorization of the landowners).
Also maybe the definition of a survey should be considered. Can a survey only be done by a licensed surveyor and must there be an official public record of it before land can be considered surveyed and therefore retraceable. From my view that's way to hard a line. Looking back many places have not had licensed surveyors for all that long. Many states don't require public records be kept of surveys and many filing states haven't been doing it for all that long. So there are many parcels out there that wouldn't be considered surveyed under these conditions (no public record by a surveyor). But I'd consider the land surveyed even if it was done by the landowners themselves. The physical evidence didn't appear on the countryside from thin air. Somebody went out there and measured something and the landowners accepted it and went forth. Then in many instances they accepted it for many decades. So it's surveyed in my book you just need to sort out the evidence of which boundaries are established and which are not. If the boundary is established you should be able to retrace it from the evidence. If the boundary existed in the record and is not established well then it needs a resurvey or maybe its a first survey or even an original survey. BUT the boundary exists in law and has two landowners. The landowners must authorize and accept the resurvey for it to be a valid determination of the boundary. The surveyor has no authority to determine the boundary location unilaterally as it violates landowners rights. Sure you can give your opinion and mark it on the ground starting a lawsuit but what good have you done other than your own billing?
As far as GIS goes. I think that GIS is the technology that will be used to map boundaries. I think it will happen faster than most believe. GIS has the same legal issues when it comes to resurveys and mapping the exact location of the corners. The remapping of reality will need the authorization of the landowners or an adjudication by the courts that acts as the authorization of the landowners. I think the GIS folks in the know understand this. Its just finding the formula to do it. Surveyors should get on board as there is a ton of work to be done here. Surveyors with understanding of boundary law need to get involved here so it gets done right. Yeah in the end it will put surveyors as we know it out of business. The continual unauthorized resurveying of parcels would finally be stopped. In my book that would be a good thing. It's going to happen, you can either be part of the steamroller or part of the road.
