Poor practice?

Bill93, post: 399298, member: 87 wrote: Is this work up to your standards of practice?

0.37' is a lot of property in PDX. No, it's not up to my SOP. That would not fly in my area.

Odd. Very odd. Does the subdivision plat explain why this might make sense?

Holy Cow, post: 399306, member: 50 wrote: Odd. Very odd. Does the subdivision plat explain why this might make sense?

The geometry of his survey indicates to me he placed the rear common pin off of the front line with a right angle...and let the distance fall "wherever" at the intersection of the line between the rear pins giving an imbalance in the distances along the rear line. That may somehow show some logic with the math, but imho is poor practice. I'd like to grill him over his decision...

I don't recognize anything significant on the plat to explain the oddities.

There are roads on the west, north and east sides of the detail I posted, but I clipped those off to keep it anonymous. The subdivision continues for several lots to the south in nearly rectangular shapes except for a curve in the easterly street that affects two lots not shown in my detail. The unmonumented bend in the north line probably falls on the old pre-subdivision aliquot line.

I think he did it in the simplest way possible, whether or not that was a good way. The south lines of these lots do not have good visibility so he just set out the angle and record distance for the center south monument.

This surveyor retired a few years ago from full-time employment and appears to do scarcely more surveys (judging by this county's records) than to earn his PDH and licensing expenses. I wouldn't be surprised if he is still using the GTS-3C that he moonlighted with a decade ago. Thank goodness he isn't doing this stuff full time.

Why are there different bearings along the north line? Plus the one in the center, a north - south line, is S 90å¼ E?

Steve Gilbert, post: 399316, member: 111 wrote: Why are there different bearings along the north line? Plus the one in the center, a north - south line, is S 90å¼ E?

I'm assuming a copy of the recorded plat would answer a few of the questions one has when viewing this work.

It looks unexplainable except for providing title distance for Lot 10.
Without recovering the SE cot. of Lot 9, it is indefensible too.

Steve Gilbert, post: 399316, member: 111 wrote: Why are there different bearings along the north line? Plus the one in the center, a north - south line, is S 90å¼ E?

As I noted above the bend in the north line is on an aliquot N-S line from before the subdivision. Not sure why but that's what.
The bearing is a simple oversight where the intended value is obvious.

Don't know the "rules" where you are at but if they were simultaneously conveyed here your entitled to your "share", I'm questioning why all the "error" was placed after the bend in the north line. At a glance, looks like road apples.

Bill93, post: 399311, member: 87 wrote: The unmonumented bend in the north line probably falls on the old pre-subdivision aliquot line.

I mis-spoke. According to the GIS, the bend isn't far from that line but is not on it. The point of the bend does line up with the lot line on the north of the road, which I mis-remembered as being on the quarter-quarter section line.

That lot line to the north separates XXX First Addition from XXX Second Addition and the land south of the road is all Second Addition.

Ah, so the developer intentionally put a small bend in the road on the north side of the lots shown. Does the plat show any kind of bend in any of the east-west lot lines or does that one lot have five sides while all others have four?

The bearings on the plat make no sense at all. The west line of 10 is esentially North, and the east line of 10 is East. Me thinks whoever did this work not only doesn't understand the concept of simultaneous conveyances and proper field recon, but the plat QA/QC is non-existent.

SPMPLS, post: 399348, member: 11785 wrote: The bearings on the plat make no sense at all. The west line of 10 is esentially North, and the east line of 10 is East. Me thinks whoever did this work not only doesn't understand the concept of simultaneous conveyances and proper field recon, but the plat QA/QC is non-existent.

That plat is crying out for a north arrow

Bill93, post: 399311, member: 87 wrote: I wouldn't be surprised if he is still using the GTS-3C that he moonlighted with a decade ago. Thank goodness he isn't doing this stuff full time.

I don't believe the GTS-3C, has any thing to do with the problems, with his plat, now or a decade ago.

The plat does have a north arrow. I trimmed the image to remove the road, addition, and surveyor names.

The lots on the north side of the road show no bend, even where the additions meet. Somehow the bend is likely a result of multiple surveys dealing with slight differences in measurement as the various additions were done.

I looked at the other 4 plats he filed in this calendar year, and they look a little more thorough than this one.
--------------
However I did wonder about one rural survey of a NW 1/4 NW1/4 where it looks like he had to go a long way to find enough evidence. He found the W 1/4, NW corner, N 1/4, and the 1/16 corners between them. On the other sides he found the E 1/4, and S 1/4 of the section.

He shows the center of section as the intersection between quarter corners and equal splits for the missing 1/16 corners. He must have looked for evidence of those missing corners, or I wouldn't expect he would go looking further.

But it says "Not Set" at the Center and two missing 1/16 corners that don't abut the client's property. Would you have set those?

Doug Crawford, post: 399352, member: 9 wrote: GTS-3C

Yes, I probably should have left that out. I wasn't saying it was a problem. Just an aside comment consistent with his low activity.

MightyMoe, post: 399349, member: 700 wrote: That plat is crying out for a north arrow

Yea, like about four of them or so. 😉

Three of the bearings are to the nearest odd second and the other three are rotated about 90 degrees and to an even degree. It appears as if those three are "placeholders" and were never edited to show the actual bearing. Once you throw out those three, there is not enough information left to solve without making some dangerous assumptions.
James

Comment on the NW4/NW4 thing. Using all four quarter corners to determine the center of section comes up frequently when there are no record surveys to indicate anything has ever been set by a surveyor to monument the center corner. It is then incumbent upon the surveyor to search around that calculated intersection of quarter section lines to more fully determine if anything has ever been set, but not recorded, and to evaluate if physical evidence strongly outweighs a mathematical solution based on four quarter corners that may have been monumented by four different surveyors at four different times in history based on possibly very different facts. It appears that he took the money-making short cut of failing to do the center of section search. Those who do not thoroughly search for the center corner deserve to be hung from the tallest tree available using barb wire for the noose and the genitalia for anchoring rather than the traditional neck location.