@lurker?ÿ
You are correct in your process.?ÿ Sometimes, though, we need to go the extra mile to determine whether the corners we have found are where they should be.?ÿ The south section corner mentioned can be compared to other corners to the east, west and south to see if what we think happened could have happened.?ÿ Thus, it is in the correct location.?ÿ The more recently set monument at the east quarter corner of Section 25 needs to also be investigated similarly to see why the licensed surveyor who put it there had a reasonable rationale for doing so.?ÿ This requires significantly more research and fieldwork time than anticipated.?ÿ Poop happens.
?ÿ
Husker 76 I believe I agree with you but your example is bad and I'm not so sure the guy you are concerned about has made a mistake. Has he proportioned in corners where the record proportions are different than what he used? In your example the record proportions remain the same no matter the distance measured between the SE corner of 36 and the E 1/4 of 25. They are all equal. If he used record distances of 2640' for the 2 halves of SEC 36 and then 2700' for the south half of SEC 25 then he would end up with proportionate locations that differed from the original GLO plat. Otherwise, he proportions in thirds and record distance is trivial if it is equal for all 3 halves.
But putting record dimensions on a plat is good practice.?ÿ
Um, I think it's mandatory.?ÿ I've stacked record dimension anno four or more high on some ROSs.?ÿ It ties your "opinion" of the boundary location to the history of the parcel.?ÿ
I looked it up for a few Counties nearby and it is mandatory:
"The bearing and length of lines, including the measured data and the record data of the lines, will be shown on the record of survey. "
@holy-cow the land that was sold to the original pantentees was sold and described in the patents, to be the size and shape of what the GLO had surveyed. Nelson buys the s 1/2 of section 25, Smith buys section 36. The original survey calls these a perfect mile and half mile. Of course, they are not. A newer survey reestablishes the SE of 36 and finds a replacement of the E 1/4 of 25. No replacement of the SE of 25. If he were to need to replace this corner by proportion after all other methods were exhausted , he would have used the original record distance to do so. Am I wrong?
He would have placed it two-thirds of the distance up the line to the east quarter corner location mentioned.?ÿ Placing it at 5280 north from one monument or 2640 south from the other would produce different results.?ÿ Thus the need for proportioning in the case of a lost corner.?ÿ There is some reason that he picked the spot he did for the quarter corner regardless of what the distance between the two monuments happens to be.
How much farther north from his quarter corner is the next known monument??ÿ That number comes into play as well.
@lurker I agree. I can see where what I wrote could lead to some WTH moments. My bad. ????
@mightymoe these are great examples and I agree with the procedure 100%. I do need to state however that It would take something really really really terrible to motivate me to report another surveyor to the board. This is not that bad. I was simply looking for some input from other professionals and boy oh boy did I get that! Ha!
@lurker I agree with you. 3rds either way because the original record showed that it was in fact divided that way. What happened in this particular situation was rather that using 3rds, he used an obscure record from the Courthouse, not even really a survey I suppose, that showed that the North and South monuments had been recovered or reestablished at some point. Some of the notes say simply "stone" with some triangles drawn representing ties. Some corners simply have a penciled dot. No mention whatsoever as to what the dot represents. The drawing, in some areas also shows a chained distance between some of the monuments. Nothing more. Nothing stating if these dots were found monuments or set monuments. No notes accompanied these drawings stating if they were found or set or if they were set, why they were set at that particular position or what was set. None of the monuments found during my/his survey fit these drawings well enough to say that they we're related to these drawings. If they did fit within reason, it could have been good evidence to aid in the search or even replacement of the missing corner. These drawings did not show the line as being 5280 and 2640 as is to be expected. The distances shown between whatever was found or set disagreed with the GLO distances. They were definitely not 3rds.The distances on these drawings was used to calculate a proportionate position for the missing SE cor of 25. Not the GLO distance, resulting in a 9 foot discrepancy between his and my surveys.
Some of us may say that the drawings were better evidence. If I had found the same monuments as the Courthouse drawings or had any way of confidently saying what those monuments even were and was able to measure within reason to their record distance, I might agree that the drawings were in fact better evidence of how the corners were ultimately placed during the original survey. Instead, monuments to the north and south of the SE cor of 25 were found. Zero pedigree or record of either of the monuments with regards to size, material, method, etc. These were accepted as best evidence in both surveys because they were in harmony with the surrounding features, roads etc. When it came time to replace the missing SE corner of 25, he used the distances shown on the Courthouse drawings and I used the GLO distance resulting in a 9 foot difference.
The land was originally conveyed as being perfect aliquot parts. Of course, the actual corners almost always disagree with this fact. Sometimes by a very significant amount. The equitable resolution to a missing corner is an equal distribution of the error unless another way of restoring the original monuments position can be found. The error can be discovered only by a comparison between the monuments on the ground versus what was conveyed. Not what was subsequently remeasured. Discovering that the original monuments were not placed where they GLO noted them to be placed does not change what was conveyed. Remeasuring the monuments or replacing them does not change what was conveyed. Therefore when the necessity arises to use a proportionate position after all other methods have been found to be futile, the original conveyance must be used as the basis of new calculations. I can completely agree that every situation will be unique with regards to how best replace a missing corner. I have used many of the techniques in this thread over my 30 years to do so. On the other hand I can't agree with using newer record data simply because it's newer. That's all I'm trying to say I guess.?ÿ
From what you mention there was a second survey after the GLO (found in the county records) of the 1-1/2 miles showing corners and the total distance on the survey is 7980 (record 7920). Then a new retracement finds the total distance to be 7982. That puts a bunch of weight on the second survey. It's tough to throw that out.?ÿ
?ÿ
I have the benefit of reading 4 pages of misunderstandings and miscommunications, so here goes:
Husker is correct here, the entire point of proportioning is to adjust my chain to whichever prior surveyor??s chain I??m proportioning to. So if I have a record length of 80.00 chains and the original record length between found monuments is 120.00 chains and say my measured distance is 121.00 chains then the computation is 80/120=?/121.00=80.67 chains. Say another surveyor measured 5 years ago 121.50 chains, yet it makes no sense to substitute 121.50 chains for the original record of 120.00 chains.
If you have the position of the missing corner from the 5 year old survey it may be appropriate to proportion using the 5 year old data against yours.
It is never correct to mix apples and oranges.
Perhaps buy the errant surveyor a beer of his choice at the taproom and educate him on this.
Proportion is mathematical so 1/3 of whatever would be the same regardless of what number you use.?ÿ I would reference the GLO distance.?ÿ More important is that you are truly using two original monuments to go between (or properly restored locations from original evidence).
Putting that aside what I see ALL THE TIME is using proportioning when there is maybe 100 years of fences and occupation (evidence of boundary location).?ÿ Proportion is be be used when there is NO EVEDINCE.?ÿ How can you blow off what has been there for 100 years or so.?ÿ Beyond that there are common laws that set boundaries (at least in my state, Utah) after 20 years of occupation.?ÿ SO, go ahead proportion all you want, set a new section marker where it has never been against all other evidence.?ÿ Stir up the crap all over the place, start lawsuits, make neighbors enemies.?ÿ Yeah, the surveyor has been their to fix what isn't broken, he knows his simple math quite precisely.?ÿ What he doesn't know, or ignores for speed and cost effiency, is boundary law.
What I'm thinking Husker is relating is there is a second survey showing 120.9 chains (7980') with a corner found at 80.9 chains. The surveyor set his corner using 7980 against the found distance of 7982 and prorated in the north 40 chains as shown on the second survey instead of 1/3 of 7982.......At least I think that's what he is saying.?ÿ
Good to see you back.
