Just in case this old horse hasn't been completely beat to death.
In the thread below questioning the distance from Oklahoma City to Austin it was finally brought to light that one would need 177 years of surveys in hand to guide the current surveyor in Austin. That work was done and exists somewhere but only in the educated hands of about three offices. (Paraphrasing, poorly, I am sure)
In my home county the maximum time period is 150 years of survey information. The primary difference is that a high percentage of the surveys throughout the county are available to any surveyor who needs that information. There have been a few egomaniacs who believed their work was top secret but most did little work here. I'm sure there are ALTA's that never made it to the county files but most would be for tracts for which other surveys are available. We even have a better file of old highway plans than the DOT will admit to possessing plus railroad strip maps of all current and former routes.
Pros
I would say competent surveyor that is licensed in this state could easily survey in my county without any local knowledge.
The records are all there for anybody that wants to look through them.
-------------
You have to be willing to spend some time doing the research.
Based upon my experience...Generally speaking, "out of the area" surveyors...
1.) Only want a copy of the original subdivision map.
2.) Only want a copy of the latest survey.
3.) Never want to look at quasi-public records.
4.) Never want to look at corner records.
Count yourself lucky. In Oklahoma it is hit and miss.
I can show you a county that not only keeps the original GLO notes in a bound copy, but they have all the county surveyors' retracement notes in similar format through about 1930 or 1940.
I can also show you a county where in 2006 I was questioned about why I would need a copy of a recorded plat. She knew people could look at them, but wasn't sure it was ok to copy any part of it...(wtf?!)
Recordation would be a good thing I believe. But sadly the implementation and maintenance would stall out at the county level. The reality of poorly kept recorded surveys is a scary thought.
I probably won't see it in my time here on Earth.
> Recordation would be a good thing I believe. But sadly the implementation and maintenance would stall out at the county level. The reality of poorly kept recorded surveys is a scary thought.
You mean to say that you couldn't file/record a survey if you wanted to? Are you saying that the County Recorder's Office loses public records?
THAT is scary!
To me, it should be the same as filing/recording any other legal document.
> You mean to say that you couldn't file/record a survey if you wanted to? Are you saying that the County Recorder's Office loses public records?
We can (and do) record surveys. I was talking about mandatory recordation.
Most counties will allow you to record anything, usually as a miscellaneous document. Whether it gets "recorded" as a survey is the scary part. A lot of the counties don't have a category for surveys, so they're filed as miscellaneous. A search by name can usually find them. If you don't know the names, you just might be S.O.L.
Other counties (like the one I live in) have a category and they are cross referenced by section-township-range. Looking them up is a breeze. I wish ALL counties were that way.
> Just in case this old horse hasn't been completely beat to death.
Are you kidding? Obviously mandatory recordation of *all* activities by LSs concerning subdivisions, ROSs, and corner records is paramount. Combined with the chain of title in the deed records and court edicts concerning boundaries, various agencies takings without proper records, that's all there is back to the original BLM Cadastre.
ALTAS, topo surveys, any survey that does not change or "rediscover" boundaries is private, no need to serve notice at the courthouse.
> In the thread below questioning the distance from Oklahoma City to Austin it was finally brought to light that one would need 177 years of surveys in hand to guide the current surveyor in Austin. That work was done and exists somewhere but only in the educated hands of about three offices. (Paraphrasing, poorly, I am sure)
Well, the situation in PLSSia would seem to be fundamentally different. There, the main legitimate object would likely be to perpetuate the handful of marks of the original government subdivision and to supplement written descriptions from which the usual survey details are stripped out for brevity.
In places where surveyors have been unable to find any original marks of the original government survey for quite some time, presumably the purpose of recording maps is just to show the locations where the corners were thought to be at the time a surveyor attempted to survey off some part of the section, but which may later turn out to be mistaken.
I guess that system is better than nothing, but I'm not seeing some giant advantage over actually doing enough research to find the right answer when the land is super-valuable as in the Central Business District of Austin. It's not as if having a record of a survey relieves the surveyor of the duty to inquire further.
It's not nearly as simple as that just because surveys are filed.
> It's not nearly as simple as that just because surveys are filed.
But isn't the real purpose of the recording of maps to perpetuate the primary evidence of some original survey? Otherwise, it would seem as if it turns into a sort of paper junkyard of dueling PK nails, neither of which is really connected to anything other than a theory.
I've worked about one third of my career in recording States. I probably won't ever work in a non-recording state again.
Recording does not eliminate the need to dig into obscure records or understand how things were done over time. It does preserve evidence and force us to finish our work. When every product you sign ends up available forever, you tend to do a thorough review.
When I base a decision on something most wouldn't know how to find, that reference ends up on my map. The next guy sees it and learns a new trick. Lord knows I've picked up my share of knowledge that way. Over time the pedigree of corners improves rather than deteriorates. Like I said, it doesn't replace the need to search. It does make it easier to get going.
From a business standpoint there is one major drawback. My company records aren't nearly as valuable. In the end the tradeoff is more than worth it.
I definitely see a huge value in recording. Nothing is recorded here except deeds and major subdivision plans. If you are surveying something that doesn't have either of those it can be pretty tough and frustrating at times. There is almost always some deed, but I've had cases where the deed was so old it barely represented anything you would find in the field. At that point it boils down to experience, evidence, adjoining title information, boundary principles, and good old fashioned surveying.
I've always imagined that searching for and piecing together evidence in a non-recording state would be an exercise similar to this:
"Non-recording state" is a misnomer. Recorded survey information abounds, it's just not a mandatory requirement to record a drawing of every boundary survey in one standardized depository.
I just clicked on a parcel on an evil GIS website, followed the link to the tax account information for that parcel, copied the book and page into the online deed records website and downloaded a deed with a current boundary survey (2011) description attached. All in less than a minute from my desk
I see no con from a surveyor's perspective. It drives me nuts that Maine allows lot divisions without any plan, recorded or otherwise. This happens a lot - deed descriptions with bearings to the second and distances to the hundredth, and no referenced survey or plan. Or if there is a plan reference, it's not necessarily recorded.
"She knew people could look at them, but wasn't sure it was ok to copy any part of it...(wtf?!)"
Perhaps she had a vague knowledge of copyright law...
Not recording is the equivalent to Pincushion?
> > It's not nearly as simple as that just because surveys are filed.
>
> But isn't the real purpose of the recording of maps to perpetuate the primary evidence of some original survey? Otherwise, it would seem as if it turns into a sort of paper junkyard of dueling PK nails, neither of which is really connected to anything other than a theory.
For me, if there is a well reasoned survey, I will follow their thought process. So, one advantage of recording is that surveyors can tend to come up with the same answer.
And, if a record of survey is complete, it will typically answer the questions and point to the documents used. It doesn't eliminate research, but it should mean that the next survey uses the same documents at a minimum (there could be additional documents).
It is absolutely common for people here to simply refer to a record of survey for a block breakdown. They may check the mons, but if they differ by a few hundredths, they don't reinvent the wheel.
I think the reason that many people don't like recording surveys is that they are closet pincushioners. They may not stick all sorts of rebar close to each other, but when each practitioner reinvents a block, the whole thing is essentially a pincushion. The worst possible thing to a pincushioner is having to submit their all knowing judgement and superior measurements to some lesser light. That is the essence of every pincushion, right?
If we really cared about the cadastre, we would record every single thing we could. And isn't that our profession. Dr.'s care about human bodies, and we care about the cadastre. Maybe we need to have a "do no harm" oath?
(Yeah, it is kind of a random thread hijack.)
Not recording is the equivalent to Pincushion?
> I think the reason that many people don't like recording surveys is that they are closet pincushioners.
FWIW - I've surveyed for over 25 years in a non recording state and seen two pincushions...maybe I'm just lucky.
Not recording is the equivalent to Pincushion?
> It is absolutely common for people here to simply refer to a record of survey for a block breakdown. They may check the mons, but if they differ by a few hundredths, they don't reinvent the wheel.
So, in other words, you work in an area where permanent survey markers have not been traditionally used? Imagine working in a metes and bounds state where boundaries were typically actually monumented and tell me why the original subdivision plat isn't sufficient.
The con, is when a particular surveyor or surveying company has a monopoly on the historical survey records for a particular area, they have a business advantage over many other surveyors. If surveys were to all be recorded, they would lose that "advantage" and local unique knowledge becomes less significant.
The con is the law of unintended consequences: one day it's mandatory recording, the next day some #$&@ing GIS NAZI is making you rescale the symbols on your %$@*ing plat
