B. is the answer!
> Joe's right, and you would all agree with him if you were paying attention.
> I was distracted by your righteous umbrage at first, then I re-read the question.
It's a poorly written question, IMHO, but nowhere in answer "B" does it say (or even imply) that you're not holding the pipe.
B. is the answer!
I downloaded the Florida MTS to take a look. Please keep in mind, this is the first time I've ever seen this document.
5J-17.052, 2: Boundary Survey, Map, and Report, bullet three reads:
3. Any discrepancies between the survey map and the real property description must be shown
Now, I'm asking a genuine question here.. I honestly don't know the answer, how is this different then the answer #2 above? It would seem, if the real property description's recorded bearing and distances shows that the corner should be 0.12' south and 0.14' west from where a found pin was located, that difference has to be shown.
Also, later in the section it reads:
7. Surveys of all or part of a lot(s) which is part of a recorded subdivision shall show the following upon the map: B. A comparison between recorded directions and distances with field measured directions and distances when they vary.
Again, how is this different than the answer: Just locate it where it is and show fallings from the calculated position on the survey. ?
B. is the answer!
> It's a poorly written question, IMHO, but nowhere in answer "B" does it say (or even imply) that you're not holding the pipe.
If you were a land owner who had a survey map that said "Found 1" Iron Pipe 0.12' south and 0.14' west", would you not believe that the actual corner is 0.12' N and 0.14E of the pipe? That's why I always thought this method of annotation was kind of crazy ... it seems like a way of rejecting a monument without setting a new one ... we used to call these virtual pincushions at my old job ... and nowhere in Florida MTS is there anything that says I must note a drawing that way. In fact, I think Florida MTS says, when surveying a lot by metes and bounds or by lot/block, a survey must show: b. A comparison between recorded directions and distances with field measured directions and distances when they vary.
I mean, if you are going to write an MTS quiz, why not include a solution that's actually backed by MTS? This is a very elegant way to deal with small differences between calc'ed and actual locations ... and it's actually in the rules! There is nothing about showing "fallings" from the calc'ed positions in the MTS rules.
B. is the answer!
Because showing record vs. measured brg/dist around the lot is different than annotating a corner monument with "fallings" from a calc'ed position.
B. is the answer!
Dead on TPR.
If you are supposed to show "fallings", and those "fallings" represent nothing other than a measured vs record difference, shouldn't the "fallings" be split and one half the northing and 1/2 the easting be shown at both ends of the line, not just the end with the uncalled for monument?
In other words, why is the "error" just applied to one end of the line?
No, the question is clearly leaving no option other than to accept a mathematical calculation and measurement as being better evidence of the "true" corner. They can spin all they want, but if they were testing whether one would merely show measured vs record, the question would be entirely different.
"Calculated boundary corner location" that is pretty darn clear how the "true, one and only, legal, binding, based on superior evidence, judged used proper legal principles, and judicially upholdable" boundary corner location was derived.
Is this Joe's answer?
". . . Most who have taken the course selected the "set a new corner" answer . . ."
I'll chime in as someone who has in the past been registered in both Florida and California. The question does not contain sufficient information, and, the answers are awful. So, poorly written question, badly thought out answers.
Is this Joe's answer?
I think we agree. Based upon the question, there is no defendable answer except "D", and that is only defensible from the perspective that at least you have done no harm.
Is this Joe's answer?
"D" should be...Go back to the office, spend the weekend on law books and come back on Monday and accept the pipe, file the survey and head for the bar.
Amen Bruce.
All this bluster
...and nobody's wrong!
TPR's not wrong, Joe's not wrong, Brian's not wrong, Keith's not wrong and, most importantly, I am not wrong.:-)
We have to allow that things could have been more clearly phrased, and I understand the Ranger's concern with the word "must," but nobody is advocating rejecting the monument in favor of a measured position; nobody in this discussion is the much-loathed "deed staker."
If you need someone to loathe, if you need an enemy, I don't think you'll find him here.
Just my thoughts for those on high horses. (that's just a figure of speech, Doin')
🙂
Don
All this bluster
The original post stated the question was taken from a CEU course on Florida's MTS. It seems to me that requires a high standard, with a carefully worded question, and carefully worded answers. The Q&A, both, fail.
All this bluster
Granted, Bruce, but the thread seemed to devolve into enmity for no reason that I could see.
Was there a bad guy?
I don't think so. That was my point.
Don
All this bluster
In my own defense, the company website and course does not list a person's name anywhere, and I posted the question in a way that I didn't identify the author ... I didn't call anyone out personally... and I did not know the author was an anonymous poster here. He "outed" himself. Heck, I even apologize to him, but continued to state my case.
I posted the question because I thought it was teaching the wrong thing. Joe said that most students chose "C" ... isn't that telling of how crappy a question it is when the majority of licensed surveyors Joe is educating apparently leave this course believing that Florida MTS tells them they must set a new monument 0.18' from an existing pipe if the data collector says so? Yeah... there is something wrong with that question.
If B were acceptable by MTS (and it's not, IMO), then you'd think the majority would Florida surveyors would know of this.
Sorry, I feel strongly about this. I don't think Joe is the enenmy, but perhaps this was a chance for him to listen and learn something from his students instead of just saying "kiss my ass" and signing off ...
Don
> Granted, Bruce, but the thread seemed to devolve into enmity for no reason that I could see.
> Was there a bad guy?
> I don't think so. That was my point.
>
> Don
No I don't think there is a "bad guy", a bady worded question and bad (incorrect) choices for answers, yes. Joe, however, seemed to take offense for some reason...
I agree with Bruce, considering this is apparently from a continuing education course, concerning MTS (assuming this means Minimum Technical Standards) for licensed land surveyors, I would opine that greater care is needed in both questions and answers.
For the apparent author to take such offense at others critiquing the question and offered answers is perhaps slightly out of bounds. Especially the insults and profanity.
High horse? Who me? Not a chance. 😉
All this bluster
As always, Pseudo, I have a high regard for your opinion.
Don
Don
:good:
Don
All this bluster
Pseudo,
Since I was the one that his "kiss my ass" was aimed at, I can only say that, that boy has lots to learn about land surveying!!
Reminds me of the rationale of teen agers writing on bathroom walls!
Should I give ole Joe the time of day?
I agree with Keith and Brian on this matter.
