Mr. George
I am just simply amazed at some surveyors posted rationale.
No darn wonder we have a problem with convincing the public that we know what we are talking about?
If you believe half of what has been posted on this thread, you need to do more reading someplace else that is credible.
Some need to put that measuring manual up and bring down the dusty survey manual.
By the way, did you see an answer to my question:
Just as a curiosity, I know my 1/16th corner monuments were not set with a micrometer back in the 60's and 70's when I set them and if you were to do a resurvey on private land against one of those 1/16th corners in the PLSS; would you accept it if it was a link out of position from your measurement?
What would be your comment?
Mr. Keith
Fantastic thread
It depends......that is the correct answer to all viewpoints expressed so far.
My experience shows that it is almost impossible to determine which monuments hold enough proof to declare that only those two or three are absolutely correct and all other monuments found are off some teensy bit relative to the perfect math and trigonometry hereby declared as THE GOSPEL according to (the surveyor of the day).
Fantastic thread
It depends is right of course, but one would think that we could have some standardized methods to begin with and allow for individual judgement, but some posts here are way out of bounds....in my opinion of course.
Keith
For me 98.6% of all my surveys I do this works just fine.
I would just hold to what I found if they all agree.
Snap from node to node to node back to node of each monument...bam I'm done.
Of course I'd check the four monuments against the rest of the adjoiners (Precision vs. Accuracy)
> For me 98.6% of all my surveys I do this works just fine.
> I would just hold to what I found if they all agree.
>
> Snap from node to node to node back to node of each monument...bam I'm done.
>
> Of course I'd check the four monuments against the rest of the adjoiners (Precision vs. Accuracy)
I understand what you are saying, but precision has nothing to do with where the boundary is located. It is, however, important in the record you create that preserves the evidence of the found boundary.
Fantastic thread
> It depends is right of course, but one would think that we could have some standardized methods to begin with and allow for individual judgement, but some posts here are way out of bounds....in my opinion of course.
>
> Keith
We do have "standardized" methods, a surveyor performing a resurvey must gather the appropriate evidence and analyze it properly in acccordance with the applicable law. That is the standardized method, it is what the courts and the public expect us to do. Instead we are obsessed with measurements and adjustments and calculations, and trying to prove those that came before us "couldn't measure worth sour owl poop". Too many of us are too busy trying to correct all the minor "mis-measurements" of the past to match some idealistic and un-attainable representation of "intent" of a 50-100 year old plat. Where we as a profession are failing is not understanding what the law really says, not just "this is the way its done around here", or "thats the way I was taught".
Many years ago I was against mandatory continuing education (as I am kinda of an independant cuss), but as I learn more about what I and many of us don't know about surveying, I am becoming a big fan of continuing ed. The only problem I see, is that a large majority of the education we are receiving at conferences and other sources is the same old stuff that has little to do with recognizing an established, recognized, and accepted existing boundary or corner that may not meet our irrational expectation of precision.
Directing at no one in particular...
What is wrong with the record dimensions? :-S
If you find a monument at both ends of a line that is 100 feet by record, why show 100.05' or 99.95' on your plan? The same thing goes for bearings, why nit-pik over a few seconds or minutes even.
I have seen ALTA surveys that bear very little resemblance to the record piece of property because the measured angles, (bearings), and distances are shown instead of the record information. Maybe that tribrach that got dropped without your knowledge may have tweaked all your measurements. Are you really that much better at measuring than the guy who preceded you?
As I type this, I realize that there are exceptions. For example I am working in a 1969 platted subdivision of 5 acre lots right now where I can't seem to find two monuments that work within a foot of each other and if I try to throw a third into the mix I'm really screwed. In 1969 this property was so far out in the boondocks I'm sure nobody cared. But now it has a 1/4 - 1/2 $mill houses on each improved lot.
> In the six places I have worked locally and in my experience around here...very few people stake unless paid to do it. Most attorneys specifically ask for no stakes to keep costs down.
Just to be clear...
You're saying that you don't set the irons where needed after the survey is done?
Stephen
Some of the comments I have read in this post makes me fear for the future of our profession- Isn't a "virual" pin cushion still a pin cushion? And if you are going to have the "brass" to disagree with existing monumentation by 0.04' shouldn't you have the "brass" to set corners to document your idiocy. Wouldn't your time be better served in more research, like going back a couple grantors and finding a driveway easement that wasn't carried forward in the chain of title, or that additional tract of land your client's predecessor bought from his neighbor but doesn't show in the tax map you sent your crew out with. Sad!
Pin Cushion
This is the pin cushion that I have to deal with almost daily.
In a state where corner tolerance is 0.10' who can call a corner out several hundredths?
There is more error in the traverse before balancing and then you want to reference a bound out 0.02'?
Dumb dumb dumb..... and I don't care where you're working, even those million $ per foot frontage lots. Do the deeds really say, " thence to a bound which drill hole is 0.02' north and 0.03' East of the corner.."???
It's a Pin cushion by another name.. maybe a math cushion?
Pin Cushion
> This is the pin cushion that I have to deal with almost daily.
>
>
> In a state where corner tolerance is 0.10' who can call a corner out several hundredths?
>
> There is more error in the traverse before balancing and then you want to reference a bound out 0.02'?
>
> Dumb dumb dumb..... and I don't care where you're working, even those million $ per foot frontage lots. Do the deeds really say, " thence to a bound which drill hole is 0.02' north and 0.03' East of the corner.."???
>
> It's a Pin cushion by another name.. maybe a math cushion?
I'm sorry, but surely you can't be saying that in your state, any monument out of position by 0.10' must be rejected????
I do agree though, if the piece of iron or wood or whatever is not the boundary corner, pull the blasted thing so no one in the future confuses the errant piece of potential monument matter for a corner; and please, if you are confident enough to reject said mass of nothingness, please be confident enough to set your own monument so the rest of us can judge you measuring abilities, or at least so the poor landowners can have something to rely upon until the next jackleg expert measureer comes down the pyke.
What would really be pathetic
What would really be pathetic is if the monument cited for being out a few hundredths was the axle/gear in Kent's photo above. The monument is the corner, not some perfect mathematical point 0.03 feet off center.
Pin Cushion>BRian
No, I didn't mean that! What I meant is that any bound set is expected to be within a tenth of it's calculated position. Not that any corner has to be rejected if out mathematically more than one tenth..
Directing at no one in particular...
> What is wrong with the record dimensions? :-S
>
> If you find a monument at both ends of a line that is 100 feet by record, why show 100.05' or 99.95' on your plan? The same thing goes for bearings, why nit-pik over a few seconds or minutes even.
>
Vern,
In my opinion, you are getting it "backwards" in a sense. (No, I don't mean that as a putdown). I go out and look for a monument at, say, 100' from the last monument. I finally find it and measure to it. I continue around doing the same thing. I then determine that, having measured 100.05' between those monuments (among other evidence, perhaps) confirms that I have found the right points. I show all the evidence of what I measured to on my plat including the measurement between monuments. In my opinion, I am not saying I measure better than anyone else, I am saying that I got the same measurement as the record within a particular tolerance (in this case 0.05). My measurement is a confirmation of the original call, not a conflict. I annotate it on the plat as 100' record, 100.05' as measured. This says to me, that my field measurement between corners was 100.05' nothing more nothing less. it is not declaring one wrong and one right, it is just stating the facts.
The same with everything else. Similar to finding a stone. The original notes may say "set stone 11"x6"x26" 16" in the ground (and its markings). If I come and measure it, I don't say the same dimensions verbatim necessarily, I say found stone 10"x7", protruding 8" out of the ground (and whatever markings I see). I can't measure the full length of the stone, and my x/y measurements are an average of the part of the stone I do see.
To me it's a matter of calling what you see and what you measure. Not what you were supposed to see and measure based on the original calls.
Preach on brother. These people need to man up and set their own rebar, or accept the one they find.
:good:
A "monument" is set to show the owner and the general public where this private boundary is. It's your job to set the correct monument in its correct position to protect the public's rights.
Fantastic thread
Who is going to teach the classes? The pool is getting smaller and smaller! Jp
foggy
I read your post with the same understanding as Brian, and several other times by other posters, that it seemed to be the belief that accuracy standards was being applied to acceptance standards?
I still think that is the view of some on here.
Keith
accuracy/acceptance
Yes Keith, it is a common misconception. The argument that I've heard is that if the previous surveyor set the monument to that standard, then when it's recovered, it should measure to that standard. The laws/rules of boundary retracement are relegated to standards of measurement.
Directing at no one in particular...
:good: