Record Distances vs Measurements

Define "very close".

If I measure a line and it's within 0.04' of the call on 1" iron pipes, I can move 0.02' on both pipes and match the record distance and still be on the pipe.

Now, if they're on the head of a tack and it's 0.06', then I'm probably going to show the call and found.

I only "adjust" to the record distance where the bearing and distance, when adjusted, will still be on top of the monument.

There are a lot of recorded maps with +- distances...so the record will almost always match the field..

At least include the field measurements. I'm leery of retracement plats that are carbon copies of the original plat dimensions. I can't help but wonder if they verified all the monumentation.

Ditto Kris.
There are really too many situations to cover when it comes to a definitive answer. It's up to the professional to decide when and where to show both measurements.

Just a few to consider:
What type of survey (urban, rural...etc.)
What year was the original survey
Did the original plat close........

I could go on but won't.

Field measurements. I too am suspicious when I find a plat that matches the record document to the second. Simply not possible, even from one week to the next, let alone decades.
IMHO the record documents are a guide to lead me to the monument...the controlling element of the line/corner.

The only time

I had a survey go to a jury trial the previous survey matched to the second of bearings and to the hundredth in distances the "original" survey (combined three lots). The original surveyor does exceptional work, but I couldn't even reproduce my OWN work to the second and hundredth. I ALWAYS show what I measured.

Andy

I like the 0.4' "rule" Kris - thats what i use
the Board wants you to define "material discrepancies" whatever that is:-)

> There are really too many situations to cover when it comes to a definitive answer. It's up to the professional to decide when and where to show both measurements.
>
> Just a few to consider:
> What type of survey (urban, rural...etc.)
> What year was the original survey
> Did the original plat close........
>
> I could go on but won't.

Ditto, Ditto.

More to consider:
Do the monuments fit within the previous survey or deed which set them, AND does that fit the big picture, Other surveys, your survey. Ect...
What rights of the owners does that monument represent.
Do the mons fit the other side of a street. (Back to big picture)
Is there harmony, or is there calamity with, ownership, rights, surveys, ect.

This is a small list of things to consider when determining boundaries and the decisions to these questions and the fact that they have to be asked is why we are professionals rather than simple drafters.:-)

So what's wrong with 100.10 (R) 100.09 (M) etc? Why does there need to be a difference, much less a "material" difference to show both?

i would say go measure it again - you will eventually get the 100.10:-)

Reading both discussions, I am wondering why it is limited to the topic of distances ( .04')...?! Distances alone do not define the location of a monument.

JRL

I have participated in that CLSA thread a few times trying to make the point that our "measurements" all have some level of uncertainty to them and to me it doesn't make sense to show a number on my survey that differs from record if it is just as likely that if I made the same measurement tomorrow I would agree with the record data as I would with my data I collected yesterday. The thread seems to be split pretty evenly into posts that agree with me and those that think somehow that's dishonest not to show what I "measure". I'm not saying that if I can set up on a tack and measure directly to another tack and it's different from record, I'm going to fudge it to agree. Why would I do that? If the record is demonstrably wrong, it's wrong.

The argument that showing statistically insignificant differences from record makes the survey appear more credible because it shows that I actually measured the stuff rather than xeroxing the old survey doesn't impress me. My signature and stamp stating that I measured the stuff should suffice.

I understand that people take pride in their measuring abilities and their Starnet prowess and feel that their procedures allow them to be better measurers than those that came before them. If your measurements really are more precise and you are certain that the record data falls outside your error ellipse or whatever you want to call it, then by all means show the difference from the less precisely derived record data. I just see too many maps where it appears that the bearings and distances were obtained by mindless button-pushing without thinking about significant figures.

Also, nowadays it's not that hard to measure precisely. Measurement should not be the main focus of whether we agree with previous surveys or not. That kind of statement seems to be what gets people riled up and thinking that I'm saying sloppy measurements are OK. That's not what I'm saying.

That also irritates me when I see a difference from record of say 5 seconds in bearing or, more correctly stated, an angle on a 200-foot-long line. Did the surveyor not know or care that he's disagreeing with something over less than half a hundredth?

249. In order to prevent any misunderstanding relative to the modus operandi indicated by the terms "retracement" and "resurvey," the following definitions of the same are here presented:

The "retracement" of a township boundary, or OTHER LINE OF SURVEY, consists in the determination of the TRUE BEARINGS and DISTANCES between the successive corners along the entire length of such line; and the data thus obtained will be embodied in the field notes together with the detailed particulars of the methods employed. (emphasis added)

The "resurvey" of a township boundary or OTHER LINE OF SURVEY, consists of a "retracement" of such line accompanied by the reconstruction of defective original corners and the establishment thereon of all the necessary new corners, and the detailed particulars of the entire operation will be embodied in the field notes. (emphasis added)

From the 1902 Manual. It also appears in the 1894 Manual.

Loyal

i am also with you on this Just - I beleive its a judgement call on the surveyor depending on what he is doing -
There are some Platted lots in this part of the county that are 100' x 150' that go for $30,00 to $40,000. I am not going to tell the client that he has now only 99.99' feet of frontage because that's what was "measured".

The questions I always ask someone when this topic comes up is. If you are sitting on a witness stand and the opposing attorney is standing there holding your survey up and asks the question "You state on your map that the distance between Point A and Point B is X. Is that truly the distance you measured? (If you say no or try to explain and he makes you give a yes or no answer) So what you are saying is that you signed and sealed this survey showing distances that you did not personally arrive at? (Again a yes or no answer) Are there any other places on this plat that you have made up numbers, just because you did not feel like it was "signifigant" enough to show the truth?"

It doesn't matter if you are wrong or right, but as soon as that lawyer proves that you put numbers on that sketch, that you did not measure yourself, then your credibility is shot.

James Redmon

Some States, opinion does not matter, Statute requires both record and measured to be shown. Always have shown both like everyone else in this state and so far, no problems have arisen that I know about. Showing both record and measured is a way to show that the line was actually measured and a record of such measurements over time would support the historical location of a monument that somehow had moved 8 feet and would justify not accepting its new location.
jud

I would argue that I am not disagreeing with the other surveyor over less than one hundredth, but rather agreeing with him to within one hundredth. When you show both it establishes how tight everything is. When you regurgitate record, I don't know if you are a .04 guy or a jeep odometer guy.
James Redmon

James - i like your "agreeing" statement altho i posted otherwise