How can you even call it "Measured"?
parasol!! who doesn't love a good "call back" joke! oh, the memories.
I use (F) for a "field" value, for both bearings and distances with a 0.2' tolerance before noting a difference. Both sides here have their good attributes but the main reason I choose to not label the “field” value until the 0.2’ tolerance is for less confusion to a lay person. Just my opinion.
>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.>
This has always been my train of thought. All of my surveys also always show grid bearings so I almost always show measured vs record anyways.
In Texas, your are mandated to show the difference between measured and record, both course and distance, whenever possible.
Speaking for myself, I take great care in art of measuring, make sure all measurement tools are in good working order, so I show what I measure, period. I don't take the time to debate with myself whether or not if I fudged 0.02 it would still be on the pipe or whatever and match record. It is what it is, at that time and on that day.
Randy
So much to resond to, I'll start with this
To clarify my position as explained and re-explained on the CLSA forum, for which the OP accused me there of lying, committing criminal fraud, being ashamed of my measurements, and doing a disservice to the profession:
If you do a full boundary retracement of a property, and after all analysis find that you agree with the past record all the way around to values within the limits of the relative positional error of your survey, it is within the reasonable purview of professional judgment to
1. Report both your measured (adjusted) values and the record values.
2. Report to the client that you have verified the previous survey as being correct. That may or may not involve a map.
My explanation further qualified that it is not OK to only report record:
1. To avoid doing the full amount of work necessary to complete and fully analyze the project.
2. If you are changing your values to match record by ignoring differences which exceed the minimum statistically significant value (greater than your relative positional tolerance - generally 2 sigma).
The practice of surveying is outlined in §8726 of the Business and professions code. The following is stated in Subsection (g) Determines the information shown or to be shown on any map or document prepared or furnished in connection with any one or more of the functions described in subdivisions (a), (b), (c), (d), and (f).
That tells me that it is my job to analyze the information of my surveys and present it in a way that is useful and clear to my client or other end users. If I find no statistically appreciable differences between my measurements and record, and my client can barely read a map and is easily confused by differing sets of numbers, I am serving that client best by not confusing them with insignificant information of differences which will only serve to confuse the client. Some clients or adjoiners may be very contentious and any difference, no matter how insignificant may serve as the basis for a new argument for them. I have no right to enable such trouble just to serve some misplaced sense of self-serving pride in my measurements.
If they are truly different, fine, by all means report them. You need to in that case. If the differences are so small that you cannot credibly state that you are certain that your measurements represent the true value better than the record, you be the judge according to the end use and users of the survey.
If the OP has decided that he is not qualified to exercise discretion with respect to the authority plainly given in §8726(g), that fine. Maybe he's sticking to the guidance of Board Rule 415 which states that professionals must practice within their area of competence. As for me, I have the judgment to appropriately decide which data to report and how to report it, and I will exercise that judgment as I see fit.
A friend of mine, also involved in the discussion over at CLSA, emailed me to tell me that Mr. Del Castillo is an excellent measurer and has been using least squares for 100 years or so. That may be, but his responses to my comments over at CLSA beyond being excessively insulting, demonstrate a lack of understanding of relative positional error and belie that experience.
Pride in Measurements
And as to "pride" in your measurements:
If your specialty is construction, machine placement, deformation modeling, and other precise work, the precision and accuracy of your measurements is central to what you do. It makes sense to take pride in your abilities to make measurements incredibly precisely and with incredibly repeatability. The requirements of that work demand it.
But if you are a boundary surveyor and your sense of worth is in your measurements, it is sorely misplaced. Anyone with even a modicum of intelligence can be trained to make measurements to the accuracies expected of most boundary surveys in just a few weeks. Measuring can be done by semi skilled labor being overseen by a skilled technician. It's not difficult to attain good measurements for boundary surveying.
Since any trained ape can do it, why place so high a sense of pride on it? When you insist that in each and every case, no matter how insignificant the differences from record, no matter the purpose, no matter the client, no matter any other circumstances, you are doing one of two things. You are either relegating yourself to a technical reporter of unrefined and unconsidered fact, or you are feeding your own sense of pride without regard to your client's needs.
They hired you to not only assess the information, but also to exercise professional discretion to determine what's relevant, and to report only that which is necessary to the intelligent interpretation of your survey and relevant to your client's needs. So exercise that judgment, don't make your client decide what's relevant, they hired you for that.
Two Kinds of Surveyors
"It seems there are two kinds of surveyors"
Those that spout off assuming a binary choice in all circumstances and those who say "I need all the facts before I can give you a reasonable answer".
The Expert Measurer in Court
Opposing Counsel: So Mr. Surveyor, this number here, four hundred seventy five point thirty two, with the... is that an "m" in parentheses? What is that, meters?
Surveyor: No, that means measured. All the distances shown are in feet.
OC: Measured. Feet. Got it, thanks. So these distances with the "m" are your measured distances, in feet. Are they the exact values of what you measured?
Surveyor: Yes they are.
OC: OK. And you are showing here that your exactly measured distance is 0.02 feet different than what my client's surveyor measured on this line. What is that, about an inch?
Surveyor: It's about a 1/4".
OC: So if you were to go back there today and remeasure those distances, you would undoubtedly get these same exact results, correct?
Surveyor: Yes. Well, maybe, you see...
OC: Yes? Maybe?! Which is it Mr. Surveyor, 'yes' or 'maybe'?
Surveyor: Yes. Yes I would.
OC: So your quite sure now, but a few seconds ago you weren't so confident. Are you sure or not?
Surveyor: Um, yes. Yes, I'm sure.
OC: I see. I was speaking with our expert the other day and he told me something that really confused me. Maybe you can help me out. Is it true that all measurements contain some error, that even with very precise equipment, that it's just about impossible to measure the true value of a line and even to always get the same distance when measuring it repeatedly? That doesn't make much sense to me. Can you help explain that to me?
Surveyor: It's true that all measurements have some small amount of random error.
OC: And so a surveyor may measure a line several times and get differences in the distances?
Surveyor: Very small differences, yes.
OC: So for a 400 to 500 foot distance, how much of this error might a surveyor expect to see?
Surveyor: A hundredth or two, maybe three, depending on conditions.
OC: So what do you do differently than other surveyors to make your measurements so much better?
Surveyor: What? I don't understand the question?
OC: You just testified that these distances, with the "m" were your exact distances, and you told the court clearly that if you went back to measure them today, you would measure the same exact values. So which is it, would you be assured of measuring the same values or might you find some differences?
Surveyor: Well, any differences I would find would be very small.
OC: I see. That's because you use good equipment?
Surveyor: Yes, and good procedures?
OC: And what procedures do you use to deal with these errors?
Surveyor: I run an least squares adjustment of my control network.
OC: A what? I'm sorry, least what? Could you explain that?
Surveyor: Least squares. It's a method that distributes the errors where they most likely occurred.
OC: So the values on the map, those with the "m" are actually your adjusted values?
Surveyor: Yes.
OC: A few minutes ago, you assured the court that these were your exact measured values, and that you would measure those same exact numbers again today if you were there, and now you are testifying that these are some massaged numbers that you spread your errors around in, to what, hide your errors? On this line you said my client's surveyor was wrong by point zero zero two feet, a quarter of an inch, and yet testified that a surveyor would expect to see that much error or maybe more in that distance.
Client's Counsel: Objection! Is counsel going to actually ask a question or just badger our witness?!
Judge: Get to it counselor.
OC: How much error is in that measurement, Mr. Surveyor?
Surveyor: I don't know exactly?
OC: In fact, you can't tell us whether your value represents the true length of that line better or worse than my client's surveyor's, can you?
Surveyor: No, but...
OC: You've testified that your numbers are exact, then they're not, they're your measurements, then they're not, they represent the exact length of this line, then it's no better than another surveyor's! If we can't trust that you are reporting measurements as you say you are, how can we believe the veracity of anything on your map.
CC: OBJECTION!!!
OC: Withdrawn! No further questions.
What would you Do?
Then let's go with a gut check for those of you who say that you always report your measurements, no matter how small and insignificant the distances from record:
Smith and Brown are neighbors and have been for many years. In fact they've been best friends almost as long as they've been neighbors.
Smith needed to do some repair to and expand his septic field and needed to know his boundaries, so las January, he hired you. You completed the survey in February, finding all you needed to find to ensure proper retracement and taking your usual good care in making your measurements, discovering in the process that Brown's fence was several feet onto Smith's property.
Smith and Brown being such good pals, decide to let the fence stand in a state of permissive use until it needs to be replaced, at which time they will move it back to the true line. You help them document their agreement and file your map about 6 weeks ago.
In the meantime, Brown's been thinking that it he really likes his yard the way it is, and so offers to buy the portion between the boundary and the fence from Smith, and also agrees to pay all the costs associated with a lot line adjustment. Smith doesn't have a problem with the deal and starts thinking about using the money for a down payment on a new bass boat. It's a deal!
Smith was so pleased with your professioanl service earlier this year that he recommends you to Brown, who hires you to do a survey of his property and the LLA.
You go out, and being the diligent professional you are, make the proper field checks, including to the monuments at either end of the Smith/Brown line. You find them right where you left them. They haven't been run over with a mower, no frost heave, no earthquakes. Completely undisturbed since you were here a few weeks ago.
But you find that the distance between the monuments, that you measured to be 200.00' a few weeks ago, is now 199.98' according to today's measurement.
So here you go. Do you:
1. Report your new measurement on the new map, showing a difference from your record of a few weeks ago?
2. Just show the same value you showed on your just recorded map for Smith?
or
3. WTH are you talking about? I didn't recheck any monuments, I just did a check shot on my control and set the new points? I'm showing all my same distances around Smith.
If you are one of those who subscribe to the notion that anyone who does not always show measured vs record on every line of their survey is a liar or a fraud, then you had best be showing your newly measured distances all around Smith as slightly different than what you measured a few weeks back. If not, you're a liar, a fraud, right. I mean, we can't honestly believe anyone who says they matched record perfectly, can we?
The (Smart) Expert Measurer in Court
Opposing Counsel: So Mr. Surveyor, this number here, four hundred seventy five point thirty two, with the... is that an "m" in parentheses? What is that, meters?
Surveyor: No, that means measured. All the distances shown are in feet.
OC: Measured. Feet. Got it, thanks. So these distances with the "m" are your measured distances, in feet. Are they the exact values of what you measured?
Surveyor: They are my measurements expressed to the nearest hundredth foot. Nobody's measurements are exact.
OC: OK. And you are showing here that your precisely measured distance is 0.02 feet different than what my client's surveyor measured on this line. What is that, about an inch?
Surveyor: It's about a 1/4".
OC: So if you were to go back there today and remeasure those distances, you would undoubtedly get these same exact results, correct?
Surveyor: I would expect that I, or any good surveyor, would measure very nearly the same values.
OC: And so a surveyor may measure a line several times and get differences in the distances?
Surveyor: Very small differences, yes.
OC: So for a 400 to 500 foot distance, how much of this error might a surveyor expect to see?
Surveyor: With good equipment and good procedures, a hundredth or two, maybe three, depending on conditions.
OC: And what procedures do you use to deal with these errors?
Surveyor: I run an least squares adjustment of my control network.
OC: A what? I'm sorry, least what? Could you explain that?
Surveyor: Least squares. It's a standard textbook method, basically a more advanced form of averaging, that combines all of your measurements to give the best answer.
OC: So the values on the map, those with the "m" are actually your adjusted values?
Surveyor: Yes, essentially they are an average taken from redundant measurements.
OC: A few minutes ago, you assured the court that these were your measured values, and that you would measure very close to those same exact numbers again today if you were there, and now you are testifying that these are some massaged numbers that you spread your errors around in, to what, hide your errors? On this line you said my client's surveyor was wrong by point zero zero two feet, a quarter of an inch, and yet testified that a surveyor would expect to see that much error or maybe more in that distance.
Client's Counsel: Objection! Is counsel going to actually ask a question or just badger our witness?!
Judge: Get to it counselor.
OC: How much error is in that measurement, Mr. Surveyor?
Surveyor: Nobody can tell exactly, but as my note on the play says, the least squares calculations estimated a 95% chance the error was less than 2 hundredths.
OC: In fact, you can't tell us whether your value represents the true length of that line better or worse than my client's surveyor's, can you?
Surveyor: Not without the same kind of detail that went into my analysis. His measurement could be better or worse than mine. We don't have the data to determine which is more likely since he didn't supply any note like mine to say if he was likely within 2 hundredths or 2 tenths or some other number.
OC: No further questions.
Bill
On CLSA and earlier in this thread, people posted court scenarios where a hapless surveyor got trapped by a slick attorney into showing that he "lied" about his measurements. I was simply going with the theme of the hapless surveyor.
As you've edited my fictional court scenario to represent a more intelligent surveyor on the stand, the surveyor could have used the same set of statements to successfully defend having shown only record on a map or report where he found no statistically significant differences between his measurements and the record.
Thank you for actually reading the post to intelligently respond. That is something many who start tossing around incredibly inflammatory accusations against others' credibility and character by the use of "liar" and "fraud" have not done.
I draw a little Moses walking on water.
I really don't get this argument, especially when enacted into law that one must report some other measurement along with their own. I suppose this could be a real concern in some areas though.
The question really is what is the function of the surveyor? If the answer is to quibble about parasols and flaxen hairs, then I guess it's important to show as many differing measurements as possible.
But when we finally figure out who's measurements are the best, there will still be a need to figure out who owns what. So I show my measurements and let others fight about them if they can find a reason. But I'm not going to give them a reason to argue by showing more than one tie between boundaries. They're going to have to find it and make something of it if they want to.
Not that I will not measure to whatever statistical certainty of measurement we can agree to by contract. But why would anyone put someone elses numbers on their map unless it was part of a court exhibit to explain the discrepancies? The only one who can overrule the surveyor is the Judge, so what's the point of giving a bunch of landowners and attorneys fuel for a frivolous court case? They ask for an opinion from the surveyor, so give it with your own measurements and analysis.
If we are to put multiple measurements on a line, then shouldn't we also be required to put multiple case cites along it and next to the corners? We should put dissenting opinions on there as well as the ones we rely upon.
In addition, we might as well make two or three maps representing the possible boundaries and possible true lengths of lines and file all of these for complete disclosure.
> 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
"Is that truly the distance you measured?"
Answer: Like the note says, that's the distance from the map filed in Book XX at Page YY, which I verified in the field as being accurate to the standards of a boundary survey. That verification is in my field notes and calculations if you would like me to review that and show you that my measurement agrees with that record.
But all this talk of being caught unawares on the stand over this issue is ridiculous. If all your measurements agree with the past record, then it's likely that most if not all of the record monumentation is still there, you're merely finding it. Or you may be just replacing one or two monuments.
So if you find it all, and you have no other differences with the record information, why would you be filing a map at all? Why aren't you just telling your client that you've found and verified it all, and unless he want's to spend the money for it, no reason to draw and file a new map?
If you are just replacing a mon or two, you are probably filing a CR, and not a RS, because that's what's required and again, there is no reason for the client to spend money on a map that offers nothing of substance beyond the fact that you substantially agree with the old map. Whether you express that as near agreement by showing less than significant differences, or show only record all the way around, the info added by your survey is totally inconsequential to the client and of little use to following surveyors.
Quite frankly, if I'm surveying in an area and have several records, I don't care if one surveyor is a few hundredths different than another. I look for general agreement to see indication that everyone is going to the same monument, and then I go find the monument. The most important info there is the monument description, not the dang measurement. But so many take such great care in making careful measurements, as we all should, and reporting them to a precision that their actual control network can't support, and then ignore the most important information of the course, which is a complete description of the monuments.
Thank you, Duane. You'll never see such trivial arguments about meaningless stuff than you will from surveyors. I'm all for precise measurements, and I'm all for reporting what you measure on your survey, but only as far as the point of perpetuating evidence. From an evidentiary standpoint, the measurements are the lowest evidence on the chain anyway. All this discussion seems to surround the ability to prove who's closest to the bottom rung on the ladder.
I can't remember a single instance when the court was concerned with the measurements. They've always been interested in knowing what physical evidence was discovered at the corner location and what physical evidence was discovered along the boundary. Maybe surveyors should concern themselves a bit more about finding the boundary before they get out their measuring tools.
JBS
The Expert Measurer in Court
> OC: In fact, you can't tell us whether your value represents the true length of that line better or worse than my client's surveyor's, can you?
>
> Surveyor: No, but...
>
> OC: You've testified that your numbers are exact, then they're not, they're your measurements, then they're not, they represent the exact length of this line, then it's no better than another surveyor's! If we can't trust that you are reporting measurements as you say you are, how can we believe the veracity of anything on your map.
>
> CC: OBJECTION!!!
>
Judge - Mr. Goudy, do you have any more questions?
OC: None that I'll get a straight answer to. I'm finished with him.
Opinion does not always count for much in all locations. Statute requires both record and measured to be shown in this State. That has not caused any problems for anyone to my knowledge. Just the way it is done here. Those with differing opinions will not convince others to change. I would like to see some case where showing both well labeled, record and measured has caused any documented problems. Suspect none will be found and posted.
jud
> Thank you, Duane. You'll never see such trivial arguments about meaningless stuff than you will from surveyors. I'm all for precise measurements, and I'm all for reporting what you measure on your survey, but only as far as the point of perpetuating evidence. From an evidentiary standpoint, the measurements are the lowest evidence on the chain anyway. All this discussion seems to surround the ability to prove who's closest to the bottom rung on the ladder.>
> I can't remember a single instance when the court was concerned with the measurements. They've always been interested in knowing what physical evidence was discovered at the corner location and what physical evidence was discovered along the boundary. Maybe surveyors should concern themselves a bit more about finding the boundary before they get out their measuring tools.
>
> JBS
That has been exactly my point guys. The only reason I put so much time to respond is that I had the temerity to suggest that there are times when you simply tell your client that you've verified a boundary already mapped and in substantial agreement with what you've measured, and got labeled a liar and a fraud for it.
For me, the argument became more about addressing the expert measurers' aspersions of lying and such.
I better take a vacation.
"For after all, when it comes to a question of the stability of property and the peace of the community, it is far more important to have a somewhat faulty measurement of the spot here the line truly exists than it is to have an extremely accurate measurement of the place where the line does not exist at all."
A.C. Mulford, Boundaries and Landmarks, 1912
Jud,
I'm not trying to be too critical, just wondering how it is supposed to work.
What I hear you saying is that it's been decided in your State that the surveyor should not render an opinion on which measurement to use. So, you list all record measurements (could be several from differing sources along one line) along with your own and it's up to someone else to choose which to use for codes, deeds, etc..?
Under that system, if I'm the codes officer or attorney, why don't I just send the office boy or girl out with a measuring wheel? It would be much more efficient as to time and cost.
ON the other hand, if the user is supposed to utilize the most recent measured (the current surveyors opinion) rather than the previous ones, what is the purpose of showing the previous ones if not to cause disputes? It just seems like the act of putting more than one on a given line is in itself a documented problem or ambiguity that has now not been resolved.
But obviously one must follow the statutes in their jusrisdiction.
Duane, it has nothing to do with measurments controling
What I hear you saying is that it's been decided in your State that the surveyor should not render an opinion on which measurement to use.
We are required to show measured and record distances between found monuments, not a problem with minor differences at all or for that mater huge differences in the two if justified and explained in the, also required, narrative. As far as which measurement to use in descriptions, if the existing description is adequate to proceed with and complete the survey, no new description is needed and writing such a thing should be avoided, only new divisions of lands require new descriptions or in the rare case of correction. Seems like whenever I find some unexplained problem in the field it is caused by a rewriting of the description and reviewing the document that created the tract reveals the intent, many problems with surveyors surveying using the newest documents for their guidance.
jud