It's not that measurements aren't important. They're a big part of what we do. To me, the issue is one of statistical analysis and significant figures and whether we should take the time to sit back and think about what we're saying rather than showing minor deviations from prior surveys that are not supportable by the precision that we've achieved. It's unfortunate that that issue gets tangled up with the relative importance of measurement and other elements of boundary determination. That leaves the impression that those of us that will accept a prior recorded value if it's within a level of certainty/uncertainty don't care about precision in measurements or that we're willing to "fudge" a number to agree with an erroneous value. I don't know anybody like that.
Duane, it has nothing to do with measurments controling
Yeah, I can certainly agree with that.
For most of my career I have mostly operated as Steve suggests.
But for the last few years I have become infallible, no not really I'm just kidding, but I've been favoring showing my measurement whatever it is and running with it especially in rough rural country because you can imagine those "classic" surveyors were a little less perfect than we are. Hey if the distance in the half mile is 1 foot different than what they said on their R/S I figure they were doing good work. I am also indicating that I am aware that their breakdown wasn't perfect but it was acceptable given their ability to measure in aliquot corners. Besides there is lots of evidence of reliance (such as blazed line trees and just evidence of timber harvest, that is the line that has been used for a long time). I include a lot of redundancy in my measurements so I feel that my data is pretty good and don't feel the need to repeat the original numbers.
Besides I got a comment on my C.R. from my favorite Humboldt County Surveyor who was amazed that all of my measurements exactly matched the R/S I was retracing. So I took the hint and put the actual measurements on there which I can understand may be desirable. It was a 1972 R/S in somewhat rough and very rural ground and my measurements were a little different (but not by much) from the R/S. He seemed happy for that effort on my part.
Apparently I am not making myself clear at all. Does it sound like I would fudge a measurement by a foot to agree with a record call if I'm confident in that measurement within a tenth?
You are clear.
I was just babbling on as usual.
I have done both. This seems to vary from County to County. Some Counties all the C.R.s are record data. Other Counties get all bent out of shape if you repeat the record data because your measurement was only 0.08' different from record. On the one up north I just got in a hurry, it's a rural property so it doesn't matter that much but the CS didn't like it. So I gave him my measurements. Those stinkin' monuments move around out there too; sometimes a lot. I don't think the monument is exactly where it was in 1972 even on flat ground.
But I am babbling again, sorry.
In my opinion, the surveyor is akin to a scientist. We use statistical analysis, and evidence in the field, and we report our findings. A scientist may be finding a formula for a disease, and they experiment with different pieces of evidence, and show their results in an honest and complete analytical report. S/he may conclude that one particular formula does not work and/or another did but with the following side effects. You are often finding the boundary...an existing boundary. You need to show all of the evidence that supports and/or contradicts your findings. You should always show your measured results as far as Ia m concerned. If your measurement varies from the record call by 0.04' you are saying "see....the deed calls for 120.0 and I measured 120.04: that is one of the reasones I accept the found pin". In my opinion I find that it measures the same within a good tolerance. If I measured 121.0' and accept the pin I might be saying: "well that measurement isn't so great, but the other factors as shown on my plat helped me come to the conclusion that I found the deeded property corner(s). There is not enough other compelling evidence to make me come to another conclusion that might match 120.0' to one or the other of the pins I measured between."
I do not recommend altering my findings to agree with the conclusion I want to come to. I think my plat has more credibility if I show my findings.
I know some of you might be writing a new deed-description on an existing property based on your findings. I dont't have an opinion, on changing the original calls. My current philosophy is that you should probably hold the original calls.
I am usually involved in writing a new boundary line that never existed before from existing corners. In my case I show my measured distance and reference the Record calls when I am calling to an preexisting line.
I think Steve and I are on the same page
[This post not directed to anyone in particular]
When deciding what distances to report, I look at the whole job. I consider only my error budget. If I match all of the record dimensions of the previous survey within my expected errors, then the differences are insignificant because the next surveyor to come out would be as likely to match my dimensions as those of the previous surveyor. How many apparently slightly different but practically or statistically the same record measurements does there need to be around the boundary?
The previous surveyor may have been there in the mid 60s and based on equipment and common methods of the day, may have had an error budget of a foot on a line, but mine is about 0.10' to 0.15' on the same line. If I'm different than record on any course around the survey by more than my error budget, even if less than that of the previous surveyor, then I report measured and record all the way around.
Some have asked "Why show record, why not just what you measured? Why perpetuate a record you are saying is wrong?" Because, I am not necessarily saying the previous surveyor is wrong. He may have been as right as the equipment and methods of the day allowed and I'm simply showing the differences based upon improved equipment and methods. Those record distances are still valid to another surveyor as evidence. And because it shows which record(s) I used and compared to. The question, especially the last part is indicative of a lack of understanding of the significance of historical measurements and of one's own measurements. Difference in measurements does not necessarily mean the other guy was wrong, it may, but it doesn't always. If the differences are less than the greater of the error bufgets between you and the other surveyor, than the other surveyor was not wrong at all. And especially if your expected error budgets were roughly the same and your resulting differences are within that range. In that case, if you think the other guy was wrong by 0.04', or whatever the minor difference, then you are way off, it's you who is wrong in not understanding the accuracy limits, the meaning and the significance of the data you collect.
I factor in the previous surveyor's error budget when analyzing and making decisions about the correctness of his measurements and the validity of the monument's location (not the only factor, but one of them).
Kris, i need your clarification
"""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."""
it is my opinion that a particular marker is intended to be dimensionless. in dimensionless, i mean that a 4"x4" precast with brass disk has no dimension WRT the measurement(s) to it. a 6"x6" precast gives more 'wiggle room' for a measurement to be considered good. can't be right. a dimple on a brass cap should be considered 0"x0" thick for measurement purposes. a bench mark should be considered 0" thick. the top of the bench mark is the business end of life.
does this make sense to you?
i just don't understand the logic of 'still be on top of the monument'
Eddie
Yes, a call to a monument is presumed to be to the center, but why argue over 0.03 if you're still on a 1,2, or 4" iron pipe. Punch marks are a thing of mystery around here as we don't see them. Concrete highway monuments are 4"x4". Type II monuments are brass discs. Why not adjust your value on the existing monument to fit the record.