You are surveying a tract previously surveyed in recent years. A reproducible basis of bearings is provided. You locate what you assume to be the same monuments as in the prior survey. Using the same basis of bearings, you discover that none of your lines and distances agree with any of those from the first survey. The difference between bearings of previous and yours are totally inconsistent.
What is your next step?
Do you know how to cuss? What you do know, is that you are not on the same page, as your predecessor. What you do not know, is what is going on for sure.
Predecessor, was on different scale, and rotation than you are, and maybe a different tilt of the plane. (That last one, can give you a different scale in ONE direction, than in the other, and we are not talking cardinal directions). So, tie into several of their points, preferably far apart, and look for consistency.
Nate
Back up 10, punt, and survey my tract and every tract that touches it, research the genesis of the tracts, and figure out which one as the right to be there and which is inconsistent. Produce a map and report of the findings and recommend any curative work which is requisite to fix whatever problems (assuming they're big) were found.
This is pretty text book. What are you baiting for? Is this still about the shopping center??
ALL bearings are reproducible, assuming some points in the dirt are found and can be hung on to. I'm assuming the shopping center was surveyed on the grid and it was shoddy? If that's the case, it's not the bearings fault, it's the fault of the surveyor.
Turn them into the board.
Monumentation rules. With every survey I perform, I provide a complete abstract of the corner monument dating back to when it was set. If someone set a spike in the road and I think there is another monument below, pipe, stone, etc., I dig for those.
if I do in fact have the same monuments - the proper monuments (vetted by the descriptions I'm working from and the condition I'd expect to find them in), I'd say my next step would be to prepare a plat and description of the boundary as I found it, with my distances and my bearings.
Sounds kind of like a Tuesday to me, or am I missing something.
Basis of bearings would be the least important thing to hold because it is the most likely to be screwed up.
Either the bearing base is not reproducible, or you are not reproducing it correctly, it seems to me.
>
> What is your next step?
Being as the survey being retraced is recent, my next step would be to call the surveyor who performed the earlier work to discuss my findings. If it turns out the discrepancies are due because he/she did poor work, then I would lean on him/her to address the deficiencies.
> You are surveying a tract previously surveyed in recent years. A reproducible basis of bearings is provided. You locate what you assume to be the same monuments as in the prior survey. Using the same basis of bearings, you discover that none of your lines and distances agree with any of those from the first survey. The difference between bearings of previous and yours are totally inconsistent.
>
> What is your next step?
Well, the obvious Step One is to revisit your assumption that you had located the identical markers described by the recent prior survey. No, other monuments? Go to Step Two.
Step Two is to assess the situation. Are the boundaries as marked correct? Is this, for example, an interior lot in a subdivision that was platted at the same time as the surrounding lots? Are the markers on the ground called for on the plat and definitely attributable to the reponsible surveyor? Is there any reason to think that some major disturbance of markers had occurred?
Step Three is to consider the best fix. The options are to correct the record description or to correct the record description. The real problem is that the boundaries as marked on the ground differ substantially from the description in the conveyance of record. The best way to do that will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. If the property is a lot in a subdivision, and there is a procedure for filing an amended plat to correct the errors in the original, that would be the best, most likely.
>
> The options are to correct the record description or to correct the record description.
kent, check your email. i sent an apology to you, and i certainly hope we are ok. having said that, please clarify the above statement. my apologies to you
>
> Step Three is to consider the best fix. The options are to correct the record description or to correct the record description. The real problem is that the boundaries as marked on the ground differ substantially from the description in the conveyance of record. The best way to do that will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. If the property is a lot in a subdivision, and there is a procedure for filing an amended plat to correct the errors in the original, that would be the best, most likely.
I tend to believe the best fix is to get the surveyor who made the errors to correct said errors if he/she is available. This would relieve my client from that financial burden. There are some situations where said surveyor may be able to go back and reset the monuments in the positions stated to be in. Thus avoiding having to correct record title descriptions to match erroneous field placement.
Kent, in step three you give two options that are identical; to wit, correct the record. But, you only provide a recommendation for one fix. Is this a faux pas, or merely your way of emphasizing that there is only one option?
Eddie
> >
> > The options are to correct the record description or to correct the record description.
>
> kent, check your email. i sent an apology to you, and i certainly hope we are ok. having said that, please clarify the above statement. my apologies to you
Not to speak for Kent, but I feel confident he was pointing out that when you've found a real fubar, there really is only one thing to do to help "set things right", and that is to correct the record.
> Kent, in step three you give two options that are identical; to wit, correct the record. But, you only provide a recommendation for one fix. Is this a faux pas, or merely your way of emphasizing that there is only one option?
That was for emphasis. The mistakes that Divine Bovine describes don't sound as if the problem is just a few misplaced monuments that possibly might be reset with the concurrence of all interested parties.
An option I use, not noted here, is to get the owners to agree to move occupation to the record location if it is reasonable, especially when it is an Aliquot Part of a Section, a Platted Lot or Parcel Line. While talking with owners affected by migrating boundary lines they often state that they only want what they purchased and are willing to move the fence or other improvements to agree with the record. Sometimes an agreement is created to license the use of the land across the boundary line until something occurs that requires that the improvements be moved back to the record line, a major fence repair or replacement is often used as that trigger. Owners can agree to many solutions a Surveyor can't take upon himself to do because of the law he is charged to follow. The law is not always the proper or equitable thing to use as a guide when the owners, given the opportunity by their surveyor can use common sense and a desire to be equitable to take their own actions to correct any conflict between record and ground location. One of our largest obligations to those who follow is to attempt to preserve the gift of stable boundary's complying with long standing records. To do that, the letter of Surveying Law often should be over ridden by legal actions of the land owners taking informed and equitable action. Not providing the land owners that option is denying those land owners the opportunity to resolve occupation issues themselves. We as surveyors usually don't own the land or have a need to get along with the neighbors, because of that we sometimes take the easy way out and run to the next job.
jud
The First Thing Is To Find Agreement With Adjoiners
Bearing are the least important since 4 adjoiners could have 3 different basis for bearings. You want distance and angular agreement with monuments along your line and beyond it. The worser your PQ appears the more beyonder you go.
Since 2 adjoiners will generally also adjoin each other you have to sometimes go beyond their common line or lines.
Having done that you can now make more reasoned assumptions about the PQ. If the adjoiners appear to agree within reason, follow your PQ back. You may find agreement with prior records.
Paul in PA
Well shucks! For a moment I thought you had committed a blunder until I remembered your reliance upon least squares adjustments makes it unlikely that you had.
Just wondering what is considered totally inconsistent. Try using another line as the basis to see if three lines fit better. If that does not work then try hiring the other surveyor to help, or at least ask them if they know something you don't.
> Just wondering what is considered totally inconsistent. Try using another line as the basis to see if three lines fit better.
That's the beauty of a survey being made on an independently reproducible bearing basis like grid North of the SPCS or geodetic North on some given meridian of longitude. The comparison of actual coordinates to theoretical coordinates should be mainly a translation with no rotation. The rotation to fit the two systems should be quite small or even negligible for professional-grade work.
So, the power of the reproducible bearing basis in this case is that it immediately, unequivocally shows that something is probably FUBAR. With an arbitrary bearing basis dependent upon monuments, the scenario involves the elaborate guess work about which monuments are good and which are not so good.
No truer words spoke, There, Kent.
Nate