Jones, post: 387621, member: 10458 wrote: We as Surveyors are tasked to find and examine all of the evidence.
Actually, no. What land surveyors do is examine the relevant evidence. Those #3 bars were mainly evidence of some other surveyor's misadventure and I was looking for evidence of the actual lot boundary.
dmyhill, post: 387623, member: 1137 wrote: Why would he put it back? What possible good could come of that? Like he says it is a good thing it was removed by a landscaper. (And yes, coming litigation is a good reason.)
We sit here and all of us complain about shiny objects distracting the owners and other surveyors, but we do not feel we can clean it up...if not us, who? And I ask that as a question. Not rhetorical. I would put it back as well, but it pains me. I am not sure it is the right thing to do.
In this case, the reason why I was meticulous about replacing it is that there was a good chance that the responsible surveyor would be asked to write a large check and the brand new rebar that he had relied upon as a controlling monument was part of the whole sad saga of what he had failed to do.
"If that is the test, I have never seen a correctly"
I'm not straining at gnats like some, every retracement is wrong, I understand that.
Do you not collect enough data, until you believe you have came to only possible solution, the same solution any other prudent surveyor would come too?
Kent McMillan, post: 387625, member: 3 wrote: Actually, no. What land surveyors do is examine the relevant evidence. Those #3 bars were mainly evidence of some other surveyor's misadventure and I was looking for evidence of the actual lot boundary.
I'm sorry I don't have the super power you do, to step on to a site and tell a
Rebar is misplaced by 0.83 feet. I usually locate them and compare them to the remaining information. But one day, maybe I will have your superpower.
Jones, post: 387636, member: 10458 wrote: I'm sorry I don't have the super power you do, to step on to a site and tell a
Rebar is misplaced by 0.83 feet. I usually locate them and compare them to the remaining information.
Well, as long as you recognize that a new rebar that wasn't set by a surveyor is unlikely to be evidence of anything other than that there's a rebar there, you're off to a good start. That was pretty obviously what the situation appeared to be, as in fact it was. Those sorts of things are mainly just distractors that draw the surveyor's attention from other more relevant evidence.
As a general rule, in a subdivision laid out in 1910, one would want to be examining the oldest types of evidence that appear to date from the times nearest to when the subdivision was laid out.
Kent McMillan, post: 387637, member: 3 wrote: Well, as long as you recognize that a new rebar that wasn't set by a surveyor is unlikely to be evidence of anything other than that there's a rebar there, you're off to a good start. That was pretty obviously what the situation appeared to be, as in fact it was. Those sorts of things are mainly just distractors that draw the surveyor's attention from other more relevant evidence.
As a general rule, in a subdivision laid out in 1910, one would want to be examining the oldest types of evidence that appear to date from the times nearest to when the subdivision was laid out.
If a prior surveyor has used or showed an existing iron, you can bet your ass I'm going to examine its validity. That was the situation posed in the beginning of the thread, a surveyor used the iron you described. If it turns out that it is just a rebar to hold tree or a erroneous place property corner, then that conclusion will be based on all the evidence.
Jones, post: 387641, member: 10458 wrote: If a prior surveyor has used or showed an existing iron, you can bet your ass I'm going to examine its validity. That was the situation posed in the beginning of the thread, a surveyor used the iron you described. If it turns out that it is just a rebar to hold tree or a erroneous place property corner, then that conclusion will be based on all the evidence.
I'm not sure that you're really getting the picture. This is a subdivision that was laid out in 1910 and the rebars in question could not date from before 2013 and are very unlikely to even be the work of a land surveyor because neither has any trace of the identifying cap that a boundary marker set in 2013 or thereafter is required to have. So, I'd think that as a matter of ordinary intelligence one could move along to the real work of the survey, which in this case is locating the lines of the street that the rebars supposedly fall upon and the old evidence showing where lots were actually laid out.
The secret, such as it is, to surveying in older additions like that one is structuring the search via research to develop a shopping list of the most relevant evidence that allows one to recognize the other things as the distracters that they are. It was poetic justice that two rebars that almost certainly were stabbed by some subcontractor were removed by another subcontractor on the same job, saving me the trouble.
Kent McMillan, post: 387644, member: 3 wrote: I'm not sure that you're really getting the picture. This is a subdivision that was laid out in 1910 and the rebars in question could not date from before 2013 and are very unlikely to even be the work of a land surveyor because neither has any trace of the identifying cap that a boundary marker set in 2013 or thereafter is required to have. So, I'd think that as a matter of ordinary intelligence one could move along to the real work of the survey, which in this case is locating the lines of the street that the rebars supposedly fall upon and the old evidence showing where lots were actually laid out.
The secret, such as it is, to surveying in older additions like that one is structuring the search via research to develop a shopping list of the most relevant evidence that allows one to recognize the other things as the distracters that they are. It was poetic justice that two rebars that almost certainly were stabbed by some subcontractor were removed by another subcontractor on the same job, saving me the trouble.
No Kent I get the picture, a rebar was used when it should not have been. In some of your original post, you failed to mention what was wrong with the rebar with the exception of its age, I asked a question, and got what I took as a smart ass answer. You also stated that a surveyor only examines relevant information. In my humble view all information is relevant until it is proved otherwise. The length that one has to go to disprove information varies it could be a quick decision, or it may take some true ponderance.
Jones, post: 387649, member: 10458 wrote: In my humble view all information is relevant until it is proved otherwise.
I suppose that if a surveyor hasn't done any research and all he has is a tax map or something like that, the approach you favor might make sense in a state where that is the accepted standard of practice. In a state where surveyors are expected to actually do sufficient research into the land and the history of surveys, ownership, and use, though, it seems like a great way not to make any headway at all on a solution.
What amounts to relevant evidence, then? In the case of that project, research and reconnaissance had determined that it was important to reconstruct lines that the City Engineer's staff had run in 1960 in the streets bounding the block, prior to some paving projects. One of the marks to which the 1960 survey tied was this old galvanized bolt (Bolt No.145 at the intersection of Lynn and Canterbury Streets), shown halfway out in the process of being removed to be straightened. It was reset in the same hole it occupied in the road base beneath the asphalt surfacing.
Kent McMillan, post: 387693, member: 3 wrote: .. It was reset in the same hole it occupied in the road base beneath the asphalt surfacing.
That's a Schonstedt hole if I ever saw one.
paden cash, post: 387714, member: 20 wrote: That's a Schonstedt hole if I ever saw one.
Yes, you got it. The hole began at the center of the metal detector's signal and worked its way over to the point of bend. This is a great demonstration of how well just locating a ping beneath the pavement does not work.
Mr. Jones,
Here in Texas, we have a very specific task set out for us to do when we perform "professional surveying services" (i. e., a land boundary surveys). The primary and foremost action is as follows:
å¤663.16. Boundary Construction.
When delineating a boundary line as an integral portion of a survey, the land surveyor shall:
(1) Respect junior/senior rights for boundary retracement;
(2) Follow the footsteps of the original land surveyor;
(3) Follow the documented records of the land title affecting the boundaries being surveyed;"
These are the laws of our state. We have to observe them. They are based on very specific court rulings that directly apply to ALL boundary surveys.
Stafford v. King was settled at the Texas Supreme Court level in , the highest court in Texas. In that case, the "Dignity of Calls' was clearly defined for all of us to see.
So when we find monuments that are not the monuments that were set and described in the documents that first defined those relevant property lines, we cannot use them to determine where those lines were set. They may be of importance when it comes to occupational rights, maybe, but they have no importance when it comes to determining the location of the original lines.
For your complaint about Kent's words, Kent's arrogance is tolerated by those here only because he is such a damned good surveyor.
Jack Chiles
I love reading all this stuff.
I'm always wondering about this kind of thing. We all know ORIGINAL monuments hold. That's not even an issue.
We also know we shouldn't reject monuments based on precision. So if someone restores a lost corner and sets a pin, even if it's not original, shouldn't we honor that and accept it? Obviously not without verifying it's position. But when we find a pin off by 4" or 3" we basically are just talking precision. They just found different evidence than you.
Even if your evidence may be better, to set a new monument 4" east is just doing what most try to avoid, setting a pincushion.
Now if the corner set was in gross error or set with negligence then obviously it should not be honored.
I also come from a state where there is no recording and monumentation is and was never mandatory. Plats are very commonly as old as the one you are working in, so it's very reasonable to not ever find original monuments. We can measure from old fences all we want but when we argue over 0.2 on a 50' wide lot, to me it gets ridiculous.
I guess in my rambling I'm trying to say is in these areas, if all we honor is original monuments (if any) then many times all we would go by is numbers therefor creating ungodly amounts of pincushions
Jack Chiles, post: 387741, member: 24 wrote: Mr. Jones,
Here in Texas, we have a very specific task set out for us to do when we perform "professional surveying services" (i. e., a land boundary surveys). The primary and foremost action is as follows:
å¤663.16. Boundary Construction.
When delineating a boundary line as an integral portion of a survey, the land surveyor shall:(1) Respect junior/senior rights for boundary retracement;
(2) Follow the footsteps of the original land surveyor;
(3) Follow the documented records of the land title affecting the boundaries being surveyed;"
These are the laws of our state. We have to observe them. They are based on very specific court rulings that directly apply to ALL boundary surveys.
Stafford v. King was settled at the Texas Supreme Court level in , the highest court in Texas. In that case, the "Dignity of Calls' was clearly defined for all of us to see.So when we find monuments that are not the monuments that were set and described in the documents that first defined those relevant property lines, we cannot use them to determine where those lines were set. They may be of importance when it comes to occupational rights, maybe, but they have no importance when it comes to determining the location of the original lines.
For your complaint about Kent's words, Kent's arrogance is tolerated by those here only because he is such a damned good surveyor.
Jack Chiles
Im sure those are the basic rules that affect all boundary surveys in every state. Nothing that I have stated contradicts that.
Rich., post: 387742, member: 10450 wrote: So if someone restores a lost corner and sets a pin, even if it's not original, shouldn't we honor that and accept it? Obviously not without verifying it's position. But when we find a pin off by 4" or 3" we basically are just talking precision.
Obviously, the answer depends upon the set of facts specific to the situation, but as a rule surveying valuable small lots in cities is a different kettle of fish than surveying farms and ranches because land uses are more intensive and improvements much more valuable.
In Texas, original corners mean everything. I was told this corner ended up winning someone in Austin a $50 bet. We had been tasked with finding original corners for a property (not in Austin) that was surrounded by subdivisions, and it was felt there was a vacancy in the middle. With all the subdivisions around, it was assumed all original corners were lost. Based on this and 2 other original called for monuments not found by the subdivision surveyors, proving up a 30'x 300' wide vacancy. 
Kent McMillan, post: 387745, member: 3 wrote: Obviously, the answer depends upon the set of facts specific to the situation, but as a rule surveying valuable small lots in cities is a different kettle of fish than surveying farms and ranches because land uses are more intensive and improvements much more valuable.
Yes I agree completely.
I don't survey large parcels. But I can see and understand the theories enough to know following the calls in a 50 acre piece will vary greatly and put you way off the intended original boundaries, so holding the original monuments means much much more.
As opposed to city lots where nobody can definitively say an original lot corner was this way or that way 3"
Rich., post: 387752, member: 10450 wrote: As opposed to city lots where nobody can definitively say an original lot corner was this way or that way 3"
I'd think that depends mainly upon the city, the time period, and how well city surveying was organized there over the last century or two.
Kent McMillan, post: 387762, member: 3 wrote: I'd think that depends mainly upon the city, the time period, and how well city surveying was organized there over the last century or two.
I can only compare it to this area. Which is like the wild wild west when it comes to surveying. It seems like there are no rules. It's kind of annoying once you read about other areas
