Well sounds like all other states have done the same as ours. We are now staking out our row and installing Carsonite posts. The PLSs within the DOT, like myself, subscribe to the correct theory that the row is where adjoining monuments and rights lie, and we are slowly convincing our ROW agents and drafters.
It is true that DOTs have deeper pockets than almost all clients, but that is the only rational reason I have ever been presented with to treat DOT monuments any different than any other monuments. I have searched for court cases, and asked the proponents of mathematical center lines to come up with a court case that differentiates between DOT monuments and every other monument, but I have found nothing.
Andy Bruner, post: 439506, member: 1123 wrote: In Georgia you trust the location of R/W monuments at your own risk. They are good evidence that the right of way is "around here somewhere". Even the DOT only trusts them so far. "The biggest monument is the highway" is their belief. Sub-sub-subcontractors set the majority of the monuments somewhere in the vicinity of where they were staked.
Andy
Andy, I've heard the same thing about the road being "The" monument. My question is: Has it ever been tried in our state?
Me. "What's the difference?"
T.C. Carroll "It's the difference between right and wrong!"
HICALS, post: 439480, member: 6788 wrote: When retracing a Right of Way conveyed via strip description, is it standard practice to recreate the center line alignment (based on best fitting the best available evidence) and offsetting the conveyed distance to the sidelines? It seems that many Department of Transportation agencies do not regard the early Right of Way monuments set as original monuments because they were either set by contractors who were non-surveyors or were simply set inaccurately. Does anyone have any pertinent case law regarding this best fitting procedure vs. holding the ROW and acceptable adjoiners' monuments? I am particularly interested in California case law, but am curious how said subject is handled in general.
Pertaining to the situation above, If the Right of Way monuments were set by the ROW agency's surveyors shortly after the ROW was conveyed, is their any reason said monuments' status would be elevated?
Thanks
One way to research this is to ask the question of your State Attorney General. It may take awhile to get an answer. But appropriations are usually derived from state statute and/or the state constitution. The attorney general may already have written an opinion on it (you can search previous opinions). These opinions are usually well researched with reference to any available court cases. The problem with appropriations is that they are an exercise of eminent domain power, hence determining the extent has constitutional law implications. Not merely a contract interpretation problem derived from a deed or patent.
Rankin_File, post: 439536, member: 101 wrote: [SARCASM]but if you'd use a least squares best fit, it would appear to be more professional....[/SARCASM]
All sarcasm aside, using least squares best fit on CL shots to best determine the centerline is a great tool. On the old railroads where the rails are gone and we are splitting the remaining ties, observing them and locating the structures, I've had excellent luck with that method for determining the centerline and using it to then locate the right-of-way. In fact, I like that particular method so much, I was able to argue down not one but TWO CEU instructors who said there is never an applicable time to use best fit EVER in surveying. After I got through explaining, they both relented and came around to my way of thinking.
We did a ranch that had about 9 miles of un-monumented FM highway through it. I used that method, in conjunction with the structures to replace the centerline and thereby the right-of-way. It's a good tool to have in the box.
Mark Mayer, post: 439535, member: 424 wrote: The intent of the DOT is always to acquire the full described width. To that end Oregon DOT descriptions carefully avoid making any direct reference to monuments
Mark,
Don't private surveyors accept those same monuments as marking the line? Aren't new monuments set by the private surveyor between those monuments set on line between them?
Kris Morgan, post: 439597, member: 29 wrote: All sarcasm aside, using least squares best fit on CL shots to best determine the centerline is a great tool. On the old railroads where the rails are gone and we are splitting the remaining ties, observing them and locating the structures, I've had excellent luck with that method for determining the centerline and using it to then locate the right-of-way. In fact, I like that particular method so much, I was able to argue down not one but TWO CEU instructors who said there is never an applicable time to use best fit EVER in surveying. After I got through explaining, they both relented and came around to my way of thinking.
We did a ranch that had about 9 miles of un-monumented FM highway through it. I used that method, in conjunction with the structures to replace the centerline and thereby the right-of-way. It's a good tool to have in the box.
This probably isn't useful in Texas, but I had a 20 mile stretch of SE-NW (running more east-west than north-south) highway to remonument for a DOT project. The original taking was from the 1930's and there were no monuments. The deeds, plans and such didn't make much sense to the physical ROW until I realized it was a part of 100 some miles of highway, it was 1930. As soon as I true northed it, well what do you know, everything fit great. 😉
40-50" of convergence in a mile adds up quickly.
Stacy Carroll, post: 439592, member: 150 wrote: Andy, I've heard the same thing about the road being "The" monument. My question is: Has it ever been tried in our state?
Don't know about your state but it sure has been ruled on in mine. Probably there are similar cases across the country.
Kris Morgan, post: 439523, member: 29 wrote: I'm of the opinion, that, in Texas, the Type I ROW monument (standard 4' pyramidal 6"square base to 4" square top), marks the ROW, except in extreme cases. The reason I maintain this is that (A), they're everywhere across the state, (B) the highway department even call for them on some of the old maps, (C) it is common knowledge that they were set at the time of the construction.
Whether or not they were set by buzzard flopping a 90?ø off the base line and using a rag tape is irrelevant, for me, to the fact that 99% of the time, the highway lines are "senior lines", i.e. created by the highway department, and those monuments were set. They are, with extreme exceptions, no different than any other original corner.
Most of the highway surveys around here were CL and offset and those that claim (I know a few) that the only way to replace it is to replicate the baseline, get an argument from me about how to do it. Their standard argument is that the monuments were set with rag tapes by contractors. Every item that folks claim is requisite to replace the centerline is something that was also placed by a contractor (i.e. culverts, bridges, et cetera), so there really is no good reason not to use the monuments (if they exist) and not back up to using 8k feet of highway that has 7-10' of error between culvert stationing just to replace a line that was never put on the ground in the first place.
Unmonumented highways are, of course, a different animal and the centerline and the culverts and bridges are about the only way to put them in. I really hate having to use the center of the painted stripe that I know was recently painted by the lowest bidder 60 years after installation.
Kris,
To add to your dissertation, I would say that if adjacent property owners relied on and recognized those monuments, as well as built improvements in reliance on them, then your argument is further strengthened.
Jim in AZ, post: 439600, member: 249 wrote: Don't private surveyors accept those same monuments as marking the line? Aren't new monuments set by the private surveyor between those monuments set on line between them?
They do, of course. And most of the time everything is fine because the DOT does a pretty good job of staking their coordinates, by and by. But I think it would be unwise to jump on a couple of monuments on one side of the road and go to town on them. That goes for any subdivision side street as well.
If monuments are called for in the acquisition deed then that's it. The called for monuments control. If they aren't called for but a map showing them is then they may control after some reasonable, but undefined, passage of time and actions on the part of the owners. If neither of those things happens but somebody builds something, like a fence or a wall, in good faith reliance on them then the improvements would likely be allowed to remain, even though the monuments would not be controlling.
rights of way, not right of ways...
sorry. It's been bugging me since yesterday.
When these types of things go to court, I believe the judge has a responsibility to lean in favor of protecting the best interest of the public, which influences the various DOT agencies decisions regarding road surveys.
imaudigger, post: 439623, member: 7286 wrote: When these types of things go to court, I believe the judge has a responsibility to lean in favor of protecting the best interest of the public, which influences the various DOT agencies decisions regarding road surveys.
I'm on the verge of taking this issue to our Board and possibly our AG. IMHO all Licensed surveyors should be following the same rules, regardless of their employer. That is not happening here at the present time.
HICALS,
California codified the principle of holding monuments early on (1872) when the construction of the descriptive part of a conveyance of real property is doubtful and there are no other sufficient circumstances to determine it.
This is the general statement of the law, and the particulars are held in case law - searchable by topic.
In most cases I hold the monuments as the Right of Way. Like any other Survey problem, its the totality of the evidence and application of the law that determines what to hold.
Keep in mind that some States exempt public land and rights of way from operations of law. Its entirely possible that monuments relied on for decades do not reflect the boundary...
Warren Smith, post: 439642, member: 9900 wrote: HICALS,
California codified the principle of holding monuments early on (1872) when the construction of the descriptive part of a conveyance of real property is doubtful and there are no other sufficient circumstances to determine it.
This is the general statement of the law, and the particulars are held in case law - searchable by topic.
There it is right there:
"Two??When permanent and visible or ascertained boundaries or monuments are inconsistent with the measurement, either of lines, angles, or surfaces, the boundaries or monuments are paramount."
IMHO this is a basic precept of surveying almost everywhere (except Inonesia;)), but my DOT does not follow this procedure. The written document is paramount to them...
Duane Frymire, post: 439595, member: 110 wrote: One way to research this is to ask the question of your State Attorney General. It may take awhile to get an answer. But appropriations are usually derived from state statute and/or the state constitution. The attorney general may already have written an opinion on it (you can search previous opinions). These opinions are usually well researched with reference to any available court cases. The problem with appropriations is that they are an exercise of eminent domain power, hence determining the extent has constitutional law implications. Not merely a contract interpretation problem derived from a deed or patent.
Most aquisitions are not through eminent domain. There may be differences in title law when dealing with eminent domain, but is there a difference in boundary law? If anyone finds anything please post.
Kris Morgan, post: 439597, member: 29 wrote: All sarcasm aside, using least squares best fit on CL shots to best determine the centerline is a great tool. On the old railroads where the rails are gone and we are splitting the remaining ties, observing them and locating the structures, I've had excellent luck with that method for determining the centerline and using it to then locate the right-of-way. In fact, I like that particular method so much, I was able to argue down not one but TWO CEU instructors who said there is never an applicable time to use best fit EVER in surveying. After I got through explaining, they both relented and came around to my way of thinking.
We did a ranch that had about 9 miles of un-monumented FM highway through it. I used that method, in conjunction with the structures to replace the centerline and thereby the right-of-way. It's a good tool to have in the box.
Yes, it makes sense when dealing with an UNMONUMENTED right of way
MightyMoe, post: 439603, member: 700 wrote: Don't know about your state but it sure has been ruled on in mine. Probably there are similar cases across the country.
The road certainly can be the monument in all states if there is nothing else, but has it been ruled that the current location of the road overrides DOT monuments? If so, please share the rulling. The cases I have ssent have ony been physical location of road vs. written document, not location of the road vs. DOT monuments.
Glenn Breysacher, post: 439611, member: 188 wrote: Kris,
To add to your dissertation, I would say that if adjacent property owners relied on and recognized those monuments, as well as built improvements in reliance on them, then your argument is further strengthened.
[USER=188]@Glenn Breysacher[/USER] I apologize and agree that brevity is not my long suit. 🙂