Should I pincushion it?

Nate The Surveyor, post: 435897, member: 291 wrote: Surveyor a surveys it. Sets pins.
Surveyor b surveys it. Rejects surveyor a's pins, by some 0.87' some are 0.81' "off".
Shows computed points, @ brg and dist, from surveyor a's pins.
Surveyor c surveys it. His data is within a few hunnerts, of the published data, of surveyor b.
I'm not sure what I'll find... Or do.
I don't have all the deeds yet.
Just another survey...
I guess I'll find out... It makes me wonder...
N

Okay, so when was it originally surveyed (technical term meaning: "survey by reference to which the subject tract first left common ownership with the remainder of the tract from which it was severed, with ownership never subsequently remerging with that of remainder tract"), what does the record of that survey call for as boundary monuments?

1/2' rebar are called for...

Nate The Surveyor, post: 435909, member: 291 wrote: 1/2' rebar are called for...

Yes, but how do you identify the original surveyor's rebars?

His caps..mm hmmm

Nate The Surveyor, post: 435911, member: 291 wrote: His caps..mm hmmm

Okay, one clue that you MIGHT be in Arkansas (with apologies to Jeff Foxworthy) would be that if you have a boundary that was originally created by reference to a survey that left identifiable markers being the subject of a thread asking "How do I know which (identifiable markers) are original?" when the original surveyor's name and professional identification are actually on the makers.

Kent McMillan, post: 435913, member: 3 wrote: Okay, one clue that you MIGHT be in Arkansas (with apologies to Jeff Foxworthy) would be that if you have a boundary that was originally created by reference to a survey that left identifiable markers being the subject of a thread asking "How do I know which (identifiable markers) are original?" when the original surveyor's name and professional identification are actually on the makers.

This is somewhat a very good point to bring up.... I have a number in Arkansas, and Missouri and these places are kissing cousins as far as surveying goes. With that being said I am applying to Texas and their board and survey standards stresses thing very differently than AR and MO. The tests and standards in MoZark land stress minimum standards, PLSS section breakdown procedures to the umth degree and don't test basic boundary law principles in retracement, junior senior rights, legal description writing, and survey reports. Kent has a very good and simple remark. If Surveyor A wrote a complete description, calling out the monuments, adjoining lines, (not just to "a point") and prepared a report which was filed in conjunction with Surveyor A plat then Surveyor B could go out and recover those points there would be no pin cushion possibility and no question of what was original. And Nate, Surveyor C, would not even be needed.

So what I am saying is that based on my experiences with these states and their boards, Texas clearly has an advantage in that they stress procedures rooted in boundary law and not so much measurement standards, proportion and protraction. As a result, too many of us up here in Hill Billy land are too focused on measurement....It is so very common to see plats where surveyors call off another surveyor monument by 0.81', does that make them a bad surveyor or an excellent student? If the monument is there - it's there. Right there! Not 0.81' over there....

Are you saying that Surveyor A's monuments are called for in the deed, and are definitely identifiable, but Surveyors B & C computed alternate positions?

[EDIT] If so the thing to do is to hold the monuments and show your alternate measurements to them, along with the record dimensions. But not to show the monuments being "off".

Mark Mayer, post: 435946, member: 424 wrote: Are you saying that Surveyor A's monuments are called for in the deed, and are definitely identifiable, but Surveyors B & C computed alternate positions?

If so, then that is not following in the footsteps......

Yes, that at FACE value seems to be the case... I'll be looking deeper into it.

N

Just did one last week where the 'new guy' in the block imposed his math on well settled lines. He set his pin holding the eastern line of a 90 year old sub (3 blocks away), ignoring every other monument and established possession by several feet. He was so proud of himself he pounded his number off the cap and didnt file a map.
The standard to reject a monument is not founded in math. Ever.

thebionicman, post: 435958, member: 8136 wrote: The standard to reject a monument is not founded in math. Ever.

I would agree with that statement only if you include the adjectives "original" and "undisturbed" to modify "monument".

Call me crazy, but I think Nate knows how to retrace a boundary.

are you talking about a subdivision - with equitable rights, or metes and bounds, with junior/senior rights? either way, surveyor b is not doing a proper retracement by putting math on the ground, if i understand the facts correctly!

Not a subdivision.. all M&B.
Warren, I think Surveyor "B" erred. But, now, due to the USES of the land, it may have ripened, via USE.
It's a conundrum.
I think I'll send a packet to Surveyor B, regardless, along with a copy of my work.
Not to "make trouble", but Surveyor B has a new guy, who is probably mathematically inclined.... and probably did this.

N

If B's work is recent then I'd go with A.

If you have a Deed which calls for A's monuments and you found A's monuments then those are the boundary corners. Any difficulty caused by B's recent monuments is B's issue to resolve.

Nate The Surveyor, post: 435998, member: 291 wrote: Not a subdivision.. all M&B.
Warren, I think Surveyor "B" erred. But, now, due to the USES of the land, it may have ripened, via USE.
It's a conundrum.
I think I'll send a packet to Surveyor B, regardless, along with a copy of my work.
Not to "make trouble", but Surveyor B has a new guy, who is probably mathematically inclined.... and probably did this.

N

I agree - you must consider use and possession. Landowners who do not know how to put perfect math on the ground do have certain rights when they possess to or otherwise recognize a monument - which is why monuments are set in the first place. Good luck!

Nate The Surveyor, post: 435897, member: 291 wrote: Surveyor a surveys it. Sets pins.
Surveyor b surveys it. Rejects surveyor a's pins, by some 0.87' some are 0.81' "off".
Shows computed points, @ brg and dist, from surveyor a's pins.
Surveyor c surveys it. His data is within a few hunnerts, of the published data, of surveyor b.
I'm not sure what I'll find... Or do.
I don't have all the deeds yet.
Just another survey...
I guess I'll find out... It makes me wonder...
N

As for what you may find, possibly only one set of pins (Surveyor a) and improvements built near, but not on his lines. Your description of Surveyor b's efforts (i.e. "Shows computed points, @ brg and dist, from surveyor a's pins") are called virtual corners by some here in Colorado. Maybe Surveyor b set pins that are 0.87 and 0.81 feet from Surveyor a's pins, maybe he did only on paper. At this point, I have no idea of what Surveyor c did. Do let us know, Nate.

Our state Board does not look favorably upon surveys with virtual offsets from a rejected corner to the magic math corner. Not that this should apply anywhere other than Colorado, but here is an article by a member of the Colorado Board in the PLSC journal Side Shots that discusses virtual corners. The article is on page 8 and the offending monuments are referred to as a "Visual Pincushion Binary" or a paper pincushion.

http://www.plsc.net/docs/SideShots_May16_web.pdf&apos ;">Rule of the Month: Pincushions, Binaries, New Board Rule 6.5.4.1, and C.R.S. 38-51-104

What if surveyor A set his points across a senior line ? Could surveyor B be indicating the true legal position. What if he set the points short ?

At this point, I believe Surveyor A was the defining surveyor. COMMON owner, on both sides, of the line he was surveying.
And, his survey even called for the monuments.
Surveyor B SEEMS to have had a new guy, working for him, and this new guy "Held the math".
Surveyor C SEEMS to have HELD to Surveyor B's solution, HOWEVER it is hard to tell what's real, because the monuments he calls for are simply Fd 5/8" rebar, by "Surveyor B" Except as noted... So it seems that surveyor B set these corners, according to Surveyor C. But, it's a little hard to be sure... Field work next week... we will see what we find.

N