Positional tolerance regulations are put on the surveyor, not on the landowners.?ÿ
This ambiguity in surveying has always both interested and frustrated me.?ÿ When ostensibly smart and reasonable people can come to different conclusions on a subject, it makes me uncertain and persuadable or contrarian depending on the context of the situation.?ÿ I also am impressed with the surveyors who have total certainty on this, but I don't want to hang out with them at the bar cause they probably got the rest of the world figured out too.
There is a mathematical harmony in other parts of surveying that I really appreciate.?ÿ The uncertainty in boundary adds to both its charm and anxieties.?ÿ?ÿ
Heck, in the olden days if we found a corner 0.1 off the boss told us to grab the hammer and knock it over a tenth. Problem solved.
But then around here freeze and thaw can easily move it that far after time.
That is I think something that is lost on a lot of people, that monuments can and will move by the forces of nature and that's almost certainly why they hold over the super-duper measuring device.
@jph?ÿ
Generally; anything within a coffee can and I'm walking away with a smile on my face, doing another dance, with full diaper.
?ÿ
If all measurements were super-duper, then they should hold over monuments, which do move a little and get disturbed a lot, but as we all know there are a lot of measurements recorded that aren't anywhere close to good, much less super, and that's why monuments rule.
If all measurements were super-duper, then they should hold over monuments, which do move a little and get disturbed a lot, but as we all know there are a lot of measurements recorded that aren't anywhere close to good, much less super, and that's why monuments rule.
True. Plus landowners can't build a fence between two measurements on paper, but they can between two monuments in the ground.
Received a call this morning to find the four corners of a tract I surveyed about eight years ago for a previous owner so the current owner can show them to the new buyer.?ÿ It will be interesting to see how closely I can match my own work.?ÿ The front two corners are invisible as they are bars in a gravel county road.?ÿ The two in back were ignored as the owner never fenced his tract along the boundary lines to keep the cattle out.?ÿ What happened was that a relative later purchased the remainder of the parent tract.
Positional tolerance regulations are put on the surveyor, not on the landowners.
That's the post of the year so far mighty.?ÿ
@aliquot?ÿ
For Item 2 I??m assuming the existing centerline was established as noted from the centerline monuments found in the original post.
Attached is an example of a centerline plat that ODOT uses for roadway projects.?ÿ This is the only sheet out of the entire R/W plan development set that is recorded with the County Record except for the individual R/W take descriptions. ?ÿ?ÿIt only includes the centerline and centerline monuments without referencing property lines or Right of Way widths.?ÿ R/W acquisition does not occur until the centerline plat is recorded.?ÿ As I see it, this creates a senior right for the centerline and centerline monuments.
R/W acquisitions are handled with individual metes and bounds descriptions for each parcel with a reference to the recorded plat book and page of the centerline plat.?ÿ At a minimum, the Point of Beginning has a centerline station and offset call.?ÿ Some jurisdictions may require each deflection to be stationed and offset.?ÿ This in my opinion, establishes the centerline as the basis for where the R/W monument should be offset from as called for on the R/W plans and description.
Priority of calls for holding the centerline if the monuments were set correctly checklist:
- Lines actually run in the field by the creating surveyor and proven from evidence -check
- Natural monuments ?? no
- Artificial monuments ?? check
- Senior adjoiner ?? check, centerline was recorded 1st
- Distance ?? check
- Bearing ?? check
- Area ?? n/a
- Coordinates ?? check
For Item 4, I agree that the priority of calls is one of many tools for coming to a professional judgement.?ÿ It should be the 1st tool in the toolbox we should start with however, followed by personal experience and any other tools collected along the way.?ÿ Based on the original post I thought it would be prudent to note it.
?ÿ
Positional tolerance regulations are put on the surveyor, not on the landowners.?ÿ
I thought that is what Rover83 said.
(In Oregon the statute says the monuments are to be placed with 0.10', or 1:10000 of the distance which I take to mean that a monument found within a tenth of the record dimension is as good as dead on)
One plat around here, if you find a corner off from your calc by 0.2', then you are pretty sure it was disturbed because you know that surveyor's work. Another plat around here, if you found a corner within a foot of your calc, you are happy the original surveyor got it that close for that corner. The first example (closer) might have evidence to say it does not mark corner as originally set, the other one might have evidence that it marks the corner as set when platted.
Non-recording state here. And, no legislated minimum standards (yet) in NY.
There's a time and a place for this. I've personally done this a couple of times, but it is absolutely not my normal standard. Once was because an unstable neighbor would have lost their freakin mind if I returned to restore a bent iron rod. The other time was when I referenced a traverse spike simply because the job was done and I was not going back.?ÿ
That being said, I have reviewed and commented on more than one survey by more than one company/surveyor where every monument is "off" .02 or .01 where nothing was "held". But, the monuments were noted as "good condition". Responses indicated to me that it is their standard of practice. It simply boggles the mind.
I can recall one job we did many years ago about 80 miles from the office where I modified the drawing after the field work was complete.?ÿ We followed the client's wishes precisely to lay out a rectangle plus an additional rectangle to go back an additional 10 feet over a certain span so that a water hydrant or something similar would remain with the house acreage.?ÿ The client could not be present the day we did the field work.?ÿ When he finally got to the site he decided he wanted to add another five feet so that the rear little rectangle would extend 15 feet, instead of 10 feet.?ÿ He absolutely had no desire in paying us for all the travel time to move the two rear bars five feet.?ÿ So, my drawing showed the bars we had set as reference bars being on line five feet from the true corners.?ÿ The reviewer called me to inquire about that.?ÿ I explained the situation, justifying using this solution.?ÿ He agreed wholeheartedly.
@wagner152?ÿ
I applaud Ohio DOT recording the center line with such a drawing.?ÿ I have worked with DOT plans that have the new center line, the old center line, the section line that falls near all of these other lines, and a base line used during the survey all appearing on the map and crisscrossing in some cases.?ÿ It is nearly impossible to keep track of which line is which and keep track of which line is the base line for other parts of the data shown.
?ÿ
@dmyhill?ÿ
I took it that he would reject a monument that didn't meet positional tolerances.?ÿ
Yeah, I didn't phrase that very well.
I was trying to convey that if a monument falls within positional tolerance, I'm likely going to hold record bearing & distance between it and adjacent accepted monuments, and not show measured vs. record since it's within that tolerance.
If I accept the monument and it's definitely out of positional tolerance, I'm still going to hold it of course, but I will show my measured B&D versus the record B&D...
Usually I am holding all the monuments and report my measurements to the caps. I would be overjoyed to FIND a monument. A monuments right of way does not always measure exact platted width.
In cases of fraud, blunder, or gross error, and as a last resort I have to use the case law procedure known as proportioning, THEN I hold exact platted width for public property rights of way, private property yields excess or shortage.
?ÿ
I was trying to convey that if a monument falls within positional tolerance, I'm likely going to hold record bearing & distance between it and adjacent accepted monuments, and not show measured vs. record since it's within that tolerance.
If I accept the monument and it's definitely out of positional tolerance, I'm still going to hold it of course, but I will show my measured B&D versus the record B&D...
Yep, that's my protocol too.?ÿ I've been chided for not reporting my B&D measurements even if only a few hundredths off because my field notes disagree with the record geometry and expose me to "lying" in court when they are subpoenaed.?ÿ That's an easily defensible red herring by explaining my survey procedures are no better than than the original surveyor's so I accept his work.
Monuments are golden if found undisturbed and of record, even if (many) feet off based on my contemporary field survey.?ÿ In that case I'll show measured & record and accept it without question.?ÿ Trickier is ancient monuments not of record but obviously honored by landowners for decades; in that case I'll honor it based on occupation.
One thing that pisses me off is surveyors who find record monuments, label them as disturbed and set a new monument feet away based on their calcs.?ÿ Really??ÿ That 60 year old monument magically jumped feet from its original location with no evidence of subterfuge??ÿ I find that incredulous.
?ÿ
@wagner152?ÿ
You are making quite a few assumptions that weren't in the original post. Is DOT even involved? At first read this sounded more like a subdivision road than state highway, but for the sake of argument,?ÿ I still don't quite agree with you. Assuming the?ÿ "original" lot corner was set by a surveyor without gross negligence in determining the ROW location?ÿ the courts have told us over and over that for the sake of satiability land owners have a right to rely on the monuments. The surveyor who set it may not be the original surveyor of the ROW, but is the "first" surveyor of that particular boundary. Although the government is not subject to adverse or prescriptive rights, they are subject to bonafide beliefs based on?ÿ bonafide attempts to locate the boundary.?ÿ
If every time that boundary line needs to be located the surveyor has to return to the centerline monuments and calculate the boundary anew we would be in the world that Cooley?ÿ warned us against. Why would we suspend boundary law when it comes ROWs when no court has ever told us to??ÿ