"The vocation of the Civil Engineer has always been invested with a dignity of its own. But it seems to me that of late years, in paying him the honor which is his just due, we are apt to fix a little too wide a gap between him and his humbler brother, the Surveyor. We give engineering the chief attention in our technical schools, but surveying we are wont to relegate to the Freshman class. Yet the profession of the Surveyor deals with one of the oldest and most fundamental facts of human society the possession and inheritance of land. Fire, flood and earthquake wipe out the greatest works of the engineer, but the land continueth forever.
Curiously enough the Surveyor is isolated in his calling, and therein lie his responsibility and his temptations. The lawyer comes nearest to understanding the work, yet of the actual details of a survey most lawyers are woefully ignorant. The business man who can judge to a hair the fulfillment of a contract has no eye for the shortened line or the shifted landmark. To the skilled accountant of the bank the traverse sheet is a closed book. Dishonesty in ordinary business life cannot long be hid and errors in accounts quickly come to light, but the false or faulty survey may pass unchallenged through the years, for few but the Surveyor himself are qualified to judge it. I maintain that in the hands of the Surveyor, to an exceptional degree, lie the honor of the generations past and the welfare of the generations to come; in his keeping is the Doomsday Book of his community, and who shall know if he is false to his trust? Therefore I believe that to every Surveyor who values his honor and has a full sense of his duty the fear of error is a perpetual shadow that darkens the sunlight.
Yet it seems to me that to a man of active mind and high ideals the profession is singularly suited; for to the reasonable certainty of a modest income must be added the intellectual satisfaction of problems solved, a sense of knowledge and power increasing with the years, the respect of the community, the consciousness of responsibility met and work well done. It is a profession for men who believe that a man is measured by his work, not by his purse, and to such I commend it."
A. C. Mulford, c.1912
Thanks Schultz
That's a great passage. Timeless in its accuracy and relevance.
Thanks Schultz
wow, i am going to have to quote that in the future. thanks
Thanks Schultz
Boundaries and Landmarks is a great read. Check it out if you haven't.
Thanks Schultz
Thanks for the link David!
Doug
Was it Mulford who said the first thing you do when you get to the Survey is you go around and find the boundaries? Once you have found the boundaries, then and only then do you get the transit and tape out to measure the boundaries you have already found.
I always thought that is an excellent summary although I admit it is more of a state of mind than an actual workflow. Sometimes we use measurements to guide us to near the boundary at which point it can be measured.
One of my favorites from A.C.:
"For after all, when it comes to a question of the stability of property and the peace of the community, it is far more important to have a somewhat faulty measurement of the spot where the line truly exists than it is to have an extremely accurate measurement of the place where the line does not exist at all."
> One of my favorites from A.C.:
>
> "For after all, when it comes to a question of the stability of property and the peace of the community, it is far more important to have a somewhat faulty measurement of the spot where the line truly exists than it is to have an extremely accurate measurement of the place where the line does not exist at all."
I f@%king HATE that quote with a passion because, to me, it sets up a false duality and divides surveyors into two camps unnecessarily.
It never mentions an option that is far superior to both, an extremely accurate measurement of the spot where the line truly exists. It give license for those who find where the line truly exists to disregard accurate measurement and it casts doubt on the ability of those who stress accurate measurement to find where the line truly exists.
I never thought of it that way, but you're right.
I never took it that way, but you have a good point. I thought that taking it in context was simply pointing out that sometimes we are too busy concentrating on which way to round the nearest second, or thousandth of a foot, and forget to study the important information as to whether we are set up over the right point (or looking for the original monument). Kind of a "not seeing the forest for the trees" analogy.
But I did get the same feeling you got, though, when I read a full article in POB one time talking about whether we are getting too accurate er, precise for our own good. Kind of blaming the newer precise technology for our problems of not studying the evidence on the ground. I get the point, but it is no excuse for not taking care in correctly-executed measurements. It ain't the technology's fault. Maybe some of the newer surveyors lose sight of that. One of the best things you can do on a plat is show the 'record call' and the 'as measured' values indicating that you are still respecting the original calls and also showing your "precise" measurements.
Anyway, good point Mr. Fleming.
> I f@%king HATE that quote with a passion because, to me, it sets up a false duality and divides surveyors into two camps unnecessarily.
I also think you are taking it out of context, (If that's what I read in Mark Chains reply). I think it simply says; monuments are paramount, regardless of how good you measure to it.
Of course if you take it out of context, I can see where it drives surveyors into 2 camps. Hell, I see surveyors in more camps than just 2. 😉
I understand it in the context of the time it was written. Unfortunate it's difficult to keep historical writings used in the modern age free from modern subtext. I'd wager that if you searched the old rlps.com archive, you'd find that quote predominantly used in threads where Kent and Keith were barking at each other from their respective sides of the fence.
BTW - I feel similarly conflicted about much of the writing of Jeff Lucas; I wholeheartedly embrace the message, but usually find the way the message is expressed repugnant.
I never took it as a binary choice, 1) sloppy measurement to the right bounds, or 2) tight measurements to the wrong ones. I just took it for granted that most surveyors would naturally want to do their best to measure well to the right bounds.
But since the instances where double monuments occur for 1 corner, and where you hear landowners "the last surveyor found the corners and then moved them..." usually boil down to being defined, at least by the later surveyor as the previous survey having been performed poorly, meaning that the measurements were sloppy. That analysis by the later surveyor usually does not take into account the physical evidence or the history that should be considered when interpreting the deed, factors that the earlier surveyor would have (where the Mulford quote applies) taken into account.
I'm testifying in a case later this month that the quote fits perfectly. Surveyor A was hired in the 1960s to survey the lines of parcels that the grantor later sold. Surveyor A used proper methodology but the quality of his measurements were poor even for the equipment common at the time, but (barely) within the local standard of care at the time.
In 200X, Surveyor B, who appears to have made good measurements, rejected every monument set by Surveyor A in the 196X survey because A's measurements were so poor. Surveyor B now cites other dubious reasons, but those are undermined by the fact that he also rejected monuments later set by surveyors C & D, and those surveys do not fit with B's recently expanded reasoning for rejecting A's monuments.
Short of it is, A measured very poorly but used proper methodology to determine the boundaries, was the first to establish the boundaries, and the grantor sold the parcels representing A's survey as marking the corners and lines. B didn't take any of that into account. A's points, poorly measured, were the right points. B, measuring far better, went right by them and measured to the wrong lines.
B is precisely wrong.
"B is precisely wrong."
And no one on this board will disagree, but that is such a subtle concept when you think about it.
Surveyors are philosophers as well as lumberjacks and lawyers.
Don
" precisely wrong"
Very, very important concept...
> > .... (If that's what I read in Mark Chains reply).
lol
I did ramble around some in my response. Yes, I was pointing that it was being taken a bit out of context by Fleming.
I was also saying that his point is well-taken, because it is a concept that is misused and often made to make the "wrong" point.
It is an incredibly hard concept to deal with for surveyors who go through extra effort to make as precise measurements as they can, double-check their locations, come to a level of confidence of their own numbers and work, and end up accepting monuments that appear to have been measured sloppily and "side-shot" in. So many times lazy, low-ball surveyors who do terrible work never have consequences to their actions, and good, intelligent surveyors end up having to accept their "crap" because it has passed the test of time and acceptance by the land owners; and often have to sort out a lot of conflicts of evidence.
That's the dichotomy with this saying as I see it.
