I'm not even talking about MIS's ....
> If I find a monument 0.40'N. and 0.20'W. of my corner position, how am I to explain this, other than reporting said monuments spatial position relative to the corner? It's 2 different opinions on how to express the boundary of said parcel. Some people find the monument and report the varying bearing and distance and recorded and measured (or deed and field, plat and field, yadda yadda yadda).
I'm not trying to pick a fight, but in Florida, where Andy and I both work, I don't see how there could be a difference of opinions on this matter when MTS requires:
"c. A comparison between recorded directions and distances and field measured directions and distances on the boundary when they vary"
Noting offsets to a found monument is not the same thing as showing a comparison between record/measured directions and distances.
Even as a land surveyor, I'm confused by those types of statements. When a surveyor says the corner is 0.4'N and 0.2'E of the monument -- (a) is that surveyors holding the monuments as the true corner, but not reporting the actual distance between the found monuments? -- (b) or is the surveyor saying the true corner is at some offset from the monument, but he refused to not set the true corner?
I can find problems with either scenario.
I'm not even talking about MIS's ....
What if said distance was 4.0' N. and 2.0' W? Do you add 4' to your clients boundary? -
Well, YES, if that's where the controlling monuments put it. If it was easy, everyone would do it.
I'm not even talking about MIS's ....
Exactly, TPR... Not to mention getting into Cardinal directions, or is that an offset in relation to the bearing of the property line?
I'm sorry to sound all soap boxy, but using that sort of notation can only lead to confusion and multiple interpretations... which is what some surveyors may be hoping for.
Andy
I'm not even talking about MIS's ....
Notice I said the monuments were not called for...
I'm not even talking about MIS's ....
> Notice I said the monuments were not called for...
Well, I've been surveying in Florida for only 15 years... but if I only held monuments that were called for in deeds, I would still be working on my 10th survey.
I'm not even talking about MIS's ....
Any reference to a direction on a survey should be related to the Basis of Bearing. Doing otherwise without noting would be a violation of MTS. I think what is happening is the same thing. The reporting of the spatial position of the monument via. offsets vs. showing the difference between measurements is really the same thing, just 2 different modes of doing so. My point was, I think it is short sighted (and borderline unprofessional) to look down one's nose at either way of doing it because both attain the goal of showing the difference between the recorded dimension and the field dimension.
IMO, while we're all "soap boxy", I think doing it the other way is even more confusing to said client, and potentially misleading. I'll give an example. I got hired to survey a conflict between 2 neighbors over another surveyor's survey. Said piece was 150' N-S and 300' E-W with NO CALLED FOR MONUMENTS IN THE DESCRIPTION (commonplace around here). Anyhow, I obtained a copy of the other survey, and noticed his field dimensions were all pretty close to the deed, except the tie to the NW corner. the tie along the west PL was 1.65' long N-S. and the tie along the north PL was 3.77' long E-W. Well, I do the adjoining survey, and find what said surveyor found as the property corner (described as a 1/2" rebar with no identification). Well upon digging around the rebar, I find "twine" wrapped around it, and said twine led to a small oak tree on my client's property (it was underground and had broken off, was very old, tree was now fully grown, read further). When questioned my client stated he set rebars around this oak tree to keep it from leaning, and anchored it with the twine. The other surveyor found this rebar and simply put his field vs. deed on the drawing. IMO, when uncalled for, the distance and bearing must hold, unless the contrary may be shown. This was the entire issue, b/c said neighbor had now planted shrubbery all along the erroneous PL. This is still in the works, I'm not sure how it's going to turn out, but there you see, something as simple as labeling Field vs. Deed, doesn't always cut it. I set my point and labeled the found rebar with the offset distance. I found where property owners do ALL kinds of things with monuments, or monument-like material. I've seen land owners set their own property corners (or so they thought) made of the same materials we as surveyors use. Does this now mean that b/c I found something at or near the position shown in my deed that it becomes the corner, when "it" is uncalled for? I think not. Not everything in this world is nice little subdivision lots, or "155.58' to a 1/2" rebar and cap marked PSM #XXXX; thence". I find the contrary to be more commonplace. Old subdivisions that were protracted and deeds that have no calls for monuments more commonplace around here I guess...
Again, I think there are far too many surveyors that put faith in monuments, or things that appear to be monuments. An uncalled for monument, is just that, uncalled for. In this case, it may not cost the guy much, as it's only shrubbery, but what if it was a fence, or concrete wall?! I know several surveyors that don't change their reported measurements to monuments unless they vary by a certain amount. IMO this can be somewhat misleading, but again that is MY OPINION. As long as MY CLIENT is satisfied and my survey meets the requirements as set forth, we are all good. What I think is more disturbing is to come up to a corner and find 2 rebar within 0.4' of each other. I'd rather perform my survey, find said corner, with the note: Found rebar 0.40' N. 0.20'W. than be so arrogant as to set another corner. Some say it's arrogant to show the falling, however I think it's our job to report what we find, and I'd rather do that than pincushion...
I'm not trying to start a war either, I was just a little put off by the comment that 1 way was "wrong" or more wrong than the other. I don't think that's correct, there is definitely more than one way to do what is needed to be done to satisfy the job. You do it your way, I'll do it mine. I respect your way of doing it, I just don't choose to do it that way...that is all.
I'm not even talking about MIS's ....
Been here for 30...and doing just fine doing it the way I've done it. Again, I think it's just semantics. I don't think one is any worse than the other. No different than you choosing to put a drawing on 11x17 that I put on 18x24. It's personal preference and both get the job done.
I'm not even talking about MIS's ....
In a non-PLSS state with no established custom I agree. I have worked communities with 200 years of records bearing such notes. It is understood to mean cardinal relative to the pertinent line. Where the governing lines are not apparent details are used.
When a monument falls near a senior line we know to hold it for direction. Rather than destroy and replace it, local custom is to note the distance to the senior line. I shudder at the thought of destroying the chain of evidence to make things fit my math better.
Bottom line, local customs should be honored. I would not blindly record a map with this note in a place that doesn't use them. Likewise it is not my place to pick apart established survey customs of other communities. ..
I'm not even talking about MIS's ....
Your example is one of gross incompetence, not really what we are discussing. I would say that that surveyor should be going before the board for that sort of work.
Unless I am misunderstanding (entirely possible), I would say there is a major structural difference between the two approaches.
It seems to me that labeling offsets in cardinal directions implies that the BOUNDARY CORNER and the MONUMENT are NOT COINCIDENT.
Is that a proper interpretation of the discussion?
I'm not even talking about MIS's ....
That's how I see it, too.
Let's say I am an new home owner who just a got a survey at closing and want to build a fence as close to the property line as possible. I find all the rebar, still flagged, at all the corners. The survey says one rebar is 0.6' E and 0.4' N of the "corner". So, I call the surveyor and ask "Am I supposed to build my fence between the found monuments? Or, Am I supposed to set the face of my fence 0.6' W and 0.4' S of the rebar?"
I really don't know the answer to that question. I wonder if different surveyors who use that notation would give a different answer.
I'm not even talking about MIS's ....
> Your example is one of gross incompetence, not really what we are discussing. I would say that that surveyor should be going before the board for that sort of work.
>
> Unless I am misunderstanding (entirely possible), I would say there is a major structural difference between the two approaches.
>
>
> It seems to me that labeling offsets in cardinal directions implies that the BOUNDARY CORNER and the MONUMENT are NOT COINCIDENT.
>
> Is that a proper interpretation of the discussion?
Is it? I'm not sure about the "gross incompetence using the thinking that the monument marks the corner. Looking over some old notes for a class I took on this very subject I find "The corner is at the point of intersection of 2 courses of land description. This corner may or may not be associated with a monument." A little further in my notes I have "an artificial monument is any man made marker (stone, iron, concrete) set to represent the legal corner. Monuments may or may not be the legal corner." Further in Brown's book, he describes uncalled for monuments as: "Monuments that are not called for are uncertain; to be controlling they must be proved. If they are found in the proper position for angle and distance, they may automatically become the correct corner markers. If they are not in the measured position, they cannot be accepted without substantial evidence showing that they are in the position of the original stakes or that they have been accepted by common report." So, who's to say that old rusty 1/2" rebar I found wasn't the original? I don't think it is, b/c of what my client stated. What if he's lying? What if I hadn't found the twine wrapped around it? Just blindly accept it?! I think not. It's not called for, IMO the only way to prove it is by verifying it's measurements with that of the deed.
Yes, you are correct the boundary corner and the monument are not coincident. Both ways are doing the SAME thing, they are telling the story of where the boundary lies, and the positional variances of the monuments as found in the field. It's all measurement when you get down to the nuts and bolts of it. I think the only difference is that you may be calling the monument and the corner one in the same. Nothing wrong with this at all, however you have to draw the line somewhere (my example of the 150'x300' is a good one). There comes a point at which you are going to disagree with the monument so much that simply showing the recorded dimension vs. the measured dimension will not work. Simply drawing the line in CAD between 2 old rusty pipes will not suffice. This may not be the case in urbanized settings, when I survey urban areas things go much more smoother than rural. However, my perspective is that of a rural surveyor where Ma and Pa Kettle marked out there 40 acres 40 years ago with some old iron pipes Pa had in the barn. You have to be careful in just accepting a monument for where it is at face value.
My method (I'm not alone either, I know several surveyors who choose to do it this way) I have the boundaries record dimensions, the dimensions shown where I would set my corners had there been none (usually stated as calculated or measured), and then the positional differences of any monuments that I find at the measurements to my corners. So therefor, I'm expressing the differences between record dimensions, field dimensions AND the positional differences between the boundary corners of where I would place them vs. what is found in the field. I may or may not set my own corners (usually don't, unless the positional error is large, but then again, what is large? A foot, a tenth, it's up to the surveyor doing the survey). Yes, I see the differences in the methods, but the end result is the same. A boundary, with the required measurement differences expressed so that the client can rely on. Again, there are several places I work, where I find a corner that may 0.87'N. and 0.65'W. of my position. I don't set one, because due to the terrain, and the logistics of the work of coming with said position, I could see where somebody might accrue that kind of error, especially if the previous surveyor was using older methods of measurement (chaining etc.). I also know, in these areas, we are basically talking about the same corner, but it is my duty to report what I find, and I find a XXX monument 0.87'N. and 0.65'W. of the corner of your property. Now, I'm sure in an urban setting, that positional tolerance would be a little greater than I would care to accept.
Again Andy, I'm not hacking on your method. I've seen it for going on 30 years, it's just not how I choose to show my work, as do many other surveyors. I don't think it's misleading, or erroneous, or "slight of hand", I think it's reporting findings. As long as my work meets the requirements, why does it matter how I show my findings? What got me riled was the fact that you appear to come off as there is only 1 way to do something, and in land surveying this is FAR from the truth. If land surveying were cookie cutter, everyone would be doing it...
I'm not even talking about MIS's ....
"I think there are far too many surveyors that put faith in monuments "
okey dokey... I'm just going to back away slowly from this conversation.
I'm not even talking about MIS's ....
You know, you are right, that's not the best wording. There are far too many surveyors that put their faith in UNCALLED FOR MONUMENTS. Sorry about that.
I'm not even talking about MIS's ....
> >... but it is my duty to report what I find, and I find a XXX monument 0.87'N. and 0.65'W. of the corner of your property.
That's what I don't understand ... If a land owner walked the property with you, and asked you to show them the boundary, what would you show them? Where do you place your lath? At the monument? Or do you carry a box tape and pull the offsets and show them the imaginary point where you think the real corner should be? If you are going to disagree with the found monument on paper, why not actually monument the position in the field so that the land owner has a physical object they can rely for their boundary, and future surveyors (in a non-recording state, like Florida) will able to recognize and possibly follow your boundary determination?
I'm not even talking about MIS's ....
I just couldn't resist... But I knew what you meant!
I'm not even talking about MIS's ....
I place my lath at the monument. But I report my findings. Just as you are doing, by showing the field bearing 00-02'14" different than recorded, I simply state I found a monument 0.87'N. and 0.65' W. of the position I have for their corner. If they build a fence to it, so be it. That is their protocol, they relied on that monument. If it came back to me, that the fence was over the line, I can simply report, that I let my client know that monument wasn't on his actual corner. He relied on the monument and not the survey. Rarely do I see this, b/c when positional errors get large enough that one's fence would be noticeably on one side or other of the property line, I will monument, however, in the case of a 4" fence post being on one side of the line or the other, even with the positional errors above landowners would have a hard time telling this difference. If I were to do as you say, then there's 2 corners there. It makes surveyors look bad IMO, and it leads the client to confusion. What if it's years later, they've lost their survey, and the i.d. cap is long gone from your monument? Again, I think we are saying the same thing, that our opinion is that the monument is your corner, we just are reporting the findings diff. Again, I don't think one is diff. than the other. Another scenario would be, to simply report the bearing distance in the field to said monument, only to have years later another placed 0.87'S. and 0.65' E. of the one you show being the "corner" on your survey. Who's right? Who's wrong? Age old question in surveying. I try to do the most harmonious thing, in showing my position vs. what I find in the field. All good questions b/c like you Pseudo, I've wondered this myself. One thing I don't do, is down grade somebody for using one method or the other, as I think they both tell the same story, and are both suitable methods for surveying. That's the beauty of being a professional and being in a profession such as this. We can disagree, but at the end of the day, we ultimately need to serve our clients, and I think both methods do so just fine.
I'm not even talking about MIS's ....
Yeah, you got me!!! I had to jump on my own grenade!!! Ugh. When all is said and done this has been a mighty fine conversation among professionals. Sites like this are great places to share ideas and thoughts such as these. Oh and just to note, I've worked places that do just as you Pseudo do, I did this for many years, so I'm not looking down on it, I just prefer the other way.