> Speaking of which, don't just pull your client's deed. Pull the deeds for the neighbor(s) as well. All of them.
>
Just out of curiosity, being that this is standard practice around here, in what parts of the country is this not a standard practice when performing boundary surveys?
> Where I work I wouldn't dream of "breaking chain" or using a clinometer to correct for slope. The footsteps I am following mostly used slope distance so when trying to follow them I do as well. Note this is when trying to retrace. Obviously I do not quote slope distance on my end results.
I recall a discussion a while ago about running a traverse with a particular type of software(/firmware), and some of the guys commented that they go ahead and get "measure-ups" for their HI's/HT's and collect enough date to determine vertical change if necessary.
The fact that the original surveyors may have used slope-chaining might be a good reason to have that data in case that solves some differences you are having between the original calls and your measurements.
> > Speaking of which, don't just pull your client's deed. Pull the deeds for the neighbor(s) as well. All of them.
> >
>
>
> Just out of curiosity, being that this is standard practice around here, in what parts of the country is this not a standard practice when performing boundary surveys?
Pulling and reading adjoiners deeds is required by our Board. Having said that, more often than not I see notes on plats that say the "adjoiner information taken from tax map". Then when you actually read the documents it is pretty obvious the surveyor never read or plotted the deed because there are existing corners they never bothered to recover. Or just as often the reference is completely wrong and it would have been very apparent had they bothered to get a copy of the deed.
To make matters worse, all our recorded plats are available for free on the Internet and all deeds are available going back to the mid 1930's.
Yes, I know, it's a sad commentary.
Larry P
> > Where I work I wouldn't dream of "breaking chain" or using a clinometer to correct for slope. The footsteps I am following mostly used slope distance so when trying to follow them I do as well. Note this is when trying to retrace. Obviously I do not quote slope distance on my end results.
>
> I recall a discussion a while ago about running a traverse with a particular type of software(/firmware), and some of the guys commented that they go ahead and get "measure-ups" for their HI's/HT's and collect enough date to determine vertical change if necessary.
>
> The fact that the original surveyors may have used slope-chaining might be a good reason to have that data in case that solves some differences you are having between the original calls and your measurements.
If one is trying to resolve items in the office what you describe makes some sense. I try to resolve the issues on the ground during the initial phases of the project. This way once the data is in the office the important decisions have been made on the ground.
This is a distinct advantage to having the PLS who will be signing the work in the field doing the recon. Some firms have the "field guys" make these decisions for the PLS. We never did that unless I was the field guy.
Larry P
true story, Larry.
Retracing is different - one leg at a time. Unlike turned angle surveys that are more like a network, compass surveys are more a compilation of individual lines.
we see the same thing here. even if they did pull the deed (likely they just put the recording info on the plat), it doesn't seem they read them.
this goes for all aspects of modern life - technology has given us access to incredible volumes of data - to the point of information overload. the issue isn't access anymore, it's the challenge of processing through it that provides the biggest obstacle now.
as an example, next time you or someone you know is in the hospital, take note of how many times you hear the staff ask the same question and type the answer into a computer. is anybody reading any of this data?
dang Larry. You're on a roll. I feel like I'm estalking you. But you're right on this. LS in the field makes for a better finished product. I don't know how you can survey from a desk in an office.
Ouch...I wasn't commenting on having an LS in the field or not. If I am doing a boundary survey with totalstation/traverse, I traverse around the parcel and locate all the boundary evidence I can find (often times). I don't try to slope-chain down the line and offset around trees or whatever. I often will evaluate the work in the office and try to come to conclusions. My point is that having the vertical differences might help in my evaluation.
Maybe my methodology is not correct, or best, or whatever, but never did I mention not-having a pls on the ground.
> Ouch...I wasn't commenting on having an LS in the field or not. If I am doing a boundary survey with totalstation/traverse, I traverse around the parcel and locate all the boundary evidence I can find (often times). I don't try to slope-chain down the line and offset around trees or whatever. I often will evaluate the work in the office and try to come to conclusions. My point is that having the vertical differences might help in my evaluation.
>
> Maybe my methodology is not correct, or best, or whatever, but never did I mention not-having a pls on the ground.
Come on Tom. We've known one another long enough to know I wasn't trying to slam you. Just going on what I've seen in this area. Plus, working in the Public Lands areas is totally different than working in a pure metes and bounds area. Can see that the way you describe is pretty much the way it has to be in your area.
This is why I've said for years ... I think I am pretty good right here where I work. But take me 100 to 200 miles in any direction and I'm not so sure any longer.
Hope we are good.
Larry P
> > Speaking of which, don't just pull your client's deed. Pull the deeds for the neighbor(s) as well. All of them.
> >
>
>
> Just out of curiosity, being that this is standard practice around here, in what parts of the country is this not a standard practice when performing boundary surveys?
The original post never specified BOUNDARY survey. All compass surveying I have done has been for rough lot layouts, current use maps (a NH thing), wetlands flags, woods roads or other non-boundary surveys.
Hey Larry, I have total respect for you and your knowledge. I figure anyone that can survey in a tuxedo must know what their doing and at the same time, how not to get dirty. (joking). The tone I got was that you were implying that I don't advocate the PLS on the ground. In my office, every PLS does field surveying as well as calculating their work in the office.
I'm sure there are many different ways to do a job, and just fyi, we have many many metes-and-bounds boundary descriptions here. They are almost always tied to aliquot section corners, but we do have dilemmas of junior/senior rights. As far as I can tell one of the large problems with surveying in a colonial state, is finding the original controlling corner for a boundary, not to mention getting on the same basis of bearing. (Not that I have surveyed outside the PLSS or even outside of this state). As you may have gathered, we also often have trouble find our points of commencement in the dear old PLSSia. There are many times missing corners, or multiple corners, or one corner that doesn't seem to fit the original location calls. One "m&b" survey might call from one corner of a section and its adjoiner might call from a different corner of a section. When they come to the common adjoining boundary, they may not have the common mathematical line. Having said that, I do have some interest in some farmland in NC. I have reviewed the old legal descriptions from the chains of title. They are quite complicated, and I can certainly see some of the real dilemmas you have in trying to retrace some of that mess. Regardless, I would have a hard time actually running in the lines in the field, and setting corners while out there. It just seems too complicated to figure out "on the run" to me. But I recognize that I am possibly too meticulous and anal, to possibly be as efficient as many of my peers.
Sorry for some of the random ramblings.
Tom
Been waiting for Dave Ingram comment
He has come to Jefferson a few times to put on his compass and chain seminar where we spend an afternoon with an authentic compass and a modern half chain (33ft) and traverse around the grounds in 5 or 6 crews testing our abilities for closure and computation of acreage.
Everyone should attend a similar or one of the retracement seminars given across the country and get in on a taste of what a compass survey is about.
0.02
> Been waiting for Dave Ingram comment
>
> He has come to Jefferson a few times to put on his compass and chain seminar where we spend an afternoon with an authentic compass and a modern half chain (33ft) and traverse around the grounds in 5 or 6 crews testing our abilities for closure and computation of acreage.
>
> Everyone should attend a similar or one of the retracement seminars given across the country and get in on a taste of what a compass survey is about.
>
> 0.02
I've been saying for years that no one should be able to get a license before they have done at least one Compass and Chain survey. How can we be expected to "follow in the footsteps" if we have no clue how those footsteps were made?
Have not been to that presentation by Dave but I know he is a good guy who knows how to teach so I'm sure it is worthwhile.
Larry P
Actually I already commented. My post is #8 (currently) down from the top.
From the Plat and Report above, it looks as if he was not doing an original survey using compass bearings. What I got out of is that he made a good effort to adjust his compass to record bearings between monuments and projected a line ahead to the next monument, if he found it, he held it and adjusted for the next leg. As a tool to aid in the recovery of evidence, the compass works well. He stated that he would replace missing monuments by using intersections, but he did not state if those intersection were going to be Bearing-Bearing or Distance-Distance intersections. What gets into the meat of this is that he intend to do something different than running a compass bearing for the record distance and set missing monuments. He seems to know how and for what a compass should be used for. I would also bet that those compass loops we hear about done during a training sessions were intended to show the lack of precision of the compass. Knowledge of the compass and what it is capable of providing is needed in order to evaluate the evidence recovered by compass or tripped over when the compass it telling you it should not at the trip point. In other words, use the compass as a guide and an aid, never for control, we have better tools an records to use as control today.
jud
"OOPPS"
:-$
In other words, use the compass as a guide and an aid, never for control, we have better tools an records to use as control today.
+1
We recently got a survey request to go out and survey a 60-acre woodland hilly tract that we surveyed in about 1982 with a Wild T0 using its onboard compass and a chain. The woodland tract had been cleared when I returned in 2012, and I used GPS. I was absolutely shocked at the accuracy of the 1982 survey and could not believe that it was me who had done it the first time. I distinctly remember running the true line in 1982 and came up to several large trees, and simply shot to the tree and got on the other side of tree and at a visual aligned point with a little taped perp offset, and kept on trucking. Survey was about 1:4000, and it had about 15 corners, some along the center of a small creek.
Wild has an old and interesting publication about the success and accuracy of compass work using their T0. Obviously the non-propagating error phenomenon is a major reason GLO was as good as it is.
I still have my T0, and although I don't use it, it has a firm place in my little archive of equipment I have used during my career.
Old field notes, show that they often had the chainman swear that he would level the chain. In modern times, we would use a plumb bob. Back then, they used chaining pins, and gravity. All distances used in surveying, are reduced to horizontal, no matter what. Except some farmers, and some surveyors, who did not subscribe to reality. The standard, however, is horizontal.
When measuring to witness trees, dimension should be to where the center of the stump hole would be, if the tree died, and left a hole. Some surveyors measured to the FACE of the tree, at the blaze. As evidenced by checking their work.
Maybe somebody from the flat earth society will chime in!
N
> I was absolutely shocked at the accuracy of the 1982 survey and could not believe that it was me who had done it the first time.
If it was anyone else who had run it, it would have been "compensating error" 😉
Post of picture of the Wild T0 sometime if you don't mind. I don't think I have ever seen one. (Actually I guess I could google it.)
