We found a pile of 3 old concrete CHC monuments off in the weeds down in SD County; apparently left there sometime in the distant past. They don't look as if they were ever set. They are 6x6 and have a "C" stamped on the side.
CHC=California Highway Commission (now defunct).
The 4x4 concrete monuments set by Forest Surveyors in the 1960s & 1970s are 4' long.
> As the case stands, the right of way gets fenced.
Yes, I think the fences on rural highways were typically constructed before the right-of-way markers were set. The fences were built to lines staked off the centerline.
> The right-of-way markers are what's used, what is accepted, and what is maintained to.
So, mowing is how you determine rights-of-way in Colorado? By "accepted", if you mean the State of Colorado's DOT has a policy of considering every right-of-way marker ever set by a contractor to be absolutely correct, that's another matter. That's administrative policy, not the construction of the deed.
> We don't go out and set a rebar 0.15 away from the concrete marker (or a foot for that matter); and even if we did, it, they wouldn't move the fence accordingly.
Well, in Texas, right-of-way fences aren't exactly on the right-of-way line and, in any event, they are just fences. This isn't Green Bay, Wisconsin.
> The concrete monuments, as you say, are what's left of the original right-of-way determination. Matching to their position, and the width of right of way between them, within reason, is fine by me.
> The highway department acquired a 100 foot swath, and monumented it. If I come back through and measure 99.62' between the concrete markers I just say that the original call is 100 feet, and 99.62' as-measured. The right-of-way usage is where it is, regardless of the precise math.
I think you're confusing the term "math" for measurements. What you're in effect saying is that you consider 99.62 ft. to be identical with 100.00 ft. for what you consider to be practical purposes. What happens when you retire and someone less willing to give away land owned by the State of Colorado sits in your chair?
> If you take a series of right-of-way markers and establish the centerline at each one, do you reestablish the centerline with a jog at each of the points, or do you calculate a best-fit (line or curve) between your established centerline points?
Well, this is a retracement problem. The engineer's centerline was a line that was actually surveyed on the ground and so was subject to the sort of errors that any actual survey of the period would have been. However, at no time in the 20th century were steel tapes incapable of measuring 100 ft. on flat ground with an accuracy of a couple of hundredths of a foot or less. So, pretending that somehow the surveyors couldn't measure 100.00 ft. any closer than 99.62 ft. is an unconvincing fiction.
As a retracement problem, one can certainly accept discrepancies attributable to the ordinary errors of careful surveyors of the period when the right-of-way was originally surveyed and taken.
> Although there are always the ones that are not where they are suppose to be ...
Yes, for example, while the overall control survey on Interstate Highway 35 back in the late 1950's was quite good, some of the placement of right-of-way markers was not. Marlton Metcalfe, a local surveyor, discovered back when the construction was fresh that one section of the right-of-way through South Austin had been monumented a foot too narrow, as I recall.
Then there is that rural highway favorite, the small-deflection angle point that got staked off the wrong tangent when the right-of-way markers at the angle points on the right-of-way lines were laid out.
Generally, I expect a right-of-way that was surveyed in the 1950's by the Austin District to be pretty good work. Aside from the occasional boo-boo, the main problem is how poorly the Type I markers have fared.
> I've found variance in the stationing just like the width. So what you are left with is a mathematical exercise to best fit the data to locate the center line and stationing. Depending on which data you decide to hold tight and which you let float the answer will come out different.
Actually, reconstructing the engineer's centerline usually isn't an essentially arbitrary exercise if you view it as a survey retracement problem. What was typically done in Texas was the centerline was actually run on the ground before construction began. It was surveyed, so the sort of ordinary errors of careful surveyors of the period using similar methods would be nothing out of the ordinary.
Curves were probably run on the tangents in most cases, and the curves laid in as a secondary operation. The right-of-way markers were typically built to locations staked off a centerline, but represent an accumulation of surveyor error and (mostly) contractor error.
> ....looking for standard drawings, but haven't turned one up. Do any Texas surveyors know how long the Type I markers were/are or where the standard drawings for them can be found?
[msg=124285]Deral's post from February[/msg] shows the Oklahoma version being 4'6" long.
>
Thanks. The standard Texas Highway Dept. Type I Right-of-Way Marker was tapered, with a base about 8" x 8" and a top about 4" x 4". That prevents the marker from being pulled up once the hole is backfilled and tamped, which was probably the purpose of the fill concrete around the base shown on the Okie standard.
A few pics of a Type I monument of that era.
> Yes, I think the fences on rural highways were typically constructed before the right-of-way markers were set. The fences were built to lines staked off the centerline.
I agree. Same here.
> So, mowing is how you determine rights-of-way in Colorado?
No.
> By "accepted", if you mean the State of Colorado's DOT has a policy of considering every right-of-way marker ever set by a contractor to be absolutely correct, that's another matter.
The DOT in and of itself does not have a written policy as to what they 'accept'. But remember, that contractor-set right-of-way marker was set by the same contractor that built that "road" that is in the "right place".
What is accepted is what maintence uses to, what they build fences off of, and what the adjoiners appear to accept to. I don't think I have seen homeowner's fences built past the concrete markers (except once when an adjoiner decided that the 150' right of way was really 66' because he had heard that somewhere. Even then, though, no one was worried about the 0.3' problems. It's those 20' or 42' problems that most are concerned about.
> That's administrative policy, not the construction of the deed.
I agree. I have a different standard of what I accept and use than you. (And I guarantee that a lot of surveyor's around here would agree with your methodology). I certainly don't try to dictate to any licensed surveyor how he reestablishes a right-of-way limit. But if I set my monuments I will generally sway toward accepting the existing original monumentation.
> Well, in Texas, right-of-way fences aren't exactly on the right-of-way line and, in any event, they are just fences. This isn't Green Bay, Wisconsin.
Same as in Colorado.
> I think you're confusing the term "math" for measurements. What you're in effect saying is that you consider 99.62 ft. to be identical with 100.00 ft. for what you consider to be practical purposes.
You are twisting my words to make me look foolish. I can look foolish without you, thank you very much. I don't consider 99.62 identical with 100.00'. That is why I would annotate both the original call, and my 'as measured'. (if I were annotating that distance). If I used "math" where I meant "measurements", I apologize. Sometimes I type faster than I think.
> What happens when you retire and someone less willing to give away land owned by the State of Colorado sits in your chair?
No one has to wait until I retire. someone can decide that their opinion of the existing right-of-way is 0.19 feet from each of those old monuments if they want.
Existing rights of way around here are established by licensed land surveyors. I have no power or desire to tell them how to retrace a land survey. Someone can fine-tune an existing right of way to the nearest 0.001' and say that the existing right-of-way marker is off 0.192' to the southeast of the true corner for all I care. Your starnet© software on a big wide corridor swath, is like applying a micrometer to the width of a building. Sorry, but the building isn't that accurate, and it depends on where you measure it, on how wide it is.
> Well, this is a retracement problem. The engineer's centerline was a line that was actually surveyed on the ground and so was subject to the sort of errors that any actual survey of the period would have been. However, at no time in the 20th century were steel tapes incapable of measuring 100 ft. on flat ground with an accuracy of a couple of hundredths of a foot or less. So, pretending that somehow the surveyors couldn't measure 100.00 ft. any closer than 99.62 ft. is an unconvincing fiction.
I would agree. I would look for evidence that implies that the original monument has moved if I came up with a discrepency like that, but if there isn't enough evidence to decide which marker is still accurate and in its original position, I am happy with the 0.19' discrepency from 'centerline'. The right of way is simply a huge swath of land snaking by neighboring properties. The highway department took what it needs, and the 0.2' (or 0.4 if you will) discrepency isn't enough to worry about in my opinion.
> As a retracement problem, one can certainly accept discrepancies attributable to the ordinary errors of careful surveyors of the period when the right-of-way was originally surveyed and taken.
I agree. I have seen a lot of highways and old highway staking notes. Some of the engineers were excellent surveyors and it is reflected in their notes and the existing monuments, and others weren't so great. I am willing to accept, however, old highway markers that have been set and stayed in their original position for 70 years. If we widen, we will accurately describe the new property/right-of-way limits and make our metes-and-bounds calls to the previous line making it a senior call over your nearest-meter distance.
Okay, I'll stop. I have dug my grave deep enough now. And I know better than to debate with you; so that shows what a real idiot I am. Right or wrong, you would make a good lawyer or politician. 😉
I look at this issue like this:
If the State could not be bothered to cause those things to be set within closer than 4 tenths then why should the adjoining landowner have to suffer?
The current retracing surveyor is not giving anything away; the State already did that decades ago when they used slipshod methods to mark their right-of-ways.