One of the things I did in the field today was to set a rod and cap at the true corner of a property that adjoins one I'm surveying. It's a senior tract that was conveyed in 1940 by a metes and bounds that definitely appears to have been the result of a survey. All prior conveyances of the parcel that is the subject of my work call for the boundary of the senior tract.
So, I found 3/8" Iron Rod No. 159 in place and set a new Rod and Cap 1.39 ft. away from it on the line of the strip of land sold to the State of Texas for a highway before the 1940 conveyance.
So, why do that?
Actually, the corner of the senior parcel as described in the 1940 deed wasn't the 3/8" Iron Rod at all. It was Cedar Post No. 158. So the boundary of the senior parcel was simply projected through the original monument, the Post, for 4.75 ft. to intersect the line of the strip sold to the State of Texas.
The 3/8" Iron Rod was just more trash from later surveys, probably in the mid-1980's, that missed both the highway right-of-way line and the boundary of the adjoining parcel sold in 1940.
So are you are saying that the cedar stake and rock pile were set to be the original corner but the intent was to set it on the Senior Parcel line? Rather than to perpetuate the error by having a +4 foot gap you set a new corner?
> So are you are saying that the cedar stake and rock pile were set to be the original corner but the intent was to set it on the Senior Parcel line? Rather than to perpetuate the error by having a +4 foot gap you set a new corner?
This is actually a different corner than the one I posted about the other day.
Here, the cedar post (that isn't a cedar stake, it's a fence post with very old 5-strand barb wire fence under the later addition of the chain link fabric) was called for as the NW corner of the parcel sold off in 1940. The deed calls for it to be on the line of the highway, but it is short of that. The call for the highway expresses a clear intention, so the West line as defined by the original monuments, an elm tree and the cedar post, is understood as extending to reach the highway under the proper construction of the deed. (The 3/8" iron rod is just another piece of ferrous trash.)
Ok I am with you. I commonly have to do the same thing. Constructing the right of ways properly is a continuous issue. So often the right of way on the last plat is taken as gospel instead of the actual right of way deed. Of course, quickie dicky does not have time to do anything but split the roadway and pull a distance at the property limits instead of locating enough roadway and monumentation to accurately determine the intent of the right of way deed. A problem we have in Georgia is that our state DOT maintains that right of way monuments are inferior evidence to the roadway centerline. Monuments are set by contractors who notoriously care little about their accuracy.
I appreciate the fact that you are taking the time and putting out the effort to analyze each situation and render your professional opinion. I doubt that we would always agree on the results; however, I believe we are in agreement on the process.
Did you use the McMillan Intui-Flo(R) INTP computational service to compute that intersection location?
that thing turbo-charged?
That will be in the next release.
>
> The 3/8" Iron Rod was just more trash from later surveys, probably in the mid-1980's, that missed both the highway right-of-way line and the boundary of the adjoining parcel sold in 1940.
Well, what is your assumption on the instrumentation of the mid 80s survey?
being a rural tract, it may have been transit/theodolite chain or early TS.
The position tolerance for a rural tract would have been acceptable then and now for lowest class surveys.
You have mentioned that the state ROW monuments were spot which is always contraire in my world.
I'm not disagreeing with your "true" corner but all in all the 3/8" bar was pretty close considering you did not find a beer can. 😉
INTP?
Interactive Notational Ticonderoga Pencil
> > The 3/8" Iron Rod was just more trash from later surveys, probably in the mid-1980's, that missed both the highway right-of-way line and the boundary of the adjoining parcel sold in 1940.
>
> Well, what is your assumption on the instrumentation of the mid 80s survey?
Considering that the original corner was the fence post about 4.75 ft. away, I'd say the instrumentation is not that critical an issue. As for constructing the right-of-way, the nearest marker is 121.89 ft. distant. It's plumb and intact and the one on the opposite side of the 100 ft. wide right-of-way at the same station is 100.03 ft. distant. The right-of-way was well surveyed and well marked and remains so.
> being a rural tract, it may have been transit/theodolite chain or early TS.
The instrumentation is unlikely to be the issue with the 80's vintage survey. There were surveyors in practice in the 1940's who could have set a marker in the position where I did and with only transit and tape. The issue is quickie-dickie carelessness and quickie-dickie negligible level of research.
> The position tolerance for a rural tract would have been acceptable then and now for lowest class surveys.
Not being able to set a corner 4.75 ft. from a controlling monument any closer than 1.39 ft. is acceptable in Looziana? Is this in anticipation of giving all carpenters and realtors licenses to survey? :>
> You have mentioned that the state ROW monuments were spot which is always contraire in my world.
The Texas Highway Department generally did a pretty great job of surveying rights-of-way from the late 1930's through the 1950's in the districts where I've surveyed.
>
> The Texas Highway Department generally did a pretty great job of surveying rights-of-way from the late 1930's through the 1950's in the districts where I've surveyed.
it is my belief that the appropriate grammar would be 'surveying right-of-ways'. dictionaries generally indicate either can be used, but in the above context, the intent would be many ways=right-of-ways, as opposed to many rights within the same way=rights of way.
The Myers-Briggs Personality type INTP=Introversion, iNtuition, Thinking, Perceiving
> it is my belief that the appropriate grammar would be 'surveying right-of-ways'. dictionaries generally indicate either can be used, but in the above context, the intent would be many ways=right-of-ways, as opposed to many rights within the same way=rights of way.
But a right-of-way is fundamentally a right of use, not a specific pavement or condition of improvement. I agree that rights-of-way sounds less German than right-of-ways. Possibly a better analysis is that the word "right-of-way" is a compound noun with hyphens and the plural of compound nouns is formed by adding an "s" at the end of the hyphenated string. Singular: hole-in-one, Plural: hole-in-ones.
> Did you use the McMillan Intui-Flo(R) INTP computational service to compute that intersection location?
LOL. Actually the INTP methodology was in the assembly of the analysis from which the computation was made. Intuitives generally do a much better job of that than the Sensing types do.
> it is my belief that the appropriate grammar would be 'surveying right-of-ways'. dictionaries generally indicate either can be used, but in the above context, the intent would be many ways=right-of-ways, as opposed to many rights within the same way=rights of way.
Right of way is an open compound noun: "right" is the noun, "of way" is a prepositional phrase. You pluralize the noun
Particularly, I was referring to the 30 year old 3/8ths rural rebar. Being 1 foot or so given the nature of the terrain and climate here isn't that bad for that time.
how far is it offset from the ROW line?
You referred to it as trash and I thought that was a little harsh. But you seem to always have some conclusive opinion about how former surveys were conducted on your projects. It's like that you were there and witnessed the proper surveys in some eerie way. Just sayin'
In Louisiana,I tie old ROW markers and expect the worse.
The question is...How close would be close enough to accept it? 1 ft, 1/2 ft, 0.04'? Considering that it is some 20 years old and likely has been accepted by the owners...why would it suddenly become "bad" because Kent comes along?
> The question is...How close would be close enough to accept it? 1 ft, 1/2 ft, 0.04'? Considering that it is some 20 years old and likely has been accepted by the owners...why would it suddenly become "bad" because Kent comes along?
There is no evidence at all that the 3/8" Iron Rod as been "accepted" by the adjoining landowners. No improvements have been built to it and it appeared in no conveyance of record until last year's RTK survey which used it, not because it was described in any record, but because it was ... an iron pin with some faded surveyor's ribbon on it!
As for how close, when quickie-dickie surveys are involved, that never seems to come into play. Obviously, the limiting factor will be the fact that the corner is marked by an old cedar fence post. Probably +/-0.10 ft. is reasonable since you can do that by eye with a plumb bob.
who performed the RTK survey and in what capacity?
> Particularly, I was referring to the 30 year old 3/8ths rural rebar. Being 1 foot or so given the nature of the terrain and climate here isn't that bad for that time.
Well, the reality is that any person who owns a plumb bob in good adjustment could have extended the line running to the fence post by eye within 0.10 ft. for alignment. So the 3/8" iron rod wasn't a serious effort at all.
> how far is it offset from the ROW line?
Well, let's put it this way, the description by which the land has been conveyed since 1971 calls for the corner to be the corner of the senior adjoiner on the right-of-way line at a distance of 121.5 ft. from a concrete right-of-way marker that survives, intact and plumb. The 3/8" Iron Rod is 122.95 ft. distant from the right-of-way marker and is more than 0.5 ft. off the right-of-way line.
The true corner of the senior adjoining parcel at the intersection of its West line with the right-of-way line is 121.89 ft. from the concrete right-of-way marker.
In other words, just blindly using the deed calls for course and distance from the right-of-way marker, and without bothering to locate the line of the senior tract, would have put the corner within 0.39 ft. of where it is on the ground.
It is a straight pull with a tape between the points.
> You referred to it as trash and I thought that was a little harsh.
An 8" long piece of 3/8" rebar 1.39 ft. away from where a corner really is pretty much is trash. It is unlikely to see 2015. I've left it in place until the parties come to an agreement, but it basically is just clutter to fool careless surveyors.
