In the current issue of The American Surveyor magazine, Chad Erickson has written a very astute article that everyone should read, think about, and then read again. It is a very good follow up to his previous article entitled “Einstein on Surveying”.
Yes Chad, I agree, the dead log needs to be removed – and the quicker the better.
Wow! Pretty hard-hitting.
There were several opinions stated that I would take exception to, but they are welcome to their opinions.
Agreed, great article! I was wondering if he also wrote “Einstein on Surveying” another great article. Jp
> In the current issue of The American Surveyor magazine, Chad Erickson has written a very astute article that everyone should read, think about, and then read again. It is a very good follow up to his previous article entitled “Einstein on Surveying”.
I think I have the current issue: Vol. 10, Issue 3, but I am not finding an article written by Chad Erickson. What am I missing?
So, you're okay with a surveyor stubbing in a monument over your property line and it is a new property line if you don't see it and challenge it right away? I fail to see why it would take a licensed professional to perform this stubbing service. I do see why it might take a licensed professional to recognize that an improper stubbing service has been provided.
Seems like an article written by someone who rightfully lost a case based on improper surveying practices. If a line is delineated by survey, another surveyor can not just change it by ignoring it. Talk about chaos.
But, I could be wrong.
I read that it was the original monument that was stubbed in. The PE/LS was unaware of or ignored the locally known history of the original surveys of the area and re-established the corner by abandoning the investigative phase of his boundary survey in favor of the simple mathemagical method of calculating and staking a midpoint.
The author, aware of the history of the local original surveys, performed an effective site investigation to find the original, stubbed in monument. I presume that the author performed the proper redundancies in his measurements.
Whether the original GLO surveyors strayed from proper methodologies or not is irrelevant at this point as to the validity of the corners they established. They were the originals, and their surveys were accepted. Therefore the monuments they set, however and wherever they set them fixed the corners they purported to mark.
So the author took all of that into account and found the original corner position.
Yeah, I'm OK with that.
:good:
What is wrong with asking the opinion of elder surveyors? Elder might not only mean 'older' but those more 'experienced' in a certain area. If the task is to 'follow in the footsteps of the original'...should we not be aware of 'stepping on the toes' of those who have already followed?
If one said he did...and another said he found what he did...etc...etc...
and here I come...generations after...and found a footprint...why would I use COGO mathematics to put everything in...CHAOS?
DDSM:beer:
If that's the case I agree. I read it that they accepted a stub in that did not agree with original GLO. There may be reasons to hold the stub in, in that case, but it would require other evidence and be for a reason other than following footsteps of the "original".