Well stated Leon.
Good night, gotta go to bed.
Well, all writing is like that. That's why there's value in a mentor or teacher to enable the student to get the most out of a writing.
I agree his writing style in articles is combative and has rubbed me the wrong way in the past. But the information is usually really good. And I finally attended one of his "shows" and enjoyed it very much. Several of my graduates had multiple questions about things he said during the seminar. Many classes do not generate much in the way of further thought.
His articles and now the book generate an awful lot of discussion on these boards. Maybe his style is what it takes to get through to a bunch of us hardheaded surveyors.
It would be hard to disagree with the central premise that there are too many who approach retracement as a metes staking only enterprise rather than an investigation. The problem stems partly from lack of training and education but also from economics. Investigations are costly and demand high level thinking and reasoning, legal analysis and research are costly and demand high level thinking and reasoning. Mere measurement and staking is comparetively cheap and forthright in this context (not talking about complex construction projects).
So in the real world those not performing the same level of investigation, research, analysis but rather staking the metes of a description tend to be awarded more of the work. Rather than meaning that most surveyors don't know this stuff, it may mean simply that those that don't are the most prolific providers because of economic competition. Which is a vicious circle, because the best will move on to other professions or feel forced to compete by lowering standards. And these standards cannot be enforced through MTS, they are professional judgment related. They can only be impacted by licensing requirements.
So at least he's writing and talking about it; not much else one can do.
One of the most difficult aspects of writing a book on surveying is that we all come from vastly different areas of the country where things are done differently. It has become obvious to me that some surveyors paint with a very wide brush when they have never even set foot in a particular state. I have personally become humbled when I ignorantly thought that how I felt on a particular topic should or must be felt the same by other surveyors, when in fact I was only speaking from my own experience in my own little isolated neck of the woods.
I have attended seminars in my state that were put on by the various speakers who came to Nebraska from far away places and talked about procedure and it seemed so foreign. One speaker then just kept saying "In such in such state this is how we do it". If a Nebraska surveyor was to write a book on surveying it would be of more interest and help to me than from someone from Alabama who has never worked here. Just saying...
Well, that was a thoughtful analysis. Thank you, Duane. I'm more inclined to get the book now.
Don
As usual a very insightful response. Thanks
Keith:
I can show you surveying textbooks that state exactly that. Textbooks they teach new aspiring surveyors out of.....
While in San Diego, attending the ACSM conference, I was made the honorable recipient of Jeff's author's proof copy of "The Pincushion Effect" which he kindly autographed for me. I've been ravaging the pages at every opportunity since. I must say that it is a well-written and thoughtful portrayal of the pincushion problem that has become the bane of our profession.
The book, while centralizing on the theme of pincushions, is really a book about boundary law. It's a book about fundamental principles that all surveyors should study and learn to apply in their daily determinations of boundary locations. It's filled with practical applications in a variety of the different survey systems throughout the country.
I've still got quite a bit of reading to do before I could offer any substantive analysis of the book but, so far, I'm quite impressed with the content and presentation. It is a Jeff Lucas book and written much in the Jeff Lucas style. That may continue to offend some while it serves its purpose to encourage others. Surveyors need to grow some skin, look at this problem head on, and stop attempting to justify their insensitivity to the pincushion problem.
My hat's off to Jeff for having the fortitude to bring such a message to our profession at such an opportune time. I highly recommend it as a "must read" to every surveyor.
JBS
Thanks for the coupon code. My copy is now on order.
Jeff Lucas sometimes seems to grade off a bit into simplification and over-emphasis.
I think I can explain it.
It's certainly understandable when, as an actual example, you examine an ALTA plat of a large commercial multi-million dollar property, and find the NW corner, which is a Township corner described: "set 1" dia. steel pipe with cap marked "PSxxxx" at township corner, from which a stone bears N27-22-03W a distance of 0.32 feet". The stone was set in the 1850's by the County Surveyor to perpetuate the 1807 township corner.
As Dave Barry used to say, I am not making this up.
How else do we deal with work like this? How else do we get through to these people?
> How else do we deal with work like this? How else do we get through to these people?
[flash width=480 height=390] http://www.youtube.com/v/eKPcvzGZuiM?version=3&hl=en_US [/flash]
You can't do that anymore.
You would need an aluminum bat.
I searched the Lexus legal database (all appellate cases from US courts) and failed to find the terms ‘pincushion,’ ‘pin-cushion,’ or ‘pin cushion’ which tells me there is not a body of law specifically addressing this issue.
daw
UH Professor Emeritus
"which tells me there is not a body of law specifically addressing this issue."
Sure there is. But, point taken; and held.
> I searched the Lexus legal database (all appellate cases from US courts) and failed to find the terms ‘pincushion,’ ‘pin-cushion,’ or ‘pin cushion’ which tells me there is not a body of law specifically addressing this issue.
>
Did you try searching for "rebar forest" or "pin farm?" ;o)
Try searching for "erro* w/4 monument*" That'll likely bring up a number of multiple monument cases.
JBS
search "erro* w/4 monument*"
brings up:
Dykes v. Arnold 2004
and
Eisenbarth v. Horn 2009
Dykes has been debated to death on survey boards.
Eisenbarth I hadn't read before but directly involves a marker determined to be about 30 feet in error accepted by some surveyors and not others. A two marker pin cushion so to speak. There is a ton of case law cites in this case from 2009. Seems to me the court was trying to reprint the book for some one to use (maybe surveyors?).
JBStahl?
What do you get on LexisOne if you pay above the free stuff?
Original Surveys in Texas
As long as you aren't confusing the original surveyor with some later surveyor after the boundary is created who merely happens to be the first one to drive a stake in the ground to mark an originally protracted corner, that's fine. Since the topic was pin cushions, I thought you were.
The pin cushion discussions usually deal with the latter case mentioned above, not that of original monuments referenced in the instrument of writing that created the subject boundary.
There's not enough room in a magazine article to fully flesh out the issues. When I read any article in a surveying magazine which discusses legal issues, I look at the magazine as a sort of highlighter by commentary.
If it's an issue I have interest in, I use the article as a launching point for my own research. I think that's what Jeff and the authors of similar articles intend them to be, and consider the article a success if it serves as a starting point from which other surveyors begin their own research.
If you are expecting to be spoon fed with a full indepth discussion and explanation of the issues, including discussions of various fact sets which fit the general rule and those which show the exceptions to the rule, all packaged in a neat package to be absorbed in 20 minutes worth of reading, then you are bound to be disappointed.
If you want that kind of in depth analysis of issues, there are a few books which might work for you: Clark, Forensic Procedures, and there's a new one, The Pincushion Effect which will probably fit the bill.
I agree Duane. Jeff incorporates a combative showmanship into both his seminars and his articles, which some take offense to, but it does help to generate discussion, even if much of it is just the shallow, non-analytic "I don't like him or what he says so he must be wrong" kind of comments. But behind the somewhat bombastic style is a good deal of substance.
Jerry Broadus, who wrote the pedecessor "Surveyor and the Law" series in POB, also presented some really good information and analysis, but I don't remember a whole lot of discussion of his articles at the office or at the chapter meetings. It might have been different if we had the internet then. But then again, There's a whole lot more discussion on this forum about Jeff's articles than there is about the similar articles by other authors in the other magazines and journals combined.
Thanks, TC. Saved $17!
The most important thing probably is the ability to shepardize (lexus) or keycite (westlaw). Kind of important to know if the point of law you are relying on has been overturned, modified by other cases or new legislation, distinguished on differing facts, cited over and over in other cases (thereby solidifying it) etc..
This is not a level of research that surveyors could reasonably be expected to go to. However, attorneys have been found negligent for not finding this type of information. In the past, surveyors have only been expected to use secondary sources such as Clark, Brown/Robillard, etc.. But this might change if free internet legal research becomes commonly available and commonly used in the profession.
