Just because it is an Urban area does not mean that a found iron 0.13 feet away from your calculated position is wrong. Mathematics is just numbers. Has the iron been relied upon? is it consistent with others in the vicinity? I have to disprove an iron before I would set another but yes if I disprove it, then set your own.
> NEVER utter the words, "You drew this wrong.". They didn't, you did or you did not clearly express your intent.
LOL - I think its safe to say "other people's mileage may vary" here.
>
> Time to put more numbers after the decimal place, not really. I always like the descriptions that had the unique fraction to indicate a more precise number for areas less than 1 acre, like 5.00266 acres = 5 and 1/376 acre"""""
5.00266 acres is larger than one acre. also,since one acre is 43560 sqft., what is wrong about listing the precision to an equivalent? there are places where it is that important to list to that precision, ie high price per square foot parcels. i have heard of questioning in courts that will attempt to discredit a plat because the area might be listed as, say 5.002 acres (217887.12 sqft), when 5.00266 acres is not equal (217985.87sqft). add in a possible scenario of a gap or overlap, and i feel this introduces an opportunity for your legal adversary to discredit your survey. does this make sense?
in a similar vein, we have been discredited in the past by computing curves and listing curve nomenclature as a 'rounded' number. since then, and whenever possible, we compute curves from the pc, then traverse squarely, then by delta to the pt. in this particular court case, we were discredited by a length of arc in a curve misquoted by two hundredths of a foot. honestly, i do not remember if said curve was computed through the long chord in the curve table, or some other condition. the curve was on the same plat page as the adversarys property, but not near it. didn't matter, seemed the court construed it as sloppy work, and it weakened our stance in the matter.
hope this makes sense. your feedback is appreciated
Let's be real. Is the construction contractor's work required to be precise to 0.003 feet? I don't think so. Maybe, if you are working on something like the Dubai monstrosity. Highly doubtful if you are doing a typical McDonald's parking lot.
> Whats everyones take on this scenario (URBAN AREA - every inch counts)
>
> Client hires me to stake the property corners for some kind of construction.(fence bldg, setbacks, neighbor war etc)
>
> I find an uncalled for ip/w tack 0.13 off the my final boundary resolution.
> This is not an original monument (there are none in the area)
>
> What do I do for my client
>
> 1. set the corner where I find it to be 0.13 away from another point
> or
> 2. tell them I can't set it but this point is "real close"
>
Why do you have a "final" boundary resolution before you've found and evaluated all of the available evidence?
Just because a monument does not appear in the public record does not make it invalid. It might be that it represents a valid establishment of the corner. At only 0.13' away from your calcs, that's likely the case.
The fact that you are so sure that the iron is wrong because 1) it's not found in record, and 2) it doesn't fall at your mathmagical coordinates, indicates that you probably don't have any idea how to properly evaluate field evidence of existing boundaries.
Have you determined who set it or when it was set? Have you attempted to? If you have no idea who set it, when it was set, why it was set, and by what field/calculation methods and reasoning it was set, you have very little by which to judge the monument. If you have not attempted to find out any of this information, the decision to reject the monument on positional criteria alone is negligent.
Have you considered the methods in use at the time it was set? What is the relative positional certainty of a monument set in that time period in this urban block? What is your positional certainty for the same corner? How do the two compare and what is the maximum difference that can be attributed to the random errors of each survey? If you're really concerned about 0.13', I really doubt that you can answer these questions. You might have a LSA printout that you can recite the positional certainty of your survey to me, but that's less than half the info you need just to answer the basic positional questions you must analyze if you are to reject a monument based upon position.
If you and the surveyor who set that iron each met the current ALTA positional standards (+/- 0.07'+50ppm), then you can expect anywhere between 0.00' & 0.10' of difference if the nearest controlling corner monument is within 100', and up to 0.13' if that nearest controlling corner is 400' away. Per the current ALTA standards, that means that a monument found within that range is statistically at the same location as your calculated point.
> #2 does not sit well with any clients I have come across
Why the heck are you letting your clients dictate your analysis of survey evidence?!? Didn't they hire you with the thought that you are the boundary expert? Maybe it's not so much the fact that a boundary dimension comes up an inch or two short that bothers them, but rather your uncertainty at how to analyze and deal with it. If you don't come across as a professional able to explain and advise, but rather more like a technician telling them about bad parts (corners out of position) that need to be replaced, it's a good bet that they'd be upset because they're wondering whether they made a good consultant hiring decision.
Whether or not my clients will be happy when my acceptance of a monument results in a slightly shorter dimension than record indicates for a course is immaterial if their concern is simply over the difference in dimensions. If they have some knowledge of the history of the monument, that knowledge is something I would consider in my analysis, but certainly not the only thing.
Whether the property is high-priced urban or lesser value in some other location does not change my method of analysis, and it shouldn't change yours. It might change your obligation as to the amount of time you will spend researching non-record points and other matters before deciding that the effort is no longer warranted. It will most liekly change some of the parameters of your analysis (likely expected errors in older surveys due to site conditions & methods). With modern equipment, your field methods should be basically the same whether in an urban setting or rural.
If your clients hired a boundary survey expert who is able to explain why a particular existing monument may or may not represent a corner position, rather than a skilled measurement tech, perhaps they would have less consternation about having to dictate the boundary location, and have more comfort that the boundary location was legally defensible.
If you are working in areas with such high real estate values that an inch and a half of difference on one boundary course is a make or break matter on a project, you had better study a bunch on the evaluation of evidence.
Sorry to be so harsh. But this rebuke, if it makes you consider the matters upon which boundary cases turn, will be far less expensive and embarrassing for you than having a court describe your survey as being performed negligently or incompetently because you considered only your measurements rather than the matters the court will need to consider. Of those things the court considers, if your measurements are considered at all, it will only be as a secondary issue to the extent that they might contribute to the legal analysis of the boundary location.
