How would you set the front corners on this if this was all the information you had?
I wouldn't
Lol. I have to. The scenario is i am the PLS and ive been hired to stake the property lines. I sent a crew to survey the property corners in the area. This is what I got back. I can proportion the back corners, but im not sure if I should calc the front corners from the new back corners or from the street monuments.
First of all, I have never seen a plat shown to that degree of precision. Bearings to a decimal of a second, distances to the thousanth?
Secondly, I wouldn't use RTK to locate corners that close.
Thirdly, assuming there was reason to believe the found points were original to the plat, I'd proportion between all found monuments giving the full R/W width.
The good news is you only need to proportion 0.003' for the frontage!
TxSRVYR, post: 377860, member: 11744 wrote: Lol. I have to. The scenario is i am the PLS and ive been hired to stake the property lines. I sent a crew to survey the property corners in the area. This is what I got back. I can proportion the back corners, but im not sure if I should calc the front corners from the new back corners or from the street monuments.
Well are the lots owned by the same individual or multiple owners. Is the rear monumentation original to the original to the subdivision. In fact does the subdivision boundary match the original parcel. Is there no other available evidence? There a many other factors to consider then 4 found points.
The information provided is not adequate enough to make an informed decision.
That's what I would tell the class professor.
My crew would catch major heat if that's what they brought back in a real life situation.
Original corner monuments?? Recover same. Retrace established lines/corners first...proportion last...
NOTE the plat symbols...only phase angle points and row centerline COULD be per ORIGINAL subdividing survey??
What book is your class using?
DDSM:beer::beer:
It easy to say proportion the rear and hold the front, but with out more evidence I wouldn't feel comfortable with that solution.
No book. The street corners and the back block corner are called for, but the common corner of lot 4 and 5 has no call on the plat. I agree about tge crew. I'd send my crew back out to find more corners on the frontage line, but alas, this is all I get.
You mentioned this being for a class...I assumed it was being taught out of a book. I was wondering if it was a book like Hodgman's little Manual or some other Engineering text book...
DDSM:beer:
Ahh. Its a capstone class, so its a combo of all my surveying classes, but my boundary books were Boundary control and Legal principles and the PLSS manual 2009.
Dan B. Robison, post: 372254, member: 34 wrote: Maybe a little old, but covers the basics...
A Manual of Land Surveying, Francis Hodgman
https://books.google.com/books?id=R...al of land surveying, francis hodgman&f=false
DDSM:beer::beer::beer:
Rumor has it that Justice Cooley had this book in mind...
Does one of the back corners fit the centerline mons better than the other? Perhaps a case can be made that the outlier has been displaced. A look at lines of occupation would be warranted.
If it's surveying class then they just want to see if you can prorate. So do so. Real world this is last resort. Please round to the nearest second and hundredth. You're hurting my eyes.
Steve
sjc1989, post: 377968, member: 6718 wrote: Please round to the nearest second and hundredth. You're hurting my eyes.
For reals!
Hahaha. I agree! I am annoyed seeing plats with data to the thousanths and decimal seconds and thousanths of acres.
I can prorate the back corners, but im wondering how I should calc the front. Should I go brg and dist from the new back cor. Or build the corners back in from the street control.
TxSRVYR, post: 377860, member: 11744 wrote: Lol. I have to. The scenario is i am the PLS and ive been hired to stake the property lines. I sent a crew to survey the property corners in the area. This is what I got back.
The professional answer, of course is that what you've been provided isn't sufficient to give a professional opinion.
There are no uncertainties attached to the RTKGPS coordinates. They are just numbers obtained by magic, it would appear, with no indication whether they have standard errors of +/-1m, +/-0.1m, or +/-1cm.
There is nothing presented that would connect any of the survey markers found with the subdivision plat. The markers in the street were obviously set after the subdivision construction was completed, but presumably the subdivision was laid out before construction began. So which represent the survey shown upon the plat? Only the rebar in concrete at the "NE Cor Lot 10" could possibly be an original corner unless there is something shown on the subdivision plat to indicate otherwise.
In the real world, unless one is just a cog in a defective surveying machine cranking out El Cheapo Surveys, it would be time to get a sufficient amount of information to actually form a defensible opinion.
I agree with all if you. I'm going to ask my proffessor once more to go back out to the field and search for more corners.
Kent McMillan, post: 377973, member: 3 wrote: The markers in the street were obviously set after the subdivision construction was completed, but presumably the subdivision was laid out before construction began. So which represent the survey shown upon the plat? Only the rebar in concrete at the "NE Cor Lot 10" could possibly be an original corner unless there is something shown on the subdivision plat to indicate otherwise.
Wait, what? What evidence would you hope to find in order to reject the brass caps in the center of the street? Is it more importantant to be consistant with other surveyors or proving them wrong?
