TxSRVYR, post: 377976, member: 11744 wrote: 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.
Good luck with that!
Steve
Text book answer is prorate along the lines of found original monuments. At least that's what the exams are looking for.
So you would prorate corners along front from closest found monuments. In this case...basically nothing.
Then prorate the rears and connect the lines from corner to corner.
In real life.... you would most likely look like a fool doing so. Proration would be a last resort. If lines hadn't been run, couldn't ever possibly be found. Meaning no fences, old surveys etc. Some people prorate too much imo
Little more information:
The monuments in the street disagree with the monuments on the back line, including the Block corner, by over 2 feet when you build in the plat.
-The brass monuments in the street are called for on the plat
-The 1/2" in concrete is also called for on the plat
Found corner of lot 4/5 is also called for on the plat, just doesn't have a symbol in order to not busy up the drawing.
As mentioned, the textbook answer is to proportion, but in reality you would have to do more digging.
Jim_H, post: 377992, member: 11536 wrote: Found corner of lot 4/5 is also called for on the plat, just doesn't have a symbol in order to not busy up the drawing.
As mentioned, the textbook answer is to proportion, but in reality you would have to do more digging.
Agree...there should be many more 'Type C' monuments still existing...
Tell the Professor he needs a better shovel.
Jim_H, post: 377978, member: 11536 wrote: 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?
In Texas, in that situation the boundaries of a lot according to the subdivision plat will be controlled by the evidence of the original survey represented upon the subdivision plat. Unless there is some connection between some survey marker found and that original survey, it is not a controlling monument for the purposes of determining the original boundary of the lot.
Unless there is some documented connection between the monuments in the street and the original survey of the subdivision, they are just brass caps in the street set by unknown others for some unknown purpose. This is a modern subdivision that presumably does show some markers in place at the time of platting on the plat of record by reference to which lots were conveyed. That evidence is the object of search, not some bright and shiny object that is easy to find and tie by "RTKGPS".
I wouldn't even start looking at the found evidence without the remainder of the plat and a good look at the underlying data. Scour the plat and understabd every note and legend symbol. Ensure the crew used procedures to catch bad initializations. This is the real world professional choice.
Now back to the classroom. Proportion giving g the road full width, and send Mr. Prof out to search for more evidence. Tell him if the RTK comes out of the truck he's fired.
TxSRVYR, post: 377991, member: 11744 wrote: Little more information:
The monuments in the street disagree with the monuments on the back line, including the Block corner, by over 2 feet when you build in the plat.
-The brass monuments in the street are called for on the plat
-The 1/2" in concrete is also called for on the plat
Point of interest: Does anyone think that survey markers can be set in the center of an urban street right-of-way before any construction begins and still be there undisturbed after the underground utilities and the service connections are laid, streets are cut to subgrade, and pavements constructed on top of them?
FWIW,
As this is intended as a learning experience, perhaps the instructor intends to prompt questions rather than expecting the student to find one unique correct answer. When I prepared assignments and the like I tried to use them to push students to understand what was going on. I got a lot of flack from students when ambiguous answers were the outcome. I thought that was the way it was in the real world.
Good luck,
DMM
Kent McMillan, post: 378005, member: 3 wrote: Point of interest: Does anyone think that survey markers can be set in the center of an urban street right-of-way before any construction begins and still be there undisturbed after the underground utilities and the service connections are laid, streets are cut to subgrade, and pavements constructed on top of them?
This is one of the reasons I say look at the entire plat. Most projects here we set monuments after construction is substantially complete. That means pins in asphalt and concrete. Other times they are bonded and set up to a year after recording. During the late 90s the habit was set the pins, record the plat, build the street. Those are easy to identify as the center line monuments are gone or mangled and front corners are bent in line with the street. We can have a good idea what to expect based on the date and notes on the plat...
Kent McMillan, post: 378005, member: 3 wrote: Point of interest: Does anyone think that survey markers can be set in the center of an urban street right-of-way before any construction begins and still be there undisturbed after the underground utilities and the service connections are laid, streets are cut to subgrade, and pavements constructed on top of them?
Well no, but that's completely irrelevant. Those monuments ARE called for in the plat. The same can be said for any corner, most of which are set after construction.
Jim_H, post: 378018, member: 11536 wrote: Well no, but that's completely irrelevant. Those monuments ARE called for in the plat. The same can be said for any corner, most of which are set after construction.
Actually, none of the monuments called for on the plat have any identifying marks. "Non-corrosive [sic] metal plate" is how the markers in the streets were described.So what one is left with is a bright, new shiny brass monument that cannot definitely be identified as that shown on the record plat and that common sense and experience tells one is unlikely to be the same.
GeeOddMike, post: 378007, member: 677 wrote: I got a lot of flack from students when ambiguous answers were the outcome. I thought that was the way it was in the real world.
Yes, the real world has an endless supply of situations where the problem is ill stated and the surveyor's first task is to figure out what the real problem actually is.
Jim_H, post: 378018, member: 11536 wrote: Well no, but that's completely irrelevant. Those monuments ARE called for in the plat. The same can be said for any corner, most of which are set after construction.
Okay, so in Oklahoma a subdivision plat calling for monuments "set", using the past tense, really means "to be eventually set some day" or is the plat something that is actually filed after the streets and utilities are in place and the lots have houses on them?
Either way, the test remains identifying which survey markers are those shown upon the plat by reference to which the lots were presumably conveyed. Without identifying marks that would definitely identify any marker in the entire subdivision, it woud take considerably more evidence than is presented as what the supposed field work turned up.
Is the back line along the original property line? Do the corners on the other side of the road match the R/W width? Do the back corners on the other side of the road fit to the center line of the road? I have seen the road in a S/D be out as much as 16 feet. Of course locally, the center line of the road is not monumented. The loan surveyor comes in an presto the right of way is 30 feet from the road center line. What do you do if the prorated line does not match lines of possession? The evidence that you provided is not sufficient to make an informed decision. More field work would be required for me to make a decision.
Kent McMillan, post: 377998, member: 3 wrote: In Texas, in that situation the boundaries of a lot according to the subdivision plat will be controlled by the evidence of the original survey represented upon the subdivision plat. Unless there is some connection between some survey marker found and that original survey, it is not a controlling monument for the purposes of determining the original boundary of the lot.
I think we're arguing the same point. The difference is that I presumed the brass caps were original to the plat (because the poster said so). I don't know what non-corrosive plates are supposed to be. I've never seen that before.
Jim_H, post: 378040, member: 11536 wrote: The difference is that I presumed the brass caps were original to the plat (because the poster said so). I don't know what non-corrosive plates are supposed to be. I've never seen that before.
The way that the problem was presented was "This is all the information you've got to decide how to reestablish the corners of some particular lot shown on the plat."
The plat describes the monuments in the street as "non-corrosive metal plate" which means a metal plate that does not cause corrosion. Since this is Oklahoma, it's probably safe to guess that they really meant "non-corrosible metal plate", but the call itself is otherwise. What is recovered is described as "Found Brass Monument" on the sketch provided. There is nothing on its face that connects what was found with what is shown on the plat other than the mention of metal and the concept of not causing corrosion. Brass, of course, does corrode. Add to that the common sense observation that monuments on the centerlines of streets are unlikely to have been set prior to development and where is the evidence that would support the claim that the "brass monuments" found on the supposed centerline are the monuments shown upon the plat of record?
One has to consider that street lines, curbs and EPs, multiple house corners and storm sewers in easements are all monuments to the original survey and plat. If all that is parallel front and back and the house side lines are perpendicular to same you have little reason to skew side lot lines for some errant monuments. Without all that additional information the professional can not render an honest opinion.
Paul in PA
In some jurisdictions a part of the sub-dividing process is that after the streets and utilities are put in that survey control markers for the subdivision be set at angle points and radius points if that is the case and it is called out on the plat thecourts have usually considered them to be controlling.
Kent McMillan, post: 378024, member: 3 wrote: Okay, so in Oklahoma a subdivision plat calling for monuments "set", using the past tense, really means "to be eventually set some day" or is the plat something that is actually filed after the streets and utilities are in place and the lots have houses on them?
Don't know about Oklahoma but in Washington, Absolutely! Permanent monuments are set after construction. (After streets and utilities, before houses.)
