The correct real world answer to the problem you have been given is that more field work is needed before making a decision. If it were me i would take the data and start calculating points just to narrow down my search. The its time for a metal detector and a shovel.
Dan B. Robison, post: 377997, member: 34 wrote: Agree...there should be many more 'Type C' monuments still existing...
Tell the Professor he needs a better shovel.
Thats great
Looks like he brought his beach toys out there.
Ready for work!
Ready for work!!
Jim_H, post: 378051, member: 11536 wrote: Don't know about Oklahoma but in Washington, Absolutely! Permanent monuments are set after construction. (After streets and utilities, before houses.)
Same here.... and in some places they were never set. Some entire areas of municipalities were never set bc they never checked or followed up.
Paul in PA, post: 378048, member: 236 wrote: 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
Yes. This is why I'd never proportion something like this. We know corners had been set and lines already had been established. With all the mentioned data, there is some way to recreate the original lines as best possible and not create new lines (which is what proportioning basically does)
GeeOddMike, post: 378007, member: 677 wrote: 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
The math of proportioning is simple. Once we confirm the student has that ability; then we can study it. I always used cases where it was used and the court said it shouldn't have been. That's the most important lesson in the proportioning world, but it's not on the licensing exams.
TxSRVYR, post: 377876, member: 11744 wrote: 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
If you look at that from the only facts in evidence, where do you find an argument for proration ? And just to clarify, when it is mentioned that those three monuments are called for, I expect that, by implication, they hold their original position and are in the same excruciating mathematical harmony the plat describes.
It smacks of a minimalist interpretation and you won't get a harumph out of this field crew, but an uncalled for monument, that far out of position, is a fairly sad candidate for proration. As it stands, and without any further legal considerations (i.e. nothing else exists in the universe, save those four monuments, and a plat) The correct answer would be to remove that worthless rebar, and with a huge overhand toss, fling it into next week sometime. If the next chapter of the course fleshes out this scenario with more information you might have something then.
I'm sorry, I don't see any note on where the Lot 4/5 line hits the monument line on the as measured sketch, how far is it to the nearest monument?
That is just junk. Why are we teaching people from this type of thing? That's just teaching geometric games on the ground and has no connection to real boundary surveying.
This would be like a a law school question, "You are a prosecutor, the man has a gun in his hand, using only this information calculate what crime he is guilty of."
Dave Karoly, post: 378205, member: 94 wrote: I'm sorry, I don't see any note on where the Lot 4/5 line hits the monument line on the as measured sketch, how far is it to the nearest monument?
That is just junk. Why are we teaching people from this type of thing? That's just teaching geometric games on the ground and has no connection to real boundary surveying.
This would be like a a law school question, "You are a prosecutor, the man has a gun in his hand, using only this information calculate what crime he is guilty of."
He'd be guilty of possession of a firearm of course!
Perhaps this is an examination of how the student addresses the problem rather than there being a single correct answer. Thus, the correct answer is a serious of possible solutions based on specific assumptions for each solution. Say at least six possible answers based on six distinct set of assumptions.
I had a similar problem once in a graduate level mechanical engineering class that involved determining the heat load (need for A/C) for a house of a certain design in a specific location during a specific time frame with various known construction materials, etc. having been used in its construction. There was a potential for about a 20 percent difference in the final answers, all of which could be correct.
Holy Cow, post: 378209, member: 50 wrote: Perhaps this is an examination of how the student addresses the problem rather than there being a single correct answer. Thus, the correct answer is a serious of possible solutions based on specific assumptions for each solution. Say at least six possible answers based on six distinct set of assumptions.
Except the real point of an education is knowing what the wrong answer looks like. Trying to determine a boundary from a bare minimum of evidence in a subdivision that you know has a gross error in the layout is the wrong answer. The assumptions one might make are really just what one will plan to use as excuses when the ship hits the pan.
Alas, I received no more information. If you're curious I attached the final result.
TxSRVYR, post: 378220, member: 11744 wrote: Alas, I received no more information. If you're curious I attached the final result.
I missed the coordinate sheet on your initial post.
Given the information provided you don't have much choice. There isn't much point in proportioning to found centerline monuments; here the lots are usually laid out before the center line control goes in, at least temporarily.
TxSRVYR, post: 377876, member: 11744 wrote: 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.
The courts in California have held that a Plat is evidence of a Survey and Surveys set monuments therefore found lot corner monuments hold although not specifically called for on the Plat. It is very common here until recent years that lot corner monuments were set but never called out on the Plat. They are still original monuments. Therefore it would be deficient practice to not find those monuments if they exist.
' 
Tis a shame , that no more Type 'C' Monuments, where found or even searched for
In the world of boundary surveying, only a neophyte or a fool believes that there is one, and only one, valid solution to a complex boundary issue. Just because any one surveyor believes their opinion is the only one that counts does not change the fact that two or more perfectly coherent solutions may be of equal validity.
Holy Cow, post: 378230, member: 50 wrote: In the world of boundary surveying, only a neophyte or a fool believes that there is one, and only one, valid solution to a complex boundary issue. Just because any one surveyor believes their opinion is the only one that counts does not change the fact that two or more perfectly coherent solutions may be of equal validity.
I agree. Though, you need to have a good understanding of what the courts opinion would be.
Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk
TxSRVYR, post: 378233, member: 11744 wrote: I agree. Though, you need to have a good understanding of what the courts opinion would be.
Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk
The most important thing, often overlooked by Land Surveyors, is to be persuasive. Lots of people have opinions but opinions are not much use if the opinionator is not persuasive. If your opinion is founded in evidence and good analysis including having the correct reasons then you are more likely to be persuasive.
Just sitting in a witness chair and spewing forth fancy mathematical numbers isn't likely to persuade the Judge.
But having a good foundation of fundamental principles is necessary as Kent has pointed out in this thread. The found monuments do have to have some reasonable connection to the original survey beyond pure speculation.
