RE: courts opinion...the corner is a physical location not a theoretical measurement. That's my opinion also. That's the rub in surveying. theoretical measurement vs physical location.
In the case Blakeman has a lease and option to purchase a 20' wide building two blocks east of Union Square. The buyer of the Lot on his east (Rosenstock) offered to put $2,000 into escrow in exchange for a quitclaim Deed from Blakeman and the owner, Miller, to a strip theoretically within Miller's title. Blakeman and Miller agreed and it was done. Then Miller was ordered to grant the Blakeman building to Blakeman but of course they used the record title description. After that Miller quitclaimed the corrosponding strip on Blakeman's west to Young probably because Young saw $$$ signs.
Young argued that Blakeman was estopped from claiming the strip because he had elected to accept the record location of his 20 foot lot in his transaction with Rosenstock. Young also argued that a transfer using the record description cancelled the prior agreed boundary location.
Justice Shaw demolishes both of these arguments in his majority opinion in addition to explaining the reasons for accepting established boundaries.
Be careful with a tape in Tenths and Inches, that is one piece of equipment I try to avoid buying.
But the engineers like pipe sizes in inches!
I agree, I would report measured vs record for surveys, then RTK showed up and as I retrace them and find sectional surveys within a tenth and a few seconds of arc, I begin to show the first retracement on corner records on my plat and leave off my 2 second change along the section line.
I also have some new subdivisions of 40 acre tracts with a breakdown from the early 2000's RTK surveys and see .05' around the figure, I leave it all alone. R&M (Record and Measured) for the notation.
I even returned a half township of well plats using the BLM retracement as record. They have come into the 21st century and began using GPS for their surveys, I would match the found monuments perfectly. Of course nearest minute and .01 chains isn't much of a standard but why change it.
reporting a number you didn't measure doesn't provide any benefit to anyone
not anyone?
Sounds like it is time to once again remind everyone that in retracement work the goal of the metes is to get us to the bounds. ?ÿNot some infinitesimal spot on the bound that YOU swear is the correct spot. ?ÿThe bound is the monument and controls, so long as it clearly has not suffered abuse such that it is unusable. ?ÿ
The entire bound is the monument. ?ÿ87 different survey crews may desire to report 87 different TRUE corners. ?ÿHorsefeathers (or something similar). ?ÿWe must break ourselves of such foolish thought.
?ÿ
BTW, this reminds me of a deed description for a tract somewhere in North Carolina that was shown to me many years ago. ?ÿOne boundary line was to run to a cucumber. ?ÿAs I had no idea there was something known as a cucumber tree, I was imagining the futility of searching for a cucumber more than a week after it was used as a monument.
Another silly thing I see today is some surveyors being incapable of establishing standard dimensions with parallel sides. ?ÿThe client wants a tract that is 200 feet by 200 feet and square. ?ÿThe surveyor creates the tract with sides reported as being something like 199. 97 or 200.02 feet and the bearings vary by 10 to 30 seconds or more. ?ÿThat makes our profession appear to be one that gives licenses to ***********'s.
?ÿ
Everything you say is correct, but what does it have to do with reporting what you actually measure or not?
Each surveyor needs to decide what is reportable. ?ÿShowing disagreement with someone else by ridiculously small angles and distances is little more than trying to boost one's own ego. ?ÿThat should not be condoned or encouraged.
We are not nearly as precise as we like to think we are.
The bound is the monument and controls, so long as it clearly has not suffered abuse such that it is unusable.
I'm sure that works fine in the level terrain of southeastern Kansas.?ÿ In the mountainous terrain where I work, my rule is slightly different.?ÿ The Act of April 28, 1904 states that the lands patented are, "bounded by the lines actually marked, defined and established upon the ground by the monuments of the official survey...." and the said monuments as originally established by the U.S. Mineral Surveyor, "shall at all times constitute the highest authority as to what land is patented."
To your "not suffered abuse such that it is unusable" I'd add that the field evidence I find does not dispute that the monument is still in its originally established position.
?ÿ
Rocks got feet and know how to use them. Who woulda thunk of such things?
Pledging their love to the ground!
Lonely, but free, I'll be found
Drifting along with the tumblin' gneiss monuments
Nowhere to go, but I'll find
Just where the trail will wind
Drifting along with the tumblin' gneiss monuments
When I was a punk ranch kid, my dad would sent my brother and I out with pitchforks after a strong windstorm.?ÿ Our task was to walk along the barb wire fence at the end of the meadow pitching all the tumbleweeds over the fence.?ÿ
I much prefer looking for ambulatory gneissic stones that are "walking" down the mountainside due to talus creep*.?ÿ
*I didn't want to whip out some letters and add them to my name, but you made me do just that....sigh! ?ÿ C.E. Kooper, PLS, PG!?ÿ ????
ETA: I listened to the Sons of The Pioneers a lot when I was young.?ÿ The local radio station in Alliance, NE was KCOW!?ÿ No kidding, KCOW!
That is true about culverts, and sewer lines, and we do have a tape in inches for that. However a dual tape just seems to cause problems. If a house doesn't close is it out of square, did the crew read inches instead of tenths, did they miss measure,and why didnt they check to see if the house closed before they drove off? At least I can know they didnt measure in inches.
0.38
two things about this are hilarious: 1. The shortest line subtended by this point is 880?? long. 2. Only ever seen square bolts set around here by one entity. 99.9999999% sure the City of Austin pincushioned this corner. That pipe, as described, is in 70+ years of deeds.
Ahh, I see where you are coming from. I think you are looking at it wrong though. When we report a line that is say 0.03' different than the record. That is an agreement with the record. There is no question that the recovered corner is the original, it is undisturbed (in any material way)?ÿ and there was no blunder. Its basic statistics?ÿ
Unless we are doing a "paper survey", what is reportable is our best estimate of the true value of the bearing and the distance, not some other surveyors measurement.?ÿ That's one reason why many report measured and record on every line. When I see every line matching record, I suspect, usually correctly, that the lines were never surveyed. Although, that probably varies by region, and in a region where your method is common, that suspicion would go out the window.
In many states doing it the way you do it is not allowed by the minimum standards. As an example in New Mexico, a boundary survey plat must show, "the boundary being surveyed including the dimensions as measured on the ground and the record dimensions unless the two are equivalent in which case it shall be so stated; all dimensions which pertain to the determination of the tract boundaries, and a tie to a suitable, permanent, existing monument;"?ÿ (bolding by me)
?ÿ
"unless the two are equivalent"
?ÿ
As mentioned before, we are not nearly as precise as we would like to think. ?ÿMany, many times they are equivalent. ?ÿPlus it got you to the bound. ?ÿIf it is on the bound, it got the job done. ?ÿThere is no need to create chaos.
?ÿ
Years ago I started the reference here (in an early site name) to the 0.04' dilemma. ?ÿThere were three bars set in creating a tract. ?ÿA few years later a different surveyor came along and hit the two end bars precisely but decided the middle bar was off by 0.04 to one side. ?ÿHe was creating an?ÿadjoining tract. ?ÿThe result is that there is a bizarre little piece of earth that goes from zero width to a 0.04' width several hundred feet away then narrows back to zero width several hundred feet away at the far end. ?ÿThat tract is now?ÿlandlocked and still owned by the original property owner who had both tracts created. ?ÿThis chaos ?ÿis pure foolishness that exists for no useful purpose. ?ÿWe need to stop kidding ourselves as a profession.
Equivalent means equal in value. In the thousands of surveys I have seen, I have never been one with a blanket statement stating all the measurments are equivalent to to the record.
I think you are confusing two ideas. Calling a monument off by 0.04' is ridiculous and should lead to remeidial education, but that is an entirely different thing than reporting your actual measument to the corner. No chaos is caused in the many states where this is standard practice.
Reporting the actual measurments reinforces the idea that the original monument controls. It says, here is the corner. I measured differently than the previous surveyor, but it hasn't moved. If the next surveyor measures differently again, it still won't move.
How do you handle it when the difference exceeds what you are comfortable calling equivielnt?
A professional surveyor should know exactly how precise they are. It is tought in Survey 101 and on the FS exam. That is why I don't understand why so many report to the nearest 0.01' and 1". They are either spending way more time then I do on measuring, or they are ignoring what they were taught.
We don't get those silly pincushions very often. Usually it's a missed stone near a set monument or something like that. Then yesterday 4" west of a 3" cap I set in 1982 for a 1/64th corner the crew finds a 2" stamped cap. Not sure what the reason was for the newer cap but it won't be there long. The guy wasn't licensed in 1982, nor was I, the 3" cap was set for a surveyor who is retired now. Vise Grips!!!!
?ÿ
