Three surveyor's with good reputations. One is a notorious pincushioner (and used to be active on this forum) and I always keep looking when I come across his tag, and usually find another monument within a 0.5'. I found the third by accident (farthest away from the two pins), it was 'closest' to my calc point, and the surveyor was an old mentor. So that was the bright side that we were largely agreeing with each other. I will probably accept the monument furthest from the two and move on with my day. I didn't enjoy having to explain to the civil engineering intern I had helping me out what was going on.
I am of the opinion that we should clean up the cadaster and remove trash irons placed in the ground. If you KNOW and can PROVE that one fits the record better than the other two then get the land owners together and work it out.
You are the professional and to use an analogy if you go to a doctor and he finds that you have 2 kidneys. ......... well he would do the right thing and just rip that unnecessary one out.
A great and wise philosopher called the Highlander said "There can be only one".
Oh this ought to elicit a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Yes, we can use a brass tag wired to the iron rebar in lieu of a plastic cap or aluminum cap.
The part of this bothers me, is had I found any 1 of those monuments, by itself, I would have had no problem accepting it - any of the monument's locations were reasonable compared to other monuments I had been finding. All of us got to basically the same solution, just different methodology and different equipment (I will note, I don't have records of survey for most of these monuments, this is a recording state), and thus slightly different results. But, why can't you be happy with having found the monument in the first place? Note record versus measured on the map, and move on. Someone else has already come to a good conclusion that's likely been accepted by others (i.e. the public or property owner), why add confusion if you don't need to. Now, I have to have a series of complicated notes on the map documenting what I found and why I came to my conclusion. Oh well, such is the profession that we love...
I completely agree, it is truly a sad state of affairs when two surveyors can come along, find another's position and BOTH opine it necessary to introduce instability into work that THREE different consumers paid for.
I have no problem keeping the original bearing and distance calls when my survey finds the monuments to be have been placed within the standard range of tolerance in their location.
My part then is to assure that the correct bounds are clearly and properly described to complete the new survey.
I was taught that it takes the same amount of time to survey correctly as it takes to do it wrong, so why waste your client's time by producing a piece of crap.
Out of curiosity what would you consider to be a standard range of tolerance?
I've worked for a few surveyors that would keep the original bearing and distance calls if the monuments were "close" and I agree with the practice. None of them however, seemed to have any methodology for deciding when to do so.
Three surveyor's with good reputations. One is a notorious pincushioner (and used to be active on this forum) and I always keep looking when I come across his tag, and usually find another monument within a 0.5'. I found the third by accident (farthest away from the two pins), it was 'closest' to my calc point, and the surveyor was an old mentor. So that was the bright side that we were largely agreeing with each other. I will probably accept the monument furthest from the two and move on with my day. I didn't enjoy having to explain to the civil engineering intern I had helping me out what was going on.
Levi, our 8 yr old, walked up, saw the pic, and said "yeah, I remember being on that job".
"When the division line of adjoining owners is designated in their respective deeds as a line beginning at a specified distance from a fixed object, the only method of ascertaining the location of the line on the ground is by measuring the required distance from the object. Experience shows that such measurements, made at different times by different persons with different instruments, will usually vary somewhat. The position of the object or monument at which the course begins may also be changed and the change may not be known to the parties, or there may be no means of ascertaining its original position. If the position of the line always remained to be ascertained by measurement alone, the result would be that it would not be a fixed boundary, but would be subject to change with every new measurement. Such uncertainty and instability in the title to land would be intolerable." Justice Shaw writing in Young v. Blakeman (1908).
