> I'm curious as to what state board provision or statute you believe exists as to allow you to willfully destroy survey monuments you disagree with? I hazard a guess that there is none...
I don't really get the idea that you've read this thread. The objects that represent mistaken attempts to mark a landowner's boundaries and that are planted in the soil of his land are the property of the land owner. Typically, a landowner will readily agree to have the mistake removed from his land once the situation is explained. Landowners understand the danger to their property that poor surveys represent apparently much better than surveyors do.
This is a discussion that has flowed across other message boards and I've always wondered what strange universe some surveyors work in where they consider fundamental exercises such as distinguishing between original boundary monuments and ferrous junk set last week to be purely some arbitrary exercise of opinion. In the past, I've explained it to myself as being evidence that some surveyors simply don't get out in the field very much.
> If I traverse around one of those blocks with let's say 10 setups and I close within a tenth, I go home with a smile on my face. I do not get out the Starnet and I do not call monuments within that traverse off by 0.07'.
Steve, is your point that you don't feel that you do a good enough job to be able to say that a monument is 0.07 ft. off line? Does it make you cranky that there actually are surveyors who can in the ordinary course of business get a much better answer without too much sweat?
> > I'm curious as to what state board provision or statute you believe exists as to allow you to willfully destroy survey monuments you disagree with? I hazard a guess that there is none...
>
> I don't really get the idea that you've read this thread. The objects that represent mistaken attempts to mark a landowner's boundaries and that are planted in the soil of his land are the property of the land owner. Typically, a landowner will readily agree to have the mistake removed from his land once the situation is explained. Landowners understand the danger to their property that poor surveys represent apparently much better than surveyors do.
>
> This is a discussion that has flowed across other message boards and I've always wondered what strange universe some surveyors work in where they consider fundamental exercises such as distinguishing between original boundary monuments and ferrous junk set last week to be purely some arbitrary exercise of opinion. In the past, I've explained it to myself as being evidence that some surveyors simply don't get out in the field very much.
Unreal. I've read the thread unfortunately. By your arrogant, egotistical reasoning, any adjoining land owner who disagrees with what also is (theoretically) his corner in "soil of his land", could rip out monuments he presumes to be false. In my state anyways, that is against the law. you are rendering nothing more than your professional opinion as to the location of your client's boundaries, as did those who surveyed before you. Lose the God complex dude, it certainly doesn't do our profession any favors...
> > I'm curious as to what state board provision or statute you believe exists as to allow you to willfully destroy survey monuments you disagree with? I hazard a guess that there is none...
> In the past, I've explained it to myself as being evidence that some surveyors simply don't get out in the field very much.
I agree that it sounds like you've explained it to yourself simply, and not very thoughtfully or very well. Maybe you're 'assuming' too much?
> Unreal. I've read the thread unfortunately. By your arrogant, egotistical reasoning, any adjoining land owner who disagrees with what also is (theoretically) his corner in "soil of his land", could rip out monuments he presumes to be false. In my state anyways, that is against the law. you are rendering nothing more than your professional opinion as to the location of your client's boundaries, as did those who surveyed before you. Lose the God complex dude, it certainly doesn't do our profession any favors...
Well, clearly we aren't communicating. I suspect that if you're in Michigan you deal mostly with protracted corners and have little idea of how pervasive the actual original marks of the surveys that created boundaries are in Central Texas. In a typical subdivision around Austin, for example, all of the lot corners will have been marked at the time of platting and that fact will be represented upon the plat.
So, fast forward fifty years, and the original monuments are still there. They were there when the houses were built and they will typically have been recovered more than a few times as the property has changed hands and they will have recognizable characteristics that make them fairly straightforward to identify. To say that what are quite obviously the original corner monuments shown upon the subdivision plat and incorporated by reference in all of the deeds by which all of the lot owners own their properties is merely some matter of opinion suggests that there might be some other conclusion that is within the universe of possibilities or that three other competent surveyors would not arrive at exactly the same obvious conclusion. That clearly is not the case in the situations I describe.
So what you are looking at is some survey marker that is somewhere other than the lot corner, that typically was placed after all of the improvements were constructed, and that exists only on some letter-sized map of the lot that was made on the run.
The real situation is that land surveying is organized as a profession in Texas for a reason and it isn't to pretend that every marker any surveyor ever sets is a precious addition to the store of human knowledge.
Kent;
> Show me in your state rules and regulations where the Texas Board or Legislature have statutorily extended you or any other surveyor the right or responsibility to remove corners of other surveyors who are likewise licensed in the state of Texas. I am not denying that pincushion corners exist and are frustrating in the extreme; however, the fact of their existence does not give you the right to destroy private property, remember someone paid that surveyor to set that monument that you have determined is "not correct".
Randy, I just don't think you're getting the picture. The case is as I described it and the only reason that you would be able to cite for not removing the recently set marker that is in gross error and that conceals the extant original monument is that ... some surveyor set it.
For my money, that neglects to think through the full implications of that decision, none of which are of any benefit to the landowners and all of which have hidden unnecessary costs that the landowners may have to bear in some way or another.
The fundamental formulation that I think you've got wrong is that you believe that a surveyor has a right to maintain an erroneously placed marker in trespass on the land of another. For example, as a surveyor, I can't park my truck on the lawn of an adjoining owner without his permission. Likewise, if I drive a control point in the middle of his yard when he isn't looking, he isn't prevented from removing it from his property. So it is with the fifty-cent rebar with the twenty-five-cent plastic cap. It's right to remain depends upon being consistent with the property rights of the landowners, not by virtue of the fact that some surveyor sent his or her probably unlicensed minions out and they ended up driving it where they did.
UMM, Ed
Professional surveyor of long experience who is unimpressed by personal attacks from those who can't explain the basis for their opinions = impatience with fools
Kent;
Regardless of how impressed you are with your opinion of the location of the corner in question it is simply that, an opinion period end of story. If you are that certain of your opinion then the correct course of action would be to notify the surveyor with which you are experiencing the difference of opinion and share your findings with him thus giving him an opportunity to weigh your evidence and perhaps remove the iron and issue a revised map to his client. If that surveyor tells you to pack sand, that he feels his opinion is correct, and you are still concerned for the wellbeing of your clients adjoiners then perhaps you could provide the adjoiners with a copy of your vastly superior survey plat.
By the way you still have failed to provide any regulatory or statutory evidence that you are not in fact violating private property rights by destroying the monuments set by duly licensed surveyors.
RRain
UMM, Ed
That really cuts to the chase, doesn't it?
Either lay out a fact-based rationalization, or otherwise be left standing with what's going to remain nothing more than unfounded opinion flapping in the breeze.
Kent;
> Regardless of how impressed you are with your opinion of the location of the corner in question it is simply that, an opinion period end of story.
Sorry, that's a pretty theory, but it isn't how things work in practice. In practice, three competent surveyors presented with the same evidence would reach exactly the same conclusion. You could say that it's merely my opinion that the sun will rise in the East tomorrow, but just because someone comes along arguing that it will actually rise in the west doesn't make it a question that could fall either way.
>If you are that certain of your opinion then the correct course of action would be to notify the surveyor with which you are experiencing the difference of opinion and share your findings with him thus giving him an opportunity to weigh your evidence and perhaps remove the iron and issue a revised map to his client.
There certainly are surveyors to whom I would extend that courtesy. The reality, however, is that the quickie-dickie end of the survey market is populated by firms for whom that would be a total waste of time for various reasons.
>If that surveyor tells you to pack sand, that he feels his opinion is correct, and you are still concerned for the wellbeing of your clients adjoiners then perhaps you could provide the adjoiners with a copy of your vastly superior survey plat.
Hey, I've got a better idea. Why don't I approach both adjoining owners, show them the original corner monument, show them that the quickie-dickie surveyor apparently couldn't find it and set another stake that looked as if it was only going to cause problems for both of them in the future. Then, after explaining to them that the original monument marks the corner described in their deeds, why don't I ask them if they'd like me to go ahead and pull the quickie-dickie marker out of there so it doesn't confuse anyone? I've never had a landowner say "No, a surveyor set that quickie-dickie marker. It is sacred and must be preserved at all costs!"
> By the way you still have failed to provide any regulatory or statutory evidence that you are not in fact violating private property rights by destroying the monuments set by duly licensed surveyors.
Randy, do you understand the logical fallacy of asking someone to prove a negative? That's what you're falling into with this line.
Kent;
What still no regulatory or statutory quotes to show that you are legally empowered to destroy monuments set by others (I am not asking you to prove a negative. I am asking you to prove an affirmative). Maybe one of your esteemed colleagues from the very large state of Texas can assist you in providing a cite to that effect. Meanwhile a bit of photoshop humor:
Kent;
> What still no regulatory or statutory quotes to show that you are legally empowered to destroy monuments set by others (I am not asking you to prove a negative. I am asking you to prove an affirmative). Maybe one of your esteemed colleagues from the very large state of Texas can assist you in providing a cite to that effect. Meanwhile a bit of photoshop humor:
Randy, well if you aren't asking me to prove that I'm not legally prevented from removing erroneously set boundary markers that endanger the properties of the affected owners, I'm glad. That would be equivalent to me asking you to prove that you hadn't, say, done any shoplifting recently.
So, instead, you're asking a basic constitutional question, namely, is a person who isn't prevented by law from doing a thing, such as removing a piece of ferrous junk that a surveyor's minions mistakenly set in ignorance of the existence of the original monument marking the true corner, is that person empowered to do so? The answer in the US is not only yes, but "hell, yes." If it isn't unlawful, a person may do it.
If I can set up on one point, sight the other, the heat waves aren't too bad and I can see the point of the prism pole on the intermediate point, sure I'll call something 0.07' off line. I'm sure your techniques are many times better than those of the rest of us, but most people that call things off by sub-inch amounts are simply reading the co-ordinates off their computer screen without taking into account their own inaccuracies. Except for you, most surveyors wouldn't be able to run the same mile-and-a-half traverse with the same values on every point in that traverse with enough precision to argue with something in the middle by 0.07' with a straight face. Maybe in Texas that is something you can do from one setup, but in areas with some topographic features, it's possibly a little more challenging.
> Except for you, most surveyors wouldn't be able to run the same mile-and-a-half traverse with the same values on every point in that traverse with enough precision to argue with something in the middle by 0.07' with a straight face.
No, I hardly have a patent upon modern surveying techniques. I think that the main difference may be adding L1 GPS vectors to the network adjustment and using least squares survey adjustment software (like Star*Net) to adjust the conventional traverse with the GPS vectors and to evaluate the results.
You could do it entirely conventionally with solar observations for azimuth and get similar results, but GPS is just easier.
mcmillan is a 'straight liner' and a 'deed staker' who thinks a deed line remains a property line forever.
Rational surveyors who understand property owner's responsibilities and rights know different.
Technical skills, while important, are the least important skills a surveyor must have.
Removal of existing monuments without knowledge and consent of all affected owners is flat wrong.
mcmillan's appaling ignorance is clear from his failure to understand published legal reference and statutes.
Richard Schaut
FYI: I received a PDF from Stacy and I converted it to a JPG with much higher resolution than what was originally posted. See the original post and click the thumbnail. 🙂
Thanks for posting the PDF!
