Butch
> Please try to offer some worthwhile input other than sanctimonious dribble.
Apologies if it came across as sanctimonious dribble. You ask if you "get a special cookie for a different answer", then offer a response that fails to contribute anything towards the OP's question other than to state/imply that your clients don't care about the crux of the OP's question (btw, who cares what your clients think). I guess I didn't understand that your reply had any worthwhile input either.
Now or 200 years ago?
This stikes me as pretty funny, or very sad.
It's an admission that licensing is not working, and we still can't trust the work of fellow professional surveyors. Even with all the technology and education available today, we must re-check something as simple as this.
Will there ever come a time when the vast majority of surveyors can arrive at a reasonable decision on where a property line is?
Lines can certainly move due to other factors, but the example you posted leaves me wondering. Maybe we are irrelevant and unecessary in todays world.
Food for thought...
Excellent topic, Loyal. I would agree with the majority here that at least 99% of the time, I wouldn't use record data from Records of Survey without confirming the measurements myself. Can you sense a big "but" coming along?
If there were several Records of Survey that showed finding and measuring some of the monuments that control the boundary I'm working on and those surveys were done recently by surveyors that I know and respect for their measuring capabilities and the measurements shown thereon did not deviate from one another in any material way, I might think about relying on their measurements if I would at least go out and make sure none of the monuments disappeared or had any chance of moving. What would be the difference between that and having a crew "under your direction" provide you with the measurements?
That section of the Manual regarding Mineral Surveys never made perfect sense to me, I hate to tell you. If I recall, very few of the Mineral Surveys I did back in the day did not involve filing amended location notices. So, strictly according to the Manual, after measuring the original messed-up claim corners and restaking the amended claim corners, you have to forget all that work and traverse the whole darn thing over again that you just did last month.
Brian,
I am thinking that there are surveyors that are preaching nationally that the C 1/4 corner can ONLY be set at the intersection of the section centerlines per 1973 Manual sec. 3-87. It seems as though some simply can't get out of Chapter 3 for original surveys and jump to Chapter 6 on resurveys. Most of us do realize that there usually is existing evidence at the C 1/4 corner and proper resurvey methods have to be used.
Maybe this argument, that is really between the expert measurers and the land surveyors, will be resolved, if in fact some State Board is actually attempting to make us believe that the above sec. 3-87 is the controlling procedure.
I cannot believe this phony concept of center line intersection only, is still in the minds of some after reading the Oregon court case of Dykes v Arnold.
If a State Board is advocating this original survey procedure only, maybe they should be made aware of the resurvey procedures in Chapter 6?
Keith
> Okay...so I had this conversation this morning with a fellow surveyor, concerning the ethics of “adopting” existing spatial data (coordinates and/or Bearings and Distances) at “face value” when preparing a [new] Record of Survey (ROS) on a given parcel.
>
> Basically...Is it “okay” to look at several ROS documents in the public record, and simply USE those spatial relationships in YOUR ROS WITHOUT actually going out there and verifying those coordinates/measurements???
>
> In other words (I think), what constitutes a “SURVEY?”
>
> Lets say for the sake of argument, that there are several ROS(s) covering a particular Section. Both (or all) of these Surveys show bearings & distances (or coordinates) on all eight corners, that AGREE within a couple of hundredths of a foot, and several arc-seconds of angular relationship. Would it be “ethical” to “adopt” this data (or some average thereof), and run out there and subdivide this Section (say set the C¼) WITHOUT verifying ANY of that existent data in the field? One could easily do this (in the theoretical sense) if we are talking about State Plane Coordinates, AND there is a NGS/State/County Geodetic Station in the area, and NOT visit a Single Corner of the Section.
>
> I think it's not only unethical, but down right NUTS myself!
>
> Last time I checked, my license says “Land Surveyor,” NOT “Number Regurgitator.”
>
> Any comments?
>
> Loyal
It sounds as if the other guy is not going to prepare a Record of Survey, but rather a Record of Record. Of what possible use can that be? Wouldn't the client be better served then to just pay for a copy of the record already filed with the County?
He is hanging his hat on the fact that the two previous surveys agree within a couple of hundredths and a few seconds? Is it possible that the second guy on the scene did pretty much the same as this guy would do, that maybe he just massaged the misclosure out of the previous survey and came up with slightly different bearings and distances? Well, OK, I'll give the 2nd surveyor the benefit of the doubt and assume that the first two were both good at measurement and so agreed fairly well.
But that doesn't give this latest surveyor freedom to just grab the numbers and go. He doesn't need to completely reinvent the wheel, but he is expected to actually survey those corners which are pertinent to the boundaries he was hired to locate.
Evan
I knew my position would be unpopular but I have hired surveyors, some of whom are active on this board, to provide me with measurements on which I have based boundary determinations. I don't hire just anybody, just those that I trust to perform the measurements as well, if not better than I or an unlicensed crew under my direction could do. Let's say there's a section in thick forest that is not conducive to a GPS survey and it's going to take me a week to traverse 50 feet at a time from corner to corner to corner and that work was just done within the last five years by two or three surveyors with the best squeaky-clean reputations in the area. Is it ethical for me to charge my client $10,000 more to survey his property just to confirm the measurements that I can be nearly 100% certain will agree with those reported by my eminently reliable colleagues?
I hear a big "yes" coming on and I am now donning my flame suit.
Evan
a Survey is a recovery of the existing boundary or marking of a new boundary.
It is not the map or the measurements.
I hope it is obvious that the Surveyor has to do sufficient work to put the monument in the right place. Like everything else this is a matter of judgment and it isn't useful to say always or never.
In California we can file a Corner Record with no measurements at all. If you find a monument you can make a record of it and the Surveyor may even show record bearing and distance either way to the nearest existing corners. This is a Survey even though the Surveyor simply found a monument. Obviously you have to do what is necessary to verify the monument is undisturbed etc etc etc.
I say obvious or obviously to hopefully to intercept the usual yeah but what about blah blah blah. Usually I am not inclined to accept the measurements of others but I can't say it is never appropriate to do so. Heck sometimes we get there and the monument is gone but we put it back based on the record because we know the Surveyor and know he was careful so you can probably bet the monument was where his map said it was.
OL'ROLY
>In California we can file a Corner Record with no measurements at all
Post an example of that please David. One that is filed.
Paul
If Dave can't get back to you, remind me on Monday; I will probably be able to post a few of them that are filed in Tuolumne County. They're essentialy just a record of a found and accepted monument and/or evidence that's been rebuilt or perpetuated in some way.
Or were you just implying (inferring?) that there aren't any? I'm probably w wrong about that.
Don
Paul
I've got one but it's a pdf on a County Surveyor's website and I'm not smart enough to figure out how to show it to you. You are smart though, do you know how to do it?
Prior
> .... They're essentialy just a record of a found and accepted monument and/or evidence that's been rebuilt or perpetuated in some way.
I have heard of those types of CR filings but I cannot recall ever seeing any in my research.
In fact there is a surveyor that filed a CR just for that purpose some years back and the county came back at him asking that he file an RS. I do not think he did file an RS, but that is what they asked for.
> Or were you just implying (inferring?) that there aren't any?
Not at all.
Prior
That's good, Paul. I will get back to you on Monday if no one else can provide an example before then. They're out there.
Thanks for being one of the good ones.
Don
Steve
> I've got one but it's a pdf on a County Surveyor's website and I'm not smart enough to figure out how to show it to you. You are smart though, do you know how to do it?
I'm old Steve, not smart.
Just copy/paste the link Steve if you can find it on the county site.
Steve
Easy for you to say. I tried several different approaches to it and felt dumber and dumber the more I tried.
Food for thought...
>
> If there were several Records of Survey that showed finding and measuring some of the monuments that control the boundary I'm working on and those surveys were done recently by surveyors that I know and respect for their measuring capabilities and the measurements shown thereon did not deviate from one another in any material way, I might think about relying on their measurements if I would at least go out and make sure none of the monuments disappeared or had any chance of moving. What would be the difference between that and having a crew "under your direction" provide you with the measurements?
>
Would you note this on the ROS? This is not uncommon around this area, not to say that the monuments are not checked, but to say that the attempt is to honor and respect the work of a previous professional in the same area, if it is good work.
Steve and buying information
> Is it ethical for me to charge my client $10,000 more to survey his property just to confirm the measurements that I can be nearly 100% certain will agree with those reported by my eminently reliable colleagues?
>
This does bring up the sticky subject, "Who owns this info?" Is it the client that paid for it? Is it the surveyor? The county that holds the record? Who holds the right to copyright?
(It would seem that the county might, since they often charge for its reproduction.)
I have no idea, but there are a few surveyors that make it extremely difficult to follow their surveys, and they do it on purpose. They don't want someone else finding out the secret to this or that very difficult block.
Food for thought...
Yeah, I guess I probably would. This is not something that happens every day, but I see it every so often where a survey gets filed with a note that a certain corner is accepted as being at the record position per (blah, blah maps) and not located on this survey.
There is a blow-hard that gives seminars locally around here and I guess has taught classes for the Union surveyors. I have argued with him back and forth about his statement "When I see record equals measured, I see a liar!!" His point being that the chances of one surveyor's measurements matching another's precisely is zero. My response, poorly received as it is, is that when I see a measured value that deviates from a record value by a factor that is beyond a reasonably significant figure, I see a lazy surveyor that pushed the label button on his computer without thinking about what he's really saying.
What I'm trying to say is that in some rare circumstances, if I see several maps done by surveyors that I know and trust and they all say the distance from one point to another is a certain distance, within any significant figure that I could measure it, it would be a waste of time for me to go out and measure it again. Maybe somebody can ride up on their high horse and tell me why that's unethical.
Steve and buying information
I don't know where you work, but if a survey that I do in CA discloses any material evidence that is not shown on any previously recorded map, I can get in big trouble if I don't file a map in the public records that clearly shows that evidence.
Food for thought...
> What I'm trying to say is that in some rare circumstances, if I see several maps done by surveyors that I know and trust and they all say the distance from one point to another is a certain distance, within any significant figure that I could measure it, it would be a waste of time for me to go out and measure it again. Maybe somebody can ride up on their high horse and tell me why that's unethical.
Its unethical if you state on your map of survey that you in fact did measure the distance. You can agree w/ the previously measured distance(s) all you want, just don't state it as M = R (or however), since you in fact opted not to measure it. If an attorney called bullpucky on you, would your fieldnotes be able to provide a defense? I think not
Paul
http://www.co.kern.ca.us/ess/cornerrecords.asp
I don't know how to make the link live, and this isn't the best example, but I see a fair amount of these where a found corner was rehabilitaed or replaced with a more permanent/substantial monument. I usually try to provide record and measured distances to the nearest recorded adjacent monuments just to verify that what I thought was the corner really was.
DJJ
Edit the link takes you to the Corner Records Search page, plug in T32S R23E Section 2 and click on the S 1/16th Corner record.
Sorry I'm not more coputer literate.
DJJ
