Dave
> a Survey is a recovery of the existing boundary or marking of a new boundary.
>
> It is not the map or the measurements.
>
The survey includes measurements, Dave. It isn't just a stroll in the woods without doing the work to define or verify the spatial relationships of the lines and corners.
You know me better than to think that I would define a survey as just the measurements and/or the map.
> 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.
>
Not only obvious, that was my point. The survyor cannot simply rely on someone else's record. He must do enough work to warrant confidence in that record.
Steve, If you have done enough work at a location that you feel confident enough to use a portion of another surveyor's record to define a line or corner, that's your call. Under certain circumstances, I might do that. But I certainly wouldn't claim to have surveyed that line or corner. There would be sufficient notations and differing linetypes so that no mistake would be made and that it is plain the line or corner is shown per the record that the info came from.
> 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.
>
Absolutely. I have done this. It does not even need to be a monument that you accepted as validly representing any particular point. It just needs to be one that you recognize as a potentially valuable piece of evidence for a survey in the vicinity. It is for the purpose of preserving evidence and nothing more. A perfectly valid use of a CR. But in that, the surveyor is not purpoting to have surveyed lines or made ties to adjacent corner mons that he did not actually do. In that case, I located a mon along a road RW that was going to be destroyed and replaced it after construction. It was tid into project control along the road, and indirectly to other mons located along the RW, but not to the back lot corners. I showed ties to other mons loacted, and showed lines without dimensions going in the general direction of the back corner. I made no value judgements on the CR that the mon was at the front lot corner, although I graphically showed it in that location.
> 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.
In that case, you are accepting that surveyor's measurements as the best evidence of where that monument previously existed, and you are duplicating his measurements to reset it. Often, that is far more reliable than proportioning a corner in. I don't think that is the same thing contemplated in the OP.
