There was a young?ÿ Surveyor around here that use to put N 0.2, E 0.5 or such by each corner he tied. I called him up and asked him what that meant. He said it was how different from his calculated position he found the corner. I said will then it doesn't mean anything does it. He quit doing that.
When I see notes like that, it just tells me that the PLS signing that plat thinks that his/her feces doesn't stink and that they regard every others surveyors' records to be below them.
I see it as just a fundamental failure to follow in the foot steps of the earlier surveyor. His superior ability to measure more accurately with his GNSS than the earlier surveyor with chain and transit, implies the measurements he has taken have a higher order than the original corner marking that position. Rather than validating the corner, he throws the location into doubt. Without some explanation, it's completely counter productive and just leads to confusion. In short, it's a total cop out. Either accept it, or don't and if he decides not to, he owes an explanation. Showing a computed discrepancy is not an explanation.?ÿ
Just because I'm paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get me.
I can only assume this survey is from WA, a state in which I work. Someone commented about the Surveyor noting the date found.?ÿ This is required in WA, at least the PLS is paying attention to some of the rules...albeit not the ones that are incredibly high on the list of importance.?ÿ I see notes like these all the time and might of even had a survey or two in my youngers years noting something similar (although most definitely not a well monumented/documented 16th corner).?ÿ I came across a survey today that stated 0.04' gap in deeds and it had multiple monuments out by 0.01 (yes 0.01!) to 0.09'?ÿ Talk about your expert measurer, i had to look hard to find a monument he did hold.?ÿ?ÿ
In Idaho, where I primarily work you can no longer call monuments of record out of place without first notifying the original surveyor in writing along with a few other requirements.?ÿ It's probably one of the best codes ever passed in my opinion.
@thebionicman I recently read that in Idaho, a surveyor who intends to "reject" an existing monument must first notify the landowners and state board! Bravo.
You don't interpret Record/Measured numbers as placing measurements above monuments, do you? The example here is an awkward way of doing R/M.
I guess that's one way of looking at it, but IMO words matter. The wording implies that they are NOT holding the monument, because their shown bearings and distances do not comport with the monuments themselves.
Record vs. measured is clear. "Well, that monument is different from what I calculated" doesn't really tell me what you think of that monument.
Weasel words. If you haven't determined where the corner is that map isn't finished yet.
This is my opinion as well. Don't tell me where a boundary monument is if you have determined that it doesn't mark the boundary, unless you are also giving me a detailed explanation of why it doesn't in fact mark that boundary.
I see notes like this more than I want to, and struggle to understand what they're trying to say.
Are they accepting the monuments, and just letting us know that they didn't fit their Geometry?
Are they rejecting the monuments, and just not wanting to set a pin cushion?
This has been bothering me for a long time, and would really like to put this to bed.
The LSAW conference will be coming up in a few weeks; I hope to discuss this, in person, and see if we can't come to some kind of resolve.
?ÿ
TIA for all of the good people responding.
?ÿ
?ÿDougie
They held the calc, and showed you what they found. In reality this is no different than if they had drawn lines to the monuments and shown both the record and the measured.?ÿ
Edit...it is different, but in both cases they show their opinion as to where the line is, and in both cases some level of ambiguity is indicated.
Edit...this is normal and standard practice in WA. You can complain, but I can show you thousands of surveys and show you that this is a normal and common approach. It has only begun to change in the last few years. Again, you can complain, but if it is the normal practice of the majority of surveyors (look through the records, in my experience this is the case) then it is up to those of us that disagree to defend our thinking.?ÿ
The text seems clear to me (and I think, different from some other posters) because of the phrase "From calculated position".
I read the plat to give the observed position (distance and direction) of the monuments in question. The lines of the plat go directly to the monuments with no offsets drawn.
If I was a better measurer than the previous fellow and believed my calculated point more than the found monument, the lines would go to my calculated point and show the monument offset by some amount.
The lines on the plat are very clear and I think they leave no doubt.
On the other hand. If the fellow has a questionable reputation and doesn't understand how to draw a plat, who knows what it means. I think, lacking evidence to the contrary, we must assume he was competent.
JAC
?ÿ
This is possible as well. There should be a narrative or such to go with it.
First, dating to the day that the monument was discovered is not salient;
In WA you are supposed to note when you found it. The date of the survey being signed or recorded could be much later...I could find you 10000 surveys in WA where the monument was noted as being found over a year before the survey, often decades before.
@wa-id-surveyor "Someone commented about the Surveyor noting the date found.?ÿ This is required in WA,"?ÿ?ÿ
Surprising.?ÿ I've been licensed in WA since 1984 but have not practiced there in 30 years.?ÿ So it must be a recent requirement.?ÿ Can you cite that requirement specifically in the Statues??ÿ I've practiced in several other Western States and if so it's a unique requirement.
First, dating to the day that the monument was discovered is not salient; the date you signed the survey for recordation holds.
In Washington where Doug works:
WAC 332-130-050(1)(B)(e)(iv) Give the physical description of any monuments shown, found, established or reestablished, including type, size, and date visited;
First, dating to the day that the monument was discovered is not salient; the date you signed the survey for recordation holds.
In Washington where Doug works:
WAC 332-130-050(1)(B)(e)(iv) Give the physical description of any monuments shown, found, established or reestablished, including type, size, and date visited;
BTW, I like the rule. Once a surveyor breaks a section down and establishes local control, for some surveyors it is possible that they will rarely, if ever, visit that monument again (depending on location). I want to know if this is from their records from 1975. It makes it a bit easier to understand if the monument I find is of a different nature than what they found.
It is, unfortunately, standard practice in WA, but that doesn't make it right. It's bad here on my side of the state, but it's much worse on the other side from what I've seen. I did a little topo in Island County for my cousin at his vacation cabin. I did a bit of boundary research just to see what to look for to put the boundary on the topo for the engineer. I found all the corners and they all matched the record both for material and measurement, but I am probably the only surveyor to ever retrace anything in that plat and accept the found monuments. Most list a falling (x.x'N by x.x'E) on EVERY SINGLE FOUND MONUMENT. They don't seem to hold anything, or give any indication of what they did hold to determine their fallings. My guess is that they held a section corner that they don't even show on their survey, but it's a big time dubious way of doing things. The plat was from the 60's and the section corner was stamped something in the mid 90's.
It ticks me off so much to see this that I've started writing an article about it. I keep getting distracted by other projects, so it's been an ongoing project for over a year. A little hint on the content: the title is?ÿIs it the Corner or Isn't it? and the subtitle is The Paper Pincushion Will be the Downfall of Our Profession.?ÿ
And then, after several years of failing to return to that monument because they KNOW where it is, they actually go to the monument and discover, to their absolute horror, that they had transposed numbers in describing its location from that first visit.?ÿ Instead of 2630. 98 feet from Point X, it is actually 2638.90 feet.?ÿ A number which they have carelessly carried as fact into slicing out tiny little aliquots.?ÿ West half of the south half of the east half of the north half of the northeast quarter of southwest quarter of the southeast quarter of the section.
Many years ago, using a total station, we traversed in to find the monument at the center of a section that had been found by another firm a few years earlier.?ÿ They, in fact, were chopping out a five-acre tract that was an aliquot description.?ÿ What we found made no sense.?ÿ So we reran that traverse backwards and came out almost dead on from where we had started.?ÿ Their location was roughly 50 feet east and 40 feet south of the center corner we had found by following their references quite successfully.?ÿ No doubt but what that was the monument they had found in that exact location but horribly off in their survey.?ÿ Called them.?ÿ Explained what we had done and why we believed?ÿ something went wrong when they were out there.?ÿ Two days later, we received a call verifying that they had finally found how they had screwed the pooch.?ÿ Gave me a warm fuzzy feeling until I realized that someday, somewhere, I would be the one getting such a call.
You don't interpret Record/Measured numbers as placing measurements above monuments, do you? The example here is an awkward way of doing R/M.
I think record/measured is inherently less ambiguous because it is clear that the record and measured line both go to the same point. Any ambiguity is in the distance and the bearing between the two conrners, not in the identity of the corner. In this case it's not clear which point the given measurement (which is presumably the boundary line) is a measurement?ÿ to.?ÿ
It may be normal practice, but I think the evidence of confusion even among professionals exhibited in this thread is proof enough that this is not good practice.?ÿ
There are other places this is common too. I was quickly convinced that this was bad practice when I asked the first three surveyors that I saw do this what they ment. The first said, the found monunet is the corner. The second said its not his job to decide where the corner is, and the third did the corner is the calculated position. That was enough to convince me that my insticts were right.?ÿ
