> Bionicman,
>
> What is the identity that makes a monument correct?
>
> What is evidence to impeach a monument?
>
> Stephen
The basic question is "what makes a monument controlling?"
The answer is found in the law, not on your data collector or computer screen.
[sarcasm]The record is correct and what you find on the ground is always wrong[/sarcasm]
[sarcasm]You missed it by this much[/sarcasm]
[sarcasm]Close, but no cupie doll[/sarcasm]
[sarcasm]It is only right if I say it is right[/sarcasm]
B-)
:good:
:good:
The old explanation often included that there was a difference between a "corner" and a "monument". The "corner" was a mathematical position and the monument was an actual physical mark. Somehow they are saying that the found the "monument" within so much distance to the mathematical position.
My own thoughts are that if I am accepting the found monument as adequately marking the property corner in my professional opinion, I show it as the "corner" and my difference in measured vs. record to that actual corner.
A monument is the physical realization of the corner. There can be a corner without a monument but if the object near the corner is "off" then it isn't a monument.
> > Bionicman,
> >
> > What is the identity that makes a monument correct?
> >
> > What is evidence to impeach a monument?
> >
> > Stephen
>
> The basic question is "what makes a monument controlling?"
>
> The answer is found in the law, not on your data collector or computer screen.
:good:
The annotations on the drawing reveal there is a conflict between the paper evidence and that on the ground. It may be true the client wanted his corners placed and that is why the surveyor was contracted, the surveor in turn responded by implication that in his opinion, a conclusion of certainty could not be reached.
Even though mathematics may have been employed to convert description dimensions to coordinates, "this" issue does not have anything to do with mathematics. The mathematics, ruling out errors, is sound. It is the dimensions and measurements that are at issue. Possibly, the dimensions on the plat or in the description are in error, the measurements made were in error or there is a combination of dimension and measurement errors. The discipline of mathematics is the tool used for comparing dimensions with measurements. There is nothing wrong or in error with the tool, but there certainly can be error in dimensions and measurements!
Just because the client wanted a "certain" result does not mean the surveyor has to produce that "certain" result. It is incumbent upon the surveyor to state the truth. If the surveyor can not, with the information he has obtained, reach a conclusion, he must inform his client. The annotations on the drawing not only reveal that but, also, they reveal the degree of uncertainty in position. By implication, those desiring "certainty" are put on notice that more evidence is needed.
A tangential issue:
"Calc" is, in my opinion, a poor term to use. It may be factual the sixteenth corner position was calculated, but the calculations are only the mathematical process used to determine the position from the description or plat dimensions. One way, perhaps not the "best," would be to state that "the monument found is 0.45 feet north and 0.21 feet west of the sixteenth corner position determined from description dimensions and other relevant evidence."
As a surveyor, you should consider what the landowner or contractor is going to use if a fence or building is going to be built - a physical monument, or a mathematical location noted on your plat. If the structure gets built in the wrong location are you liable or does your mathematical computed location noted on your plat cover your a$$?
This "procedure" is designed to avoid any risk of making a decision. With this dodge, they leave it to others to decide on their own where to dig the post hole.
I knew one who would drive a pin/cap sub surface in pasture, then tie a lath marked Prop Cor to the fence post over there. Such fine details always escape the map notes.
It's leaving open deniability of what the map means. If any claim is made against his non-decision the reply is, I didn't certify where to put the post. I let you decide where you want it. Your decision, not mine, your liability, not mine.
Gee, do the errors and emissions agents advise this process as a risk avoidance norm??
Let's see, 50 states, 50 BOR's. Have any banned this practice? I have seen some of this in all the Western states.
> My reading of this is that he is calling the monument off.
In at least one County in Kalifornia, the County Surveyor's ROS instruction manual directs the surveyor to reject monuments using exactly that format:
"Monuments “found” and not accepted will be labeled with bearing and distance from true corner."
I don't disagree with that note. What I disagree with is not accepting the monument in the first place.
If our boards were truly regulating the profession, anyone using a note like that would get their license suspended. However, unless that fellow left off a bar scale or the vicinity map, any horse excrement methods he used are fine and dandy.
It means that guy is an idiot.
I agree, this is a knuckleheaded maneuver.
I had one where my boss told me not to set a pincushion, just show fallings. I said if it's the corner, why not draw the line and dimension to the monument, duh? If it isn't the corner then monument the actual corner. This seems so basic but our training can get in the way of good sense.
I found a section corner monument that appears to be "off" 7'. It is a 4x4 concrete monument up 2' (be careful not to break your knee cap on it) set by double proportion in 1963. 2' in a mile is more typical of the 1960s transit and tape work in the area; 7' is a little wide of the usual mark. This is near the bottom of a gulch, redwood country. There are three k-tags on nearby large trees. These have cruiser initials and dates on them.
I think Surveyors forget other professionals and lay people use our monuments or maybe they don't care.
My heavy line and dimensions will go to the monument, not some imaginary point in space. If I felt justified in rejecting the monument (very doubtful I will) then I would set another large monument clearly and obviously marked. The Foresters need the boundary marked, not imaginary points and lines on the map.
Don't hold back, Kris.
Be respectful, "Professional Idiot."
