Notifications
Clear all

What was his thought process?

4 Posts
4 Users
0 Reactions
4 Views
(@bill93)
Posts: 9834
Topic starter
 

I was looking for retracement surveys in a 1956 subdivision to see how well they found their measurements fitting the plat, to better understand the lot I'm interested in.

On a 2008 retracement (by a surveyor licensed since 1965) there is no "basis of bearings" stated, and not a single one of the measured bearings match the plat. Huh? All of the "measured" bearings are rotated a quarter to a half degree, in the same direction, from the "record" bearings. This was about a year before the Iowa RTN became operational, so I wouldn't think he used GPS.

He calls a found monument off "1.44' SW of lot corner" where his M distances are only 0.13', 0.04', and 0.08' from the R distances. Another is "0.24' SW of Lot Corner" and M vs R are 0.08', 0.04', and 0.02. So his measurement is not to the found pin? The "lot corner" is neither the pin nor at the plat distances?

Any ideas on what he was thinking?

 
Posted : December 31, 2011 2:55 pm
(@just-mapit)
Posts: 1109
Registered
 

Looks as though the pl checked. he may have shown the fd monument as just a monument fd and not set a monument at his called for corner.

I'll assume he has some type of closed traverse to report findings that close.

 
Posted : December 31, 2011 3:29 pm
(@paul-plutae)
Posts: 1261
 

The surveyor held both Fd. I/R's on Jacolyn drive, one at lot 87's mid point and the
other at the common corner of lots 89 and 90. He then prorated in the other corners along Jacolyn Drive.

He also held the easterly corner of lot 88, and created a line parallel with Jacolyn
drive which is probably following map intent. Then using the prorated position for lots 87 and 88's common position on Jacolyn he inversed to the easterly corner of lot 88.

Then the surveyor created a BB intersection holding the easterly corner of 88 and the common corner of 89 and 90 on Jacolyn using a line parallel with the common sideline of lots 87 and 88 and a line parallel with Jacolyn Drive. Then the missing rear corner of lots 88 and 89 was prorated in based on the calc'd distance.

From the BB intersection position, where the 'bent' IR was located, he simply inversed into the 5/8" IR on Jacolyn Court.

That's what he was thinking.

 
Posted : December 31, 2011 4:36 pm
(@dane-ince)
Posts: 571
Registered
 

The pipe is bent

The pipe is bent is what he is thinking. It must have been badly disturbed to fit so poorly with the rest of the physical evidence.

 
Posted : January 1, 2012 9:16 am