Keith
The way I come to that conclusion is from statements such as:
"Your unlicensed, crew chief can do that very well."
and the fact that you very distinctly just placed only the 'professional decisions' on the professional surveyor while at the same time shifted the technical aspect of measuring off of the shoulders of the professional surveyor and on to a technician.
I am glad that you have clarified that you believe that the professional land surveyor should be involved in making sure the measurements are correct.
I disagree with you that the legal decisions are more important than measurements. If you are measuring crap, your decisions are based on crap, and the end result is crap.
That is apparent from the original post. It is pretty clear that the surveyor to the south knew they were supposed to be on the common line when setting the new pins (easy legal decision). Where it fell apart was the inability to apply that easy legal idea to the equally easy measurement of a 1000 foot line.
Sure you can now say that the current re-tracement surveyor only has to rely on sound legal decisions to resolve the boundary. Fair enough and true. However, what that does is to relieve the surveyor who did the poor measurements from responsibility for not knowing how to do the other (equally as important) part of a surveyors job.
So why measure anything? Why have any state specified standards for measurements? Why not let the lawyers specialize in boundaries and get rid of the surveying profession all together? They could then hire technicians to place the boundary on the ground.
The two items (decisions and measurements) have to work in conjunction to make a good survey.
Jon
Tell us what you think of a second dimple that was marked on a brass cap due to expert measuring by the surveyor?
Keith
Keith
What would that have to do with four feet of mistake in a thousand foot line as is being addressed by the original poster?
Do you not agree that the surveyor who set the pins two feet on either side of the line being discussed within this post failed in a pretty simple 'technical' task of following through with an equally simple legal concept that the line should have ran between the original monuments found at each end of the 1000' line?
If that surveyor had been proficient with both professional analysis and professional measurement, then we wouldn't even be discussing the situation he created. Instead we could focus solely on the more interesting ideas of the actions of the property owners.
Jon
and the answer to the second dimple is?
Jon
"What would that have to do with four feet of mistake in a thousand foot line as is being addressed by the original poster?"
I always love your discussion technique when it comes to this matter. Instead of answering any questions directed to you in order to further the discussion, you stage a very single minded, one sentence, situation lacking in any detail and ask what would you do. When you receive an answer, instead of taking it at face value - you repeat yourself. Happens every time.
There are a number of direct questions you skipped over. If you would like to go back and answer them, I'll be happy to provide a further answer than I already have provided in regards to your 'dimple' scenario.
Mr. Payne
> What would that have to do with four feet of mistake in a thousand foot line as is being addressed by the original poster?
>
> Do you not agree that the surveyor who set the pins two feet on either side of the line being discussed within this post failed in a pretty simple 'technical' task of following through with an equally simple legal concept that the line should have ran between the original monuments found at each end of the 1000' line?
Perhaps this surveyor knew that he was charged with following the original line as surveyed on the ground and NOT attempt to do it how it 'should' have been run. Perhaps he found evidence of the original line as surveyed on the ground meandered two feet.
>
> If that surveyor had been proficient with both professional analysis and professional measurement, then we wouldn't even be discussing the situation he created. Instead we could focus solely on the more interesting ideas of the actions of the property owners.
Perhaps his professional analysis using found evidence as it existed at that time trumps a 'straight' line. Since the OP did not mention the distances between the pins, we have no idea of this surveyor's measurements. Perhaps they measure 200.0'.
DDSM :beer:
Mr. Payne
Mr. Robison,
I do not at all disagree with what you are proposing. It is entirely possible that there were hack marks on trees or any variety of additional evidence to indicate the line was not ran on the ground as straight as from one point to the other.
However, the original post did not provide any indication that was the case.
And unfortunately, as in the other situation I posted (Accept or Not), running the line on the ground all to often means setting a point at each end of a long line and calling it good.
Edited to add:
I am giving the original poster the benefit of the doubt and assuming that he would have already looked into that.
Jon
The simple question is the difference between an expert measuring technician and a land surveyor, and if you choose to not answer, it tells a lot.
Sorry about going off on a tangent, just to prove a point.
Keith
Jon
The simple question has numerous answers depending on a lot more detail than you chose to provide. The fact that you pose such a question as if it is the be all and end all of a discussion is much more telling than the fact that I did not answer it in more detail.
There are still a number of questions up above that you have time to answer.
Jon Payne
Expert Measuring Technician and
Licensed Professional Land Surveyor
Jon
In my world, a land surveyor does not put a second dimple on an existing brass cap!
Period!
Keith
Jon
You should come up to Washington sometime...LOL
fattiretom
Just to throw some gas on the fire...I realize this is in reference to municipal boundaries but here it goes...
So when I worked as a surveyor for the NYC DEP (we had over 300k acres of land to manage much of which was appropriated between 200 and 100 years ago) and when I've surveyed along NYS DEC lands...one of the things we were always taught was that the blazes were reference marks only and did not represent the actual line. This was even stated in our contracts with private surveys, blazes were to be set within 3 feet of the actual line (some were set up to 5 feet off). The blazes did not mark the actual line just a reference to help the field maintenance guys follow it over longer distances. The called irons at the end of each line actually marked the lines and that is what we held when there was a dispute, not the blazes. The DEP has won more than a few cases with this logic. If the original irons were not found we would look further, if we found nothing then the blazes were averaged as best we could.
Lets look at another general rule from NYS about NYSDOT Monuments and NYS Appropriations. The general rule is that you do NOT hold the monuments. The state laws say that the state only takes what is recorded on paper (and that taking is absolute). The takings are described by station and offset from a baseline. So as per NYS DOT the proper way to tie in is to find or re-create that baseline. Many of the older monuments were set by construction workers and some are feet off.
Here is a direct quote from the NYS DOT Manual about this.
"Also, even if monuments are found in the field to mark an acquisition, the monuments do not control the surveyors assumptions when the monuments locations contradict the baseline stations and offsets. ROW monuments are set in the field when a construction project is completed. Monuments, in fact, are not called for in the plans, maps or descriptions of a project. If the original baseline cannot be reestablished, the ROW monuments may be used as evidence to help the surveyor re-establish the baseline."
And here's another directive from NYS DEC on a contract we just won.
"First, the laws require that the acquiring agency determine the limits of the land
necessary to accomplish the intended public purpose. The agency must then prepare
and file an accurate map and description of the property. The land within the confines of that map are what is taken. No more, no less. The owner(s} must then be offered "Just Compensation" for what was taken from them. It is important to note that the taking is not necessarily related to prior or historic boundary or occupation lines. The taking is "absolute" in accordance with the map and description limits. Thus creating new boundaries that are not changed by occupation, conflicting title, monumentation or interpretation, historic or future. In other words, in cases of land acquired by Eminent Domain the map and description bearings and distances generally control over monumentation, occupation, etc."
Of course you have to consider them but there are other things to consider too...
fattiretom
Some of the dumbest ignoring common sense stuff I've ever read. An agency making it's own rules and rejecting thousands of years of common sense boundary law.
Does the agency even consider its own markers as valid or, for that matter, even set them? If all you need is paper why even go on the ground?
fattiretom
They do this based on NYS Statute and Case Law.
DOT does not set markers in most cases. Back in the day the construction firms set them, now they are usually set by the union/construction surveyor or at least supervised by them. Sometimes they are set by the construction firm then a surveyor is called in to validate and check them (usually because of union rules, ie we can't use an excavator, dig a hole, etc).
We have found thruway markers up to 15 feet off from the maps ourselves. This site was so bad that we could not even find a decent middle ground using the monuments...I don't think a single line was within three feet of it's recorded length and none of the angles matched. I called the Thruway Authority to ask what to do and was told a story about a contractor who was given 20ish monuments to set on the project. He set them all in one big pit.
For NYSDEC or NYCDEP, contract surveyors set the markers. The blazes are auxiliary evidence because thats how they were set...approximate to the line every 100-200 feet on a tree within 3 feet of the line (preferably to the municipal side). Side blazes meant that the the line was off to the side of the blaze, double sided blazes meant that the line went through part of the trunk.
All of that said, when we retraced some long old properties for the NYCDEP we might come up 10 feet short of the city wall after 5 miles of traversing. But in these cases it was accepted and often called for on the old mapping that the walls were intended to be the taking lines in the mid 1800's when they were built...so the walls and original mons held in those situations as they were specifically called for. As was stated in the DOT paragraph, DOT monuments found in the field are generally not called for on any maps or deeds to state, only the control and station/offsets.
fattiretom
It's good they called for the walls over 200 years ago or you'd be moving them!
What if a called for marker isn't in the right spot?
fattiretom
So, have you taken survey courses and have experience on how to forget what you were taught and learned how to do it right?
fattiretom
"In other words, in cases of land acquired by Eminent Domain the map and description bearings and distances generally control over monumentation, occupation, etc."
So to save time and money they don't bother to monument the boundaries of the taking (no called for monuments). So nobody knows for sure what has been taken. So decades later they decide to survey it and if it goes through the middle of your house it's just too bad. Is this the way it was intended to work.
fattiretom
Can you post the statutes that you are referring to?
Thanks.
Keith
How far off is too far?
The answer to that question is just as correct for the answer to your dimple on a brass disk question.
I'll give you a hint - it is not a specific number or a number derived from a formula.
.Exclamation Point
fattiretom
I just talked to a friend at DOT and this is what he said...
1) Because the monuments were not and are not always set by surveyors.
2) It has partly to do with the concept of just compensation for the property acquired. The state can only acquire though eminent domain what it gives just compensation for. So if the property owner and the state agree on the dimensions and size of the taking and how much is to be paid for that taking...the state is only entitled to what it paid for. So if the monument was two feet further into the property...the state never compensated the person for that and thus never acquired it. The same is in reverse, if the monument is two feet short, the state already gave just compensation to the person for that property and thus acquired it.
The guy I talked to has been with DOT for about 40 years and said thats been the rule as long as he can remember. He said he remembers it being based in case law but can't remember the details.
I don't have the Ayers NYS Highway Law book in front of me but I am pretty sure the exact same thing has also been published in that book.
Tom