You find a survey, with monuments in the ground, and you disagree with the judgement and decisions of the other surveyor. You think the wrong monument was used, whatever.
Specifically, this is a judgement issue, not a "better measurement" issue.
So you find their monument 1.5' from where you know it should be. (This is a urban/suburban lot survey.) You know how and why those monuments are where they are, but you believe them to be erroneous.
Besides all the platitudes of making sure, and being careful, etc, what would you do to monument the line.
When I find a monument that I disagree with:
My first question "is the monument where the other survey says it is?"
Yes - call and say you got to be kidding
No - monument is not supported by other evidence
0.02
Move the bound to where it's supposed to be, after verifying with the other surveyor.
Been there, done that...
> You find a survey, with monuments in the ground, and you disagree with the judgement and decisions of the other surveyor. You think the wrong monument was used, whatever.
>
> Specifically, this is a judgement issue, not a "better measurement" issue.
>
> So you find their monument 1.5' from where you know it should be. (This is a urban/suburban lot survey.) You know how and why those monuments are where they are, but you believe them to be erroneous.
>
>
> Besides all the platitudes of making sure, and being careful, etc, what would you do to monument the line.
Almost Never.
I think I have only set 3 in 45 years. And the last one of those was over 20 years ago. Long enough that I don't really remember when.
"What", is considered a pincushion?
I always thought a pincushion for relatively small lots to be less than a couple of inches... any more than that and, as I see it, there is not a "pincushion", but an actual bonafide disagreement between surveyors.
About one and one half foot on a small lot is a "major", disagreement.
ANYWAY.... as I see it, the ONLY REAL possible reason for a pincushion(more than one pin basically occupying the same space, is governmental regulations, that just plain and simply will not allow for a 100' lot(not 100.00'), to be 99.98 feet without the property being in non-compliance.
Or, in the case of a 100' lot(not 100.00'), no longer being able to be legally split into 2 "compliant" 50'(not 50.00'), lots.
What I'm saying is the surveyor might need educated on the allowance of miniscule errors AND...AND...AND especially AND, the governmental agencies need to understand that measured numbers are always subject to change for one reason or another, and that an owner's complaint 100' lot(or for that sake 100.00' lot in 1957, which is now determined to be 99.87 feet long should still be considered "compliant", and if the 50'(or for that matter 50.00'), lot should be compliant as a split lot into 50' lots(or 49.93'(+/-).
Educate the surveyors, but also educate the government agencies.
"What", is considered a pincushion?
"but also educate the goverment agencies"
[sarcasm]That was funny!!! Thanks I needed a good laugh[/sarcasm]:-P
I now have to go get a rag to clean off my screen!
joe
Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country. Typing class 9th grade!
> You find a survey, with monuments in the ground, and you disagree with the judgement and decisions of the other surveyor. You think the wrong monument was used, whatever.
>
Pin cushions (and other disagreements between surveyors) are usually due to either one or both surveyors not having all the relevant evidence. Have you gathered ALL the evidence, and did you contact the other surveyor and see ALL of his evidence? However, sometimes blunders and mistakes are made.
> Specifically, this is a judgement issue, not a "better measurement" issue.
>
You don't know this until you have looked at all the evidence, including landowner knowledge and reliance.
> So you find their monument 1.5' from where you know it should be. (This is a urban/suburban lot survey.) You know how and why those monuments are where they are, but you believe them to be erroneous.
>
"Should be", based on what evidence? Has the "erroneous monument" been there long enough? What reliance has happened if any? In other words, has it become the corner? Remember the purpose of, and our only duties during a retracement/resurvey.
If the "monument" isn't occupying the "corner", then it is usually irrelevant and can be used for nothing than to cause confusion. Solve the problem, find the corner, and get rid of the confusion.
Urban, suburban, rural....... the boundary laws are usually the same.
If the evidence supported my conclusion that the monument was set in the wrong location through either careless work or through missing existing monuments, I would set my own. I would fully note why the monument was rejected and how I arrived at my position. I'm not talking about being a better measurer, but rather a procedure issue.
By accepting the monument that I felt was wrong, I would be accepting the liabilty that goes with that decision. I would always feel better defending my own conclusion than defending someone else's.
My 0.02'
One way I look at it:
How accurate is the survey that I am using to calculate the position of the corner? How do the lots close? How good was the surveyor who drew it?
How good is the control I am using? Original? Undisturbed? How many?
How accurate are my measurements? double that.
Add all this together. If the difference is much more, I set a new point. If not, I accept the old point.
Another way I look at it:
How confident am I that I could convince a judge that my corner is right and the other surveyor's is wrong?
Either way it's a judgment based on experience and knowledge. One important factor is "who set the other marker and when?"
I just finished setting corners for a lot where I found 2 undisturbed, 1 disturbed, all original that checked within 0.3' plus 2 more lying on the ground within a foot of my calculated points. The original surveyor was better than many, but he couldn't calculate curves. So I always put his closure errors in the curves. I also found 2 recently set pipes out about 2 and 5 feet. I set new ones. If that's pin cushioning, I plead guilty.
forgetting the boundary resolution...
forgetting the boundary resolution and to answer your question:
Your client NEEDS a monument at the corner so he can build a fence/wall or pull a string line to offset his new building, whatever.
If someone is wrong I am not too bashful to set a proper durable monument for the use of the owners.
Isn't that the same as asking, "When is it "necessary" for there to be two monuments, both representing themselves as marking the same corner?" Whose interests are you serving?
Ask this question to any layman or landowner on the street and see what response you get. Are we kidding ourselves? Can we really find any "necessity" for a pin cushion?
Another way to ask the question is, "When is it okay for a surveyor create a situation where two markers purport to mark the same corner?"
The only correct answer is resolution which will never result in a pin cushion.
JBS
> Specifically, this is a judgement issue, not a "better measurement" issue....what would you do to monument the line.
You live in a recording state. Record a survey. Explain your reasoning on the survey. Explain your reasoning to your client. Maybe contact the adjoiners and explain to them.
You also live in the state where Merriman v. Cokeley,930 P3d 162, 168 Wn2d 627 is law. Things might be different if your were an Okie. The court favors acquiescence a great deal more here.
Yes, talk to the other surveyor, yes make sure you are right...
But to answer my own question, I would do as much as I could to make sure there was One monument.
> But to answer my own question, I would do as much as I could to make sure there was One monument.
I don't think there is anything in Washington's code that prevents you from pulling the other monuments. It does require that you document and record what you've done.
Like others have said, check with the other surveyor to ensure that you've already considered all of the evidence that he considered and that you fully understand how & why the monument got to be where it is, and also that it is still where the other surveyor set it.
If after considering all of the evidence (go back look at Brian Allen's response), you are convinced that the monument does not mark the corner (and hasn't become the corner over time through reliance), then decide what to do about identifying the actual corner.
As JBStahl said, there can only be one point there that is the actual corner, and multiple monuments at the location is certain to cause confusion now or in the future. IMO, the best solution at that point would be to inform all the affected landowners of what you've found and get them to agree to have you remove the errant monument and replace it with your own in the correct location. Get that agreement signed - a statement on the face of the recorded map signed by each would be ideal -, and provide sufficient data on your map to recreate the position of the pulled monument from your own monuments just in case there is ever a need to do so (and also to show the magnitude of the error you've found).
If you're squeemish about removing the errant monument, even with permission, then it's a judgment call as to which less than ideal solution you want to create: 1) set your own mon, leaving the other in place, guaranteeing that one or more landowners will be confused as to which is right; or 2) Call out the errant mon as a witness mo to the true position without setting your own. This 2nd solution isn't as ugly in the field nor as immediately damning of our profession, but you can be assured that one or all affected landowners and probably one or more future surveyors will use it as if it is at the corner.
If one or more of the owners insists that the other monument is right and refuses to accept your position, then barring them being convinced to change their mind, your left with one of the less than ideal solutions and shouldn't be surprised if it moves toward litigation.
In any case, be very, very certain of yourself before creating either a real or a paper pincushion.
> If the evidence supported my conclusion that the monument was set in the wrong location through either careless work or through missing existing monuments, I would set my own. I would fully note why the monument was rejected and how I arrived at my position. I'm not talking about being a better measurer, but rather a procedure issue.
Absolutely right.
Sounds like you need a permit to pull your traverse nails after finishing a job and setting the real corners.
> Sounds like you need a permit to pull your traverse nails after finishing a job and setting the real corners.
You must have just skimmed through the code to believe that. The only thing I can think of that would make one believe that traverse nails were sacred to the gov't would be the part on local control monuments, but that only applies to:
> Local control point: Points established to mark horizontal or vertical control positions that are part of a permanent government control network other than the National Geodetic Survey network.
> Washington code on monument removal
I am aware of that WAC, but I believe that it is intended to deal with monuments to be destroyed by construction. Read in this context I see how it could be literally interpreted to apply to surveyors pulling the monument of another. I'm not aware that it ever has been so interpreted.
>WAC 332-120-040 (1) All land boundary survey monuments that are removed or destroyed shall be replaced or witness monuments shall be set to perpetuate the survey point.
So if you do remove the monument, and set your own, you show them on your Record of Survey. Presto, the removed monument is referenced and WAC 332-120 is satisfied.