Where was the line?
> I don't know which one is wrong...but the red one seems to be the right one...
I knew there was a reason I use red caps. Got some yellow ones too, but they stamped the wrong number on it, so I just use those for pin cushioning. If there are already a couple there, I use the one with flagging tied on it - those are always good, especially old flagging. 😛
Happy New Year Beerleggers. Be Safe & most of all Have Fun
Duh,
thats an easy one.
Its wherever the first fence is placed.
> ... the logic is sound.
>
Boundaries aren't about logic or measurements. They're about the Law.
Even the law has its logic.
;o)
JBS
The true answer can be found in the words of the following story.
Two cannibals were discussing the favorite and least favorite types of humans to eat. One mentioned that he never eats anyone over 60 years of age. The other one asked, "Why?" The first cannibal replied, "Depends."
:good:
Seriously !???
Its a call in passing not a controlling monument.
The question concerns the 12 year old plat separate from the 5 acre parcel. The intent of this plat was to be a straight line along the east boundary. The error at the POL is .5 feet but there is nothing to say that error is in the POL or one or both of the corner monuments. How do the corners match the neighbors or any other ROW references, referenced evidence, etc? How do the bearings between each point match the called bearings? If the corners match the place where they should then the POL is in error. The line remains straight between the corners and the offset measured to the POL is noted. If the error is on one corner and the POL is indeed on line with correct bearings from the good corner, then the Line becomes bent at the POL as a mark of the true line originally set in the plat and the error on the bad corner is noted along with the true bearing from the POL. If a good faith effort was made to set that corner then the maker stays and the line bends, because the POL was set as part of the original plat to evidence the intended bearing. If the POL matches the original bearing it cannot be said to be offline from the corners. Likely, the corners are set and must be held despite any error. So if the POL marks a correct bearing from one corner, the line must remain on that bearing and bend to match the held corner. This would be the only case I can imagine a bend in the resurvey.
The question answers itself. To paraphrase, a point was set "online" 12 years ago. There is no intent for a bend in this line per the contract or map. There is no bend, there may be differing measurements or there may have been some disturbance. But until the POL monument is given some controlling status by contract or actions of parties or best remaining available evidence of the line between corners, it remains a mere curiosity. Of course its location will be reported different every time another surveyor locates it. That's why it's important to determine which monuments are controlling and which are not. We don't want the contracted parcel changing on the ground every time someone claims to be a better measurer, but the description of it may become more refined as time goes by.
You sure the half a foot didn't come from using your RTK under trees? Really, really sure?
That's the sort of question we don't ask out of professional courtesy, but should.
If this went to court, and you were called as the other side's expert witness, you would be picking apart the fieldwork and the job file for such things before it ever got to legal principles. Start picking as if you were that guy.
What method(s) found the half foot? With how much redundancy? What's the error ellipse? Don't tell me you are raising all this ruckus over a TS side shot or an under canopy RTK shot. Show us the notes. Show us the least squares output.
Another possibility is that the line point was set from an out-of-level TS, and the intent was to put it on the line. Any chance of getting the fieldnotes from whoever set that line point? Where do they think they set it? Does that tell us any more than the ROS ?
Before we leap off into talking about original monuments and retracing and putting kinks in the line, fascinating as it is, there are basics we need to check first.
My favorite Bruce Small quote, more or less: "Never blow off someone who is questioning your work, because they just might save your butt."
Love ya, Boss, just trying to keep you in business.
> See my point, there are many differing points of view on just this one post, all by, I am sure, very competent surveyors...you can still have all your t's crossed and all your I's dotted with a barrel full of evidence and still comes down to someone else making the decision. I like the John Giles method, not sure about 200' but the logic is sound.
>
> Been there done that....
I disagree. You say that all surveyors who have posted are very competent.
If the three monuments in question are all interior to and part of the 12 year old subdivision, then the monuments hold and the line is angled. That is based on the legal principle that monuments hold, and plat bearings and distances yield to them. That is the only principle to employ here. To do otherwise would not be competent. In fact, it would be incompetent.
Of course, there are instances where original monuments do NOT control, and one of those I gave above, but that does not appear to be the case here. Some of the disagreement here may be based on miscommunication, but if one accpets the scenario I just mentioned, then there is only one correct course of action and that one would therefore be the competent choice.
Stephen
> If this went to court, and you were called as the other side's expert witness, you would be picking apart the fieldwork and the job file for such things before it ever got to legal principles. Start picking as if you were that guy.
>
You are correct, Half. The surveyor's ability to confirm their measurements and to support the relative locations of points is always important on every survey. However, the only time that you'll see this type of challenge come up in a courtroom is if there are two competing surveys with two different locations of the same point. That's a pretty rare circumstance that I wouldn't be too concerned about until the conflicting evidence is presented.
When confronted by differing locations of the same point reported by two different surveyors, both surveyors had best be combing through their data and possibly make another field visit to resolve the "technical" issue. Make sure that you're not just chasing something the court would see as "de minimus." The fact that two surveyors can't agree on the location of a physical marker by a few tenths just doesn't matter to the court. The only thing that matters is that, 1) the surveyors recovered the evidence, and 2) they gave it proper consideration in accordance with the law.
In this post, we've fulfilled number one; the question falls to number two. Surveyors cannot make up the law; their duty is to properly apply the law.
>"The rules for resurveys have been set forth in 12 Am.Jur.2d, Boundaries, § 61, p. 599: "Resurveys. 'In surveying a tract of land according to a former plat or survey, the surveyor's only duty is to relocate, upon the best evidence obtainable, the courses and lines at the same place where originally located by the first surveyor on the ground. In making the resurvey, he has the right to use the field notes of the original survey. The object of a resurvey is to furnish proof of the location of the lost lines or monuments, not to dispute the correctness of or to control the original survey. The original survey in all cases must, whenever possible, be retraced, since it cannot be disregarded or needlessly altered after property rights have been acquired in reliance upon it. On a resurvey to establish lost boundaries, if the original corners can be found, the places where they were originally established are conclusive without regard to whether they were in fact correctly located, in this respect it has been stated that the rule is based on the premise that the stability of boundary lines is more important than minor inaccuracies or mistakes. But it has also been said that great caution must be used in reference to resurveys, since surveys made by different surveyors seldom wholly agree. A resurvey not shown to have been based upon the original survey is inconclusive in determining boundaries and will ordinarily yield to a resurvey based upon known monuments and boundaries of the original survey.'" BUCKLEY v. LAIRD 493 P.2d 1070 (1972)
That's the law.
JBS
:good:
You guys might enjoy this thread on the CLSA website.
So assuming the line point is truly nailed down to the 0.04' at 95% confidence (or whatever your personal/professional standard is), and that it is the original monument set at the time of subdivision, and is accepted as undisturbed (although perhaps set a tad bit in error), it now Is the corner?
How do we document it in such a way as to show all this and not write a new legal, or otherwise punch the tar baby? or is that what we do, describe where to find this original monument with the newer, more detailed measurements?
Woke up grumpy and I guess I'm still getting past seeing everything as a technician. Apologies to Radar. Sometimes it would help me in these stories to have a little more detail.
> How do we document it in such a way as to show all this and not write a new legal, or otherwise punch the tar baby? or is that what we do, describe where to find this original monument with the newer, more detailed measurements?
>
I virtually never get the exact same measurements as the original calls. I put the 'record' calls and the measured calls as I measured them when I find and accept a monument. In the case of the monument "on line" I might say the same bearing in as the bearing out for the called-for bearings and, of course my as-measured bearings would differ from each other.
This, in my opinion, shows the reader that I found the corner, and I am showing may measurements to it. The "supporting evidence" if you will.
Maybe I get it now: The mere act of monumenting the line moved it a tad. It would have been a perfect line between corners had we not tried to pin it down. Huh. kinda like Schrodinger's Cat.
And if the original subdividing surveyor stakes it "out" by half a foot, or a foot, or 7.5 feet, unless someone else discovers the discrepancy within ... how long? this is now an undocumented (indirect?) monument that divides a previously straight course?
I guess the difference in how what happens on paper follows what happens on the ground depends on whether it is blackberries or pasture or skyscrapers, i.e., the equity or relative worth involved?
Wow! Awesome responses everyone, thank you for your input!
Like I said, it is a hypothetical situation so what you see is what you get. I thought it might be a good test question, don't read too much into it and resolve to the best answer based on the information given.
Actually, it's only part hypothetical. I have a client that owns 2 parcels and wants to adjust the line between them. There are line stakes on all 3 lines and the east line of the east property does have a marker at the top of a steep ravine. I don't know how it relates to line yet, I haven't gotten that far. It was raining and the ravine was full of blackberry and nettles, so I figured I'd wait til I had my son with me...;-) .
As far as reliance on the line, I don't think anyone cared. There is a fence that ends at the top of the ravine 5' east of the marker and someone planted a dozen cedar trees on the west side of the fence. The fence does start at the corner, but they didn't bother finding the line as they went north.
Thanks again, to all of the good people of this board and Wendell and Angel for making it all possible!:clap:
I hope everyone has a happy and prosperous New Year!!
Radar
A couple of more things I want to add....
1) Early in my career, a boss told me that 2 points make a straight line, a 3rd one puts a bend in it. That has always stuck with me, for 36 years.
And B) I would never call someone on a mistake they made, without being POSITIVE that I was right in making that call. I suppose this comes from all those times when contractors told me I was wrong, when all along it was them......
May all your lines be straight, at least as straight as possible...;-)
Dugger
Forgive me, Boss. I should not have gone off like I did. I did not read the original post with full comprehension, missed the hypothetical qualifier, and jumped to looking for the missing half a foot as we all so love to do. As I said, I'm still getting past being a technician. I learned a lot from this thread, too. Thanks everyone!