Kris Morgan, post: 371674, member: 29 wrote: The rest of us just build them in place to not have that unsightly problem of them not being right.
Don't you mean that "in East Texas, if we already have some good trees to staple the wire to, why would be need any posts at all?" :>
Kent, the legal corner is the legal corner.
Period.
My expectations were set properly.
N
Kent McMillan, post: 371676, member: 3 wrote: Don't you mean that "in East Texas, if we already have some good trees to staple the wire to, why would be need any posts at all?" :>
We have a complete dossier on you...
Kent Blaine, Age 37
Can't return to California, the reason is a little unclear.
Nate The Surveyor, post: 371677, member: 291 wrote: Kent, the legal corner is the legal corner.
Period.
I don't think anyone most surveyors would dispute that a marker that is original and undisturbed is in a special category. The discussion so far has centered around:
(a) what constitutes an original marker and
(b) how whether or not a marker has been disturbed can be determined.
This thread is a demonstration of the fact that merely examining a marker is clearly insufficient as a means of determining whether it has been determined. No surprise there.
for original location of the rebar the lower we go the closer to original horizontal location we get. if we eventually get to bend point and after that the rebar goes vertically straight down i would call that straight hole in the ground original location. But i do not know what Law says about it 🙂
Kent McMillan, post: 371681, member: 3 wrote: I don't think
anyonemost surveyors would dispute that a marker that is original and undisturbed is in a special category. The discussion so far has centered around:(a) what constitutes an original marker and
(b) how whether or not a marker has been disturbed can be determined.This thread is a demonstration of the fact that merely examining a marker is clearly insufficient as a means of determining whether it has been determined. No surprise there.
Very good Kent, I am proud of you.
You have separated the question into two parts.
So why do you keep conflating the two parts in your posts?
Dave Karoly, post: 371686, member: 94 wrote: You have separated the question into two parts.
So why do you keep conflating the two parts in your posts?
Huh?
Kent McMillan, post: 371671, member: 3 wrote: I thought this example provided a necessary corrective to the free-floating idea that anything resembling an old survey marker must necessarily control any boundary corner in the vicinity. If in fact the concept of ordinary and expected errors enters into the picture, you're welcome.
Ahhh, protecting the innocent...a noble cause. I think anyone critically reading Nate's posts would see that his decisions were not based solely on a blind acceptance of existing monumentation. He compared the nature and vintage of the monuments with the known practices of the original surveyor, the measuring techniques of the original surveyor, and the location of roads and powerlines built from the original monumentation that demonstrated a pattern and gave explanation to gross mis-measurement in by today's standards. This evidence was not irrelevant to his decision. It can be a fine line between teaching and condescension. You've gone well over that line.
Kent McMillan, post: 371687, member: 3 wrote: Huh?
Maybe it would help you to leave high school debating tactics behind and engage in actual discussion.
We always shoot the base of the rebar, so that when we resolve the boundary we can see an accurate distance from the computed point to where a surveyor would have placed the rebar in question. I would not automatically assume that any rebar placed in the ground is a corner anymore than I will assume that any question you ask going forward is just a pretense to a GOTCHA.
Dave Karoly, post: 371696, member: 94 wrote: Maybe it would help you to leave high school debating tactics behind and engage in actual discussion.
The "huh?" translates as "I have no idea what exactly you are objecting to". Other posters think that this thread is something other than what it transparently is: an object lesson in the importance of ordinary errors in determining whether survey markers remain in place undisturbed or not if inspection doesn't work.
The found marker is a bright and shiny object that seems to deaden many surveyors senses and critical facilities. We've read all sorts of wild stuff on this message board regarding markers found and this thread is simply a dose of reality that illustrates a strong confirmation bias running loose in the profession. If you don't think any of that is relevant, that's not my problem.
Kent McMillan, post: 371703, member: 3 wrote: The found marker is a bright and shiny object that seems to deaden many surveyors senses and critical facilities. We've read all sorts of wild stuff on this message board regarding markers found and this thread is simply a dose of reality that illustrates a strong confirmation bias running loose in the profession. If you don't think any of that is relevant, that's not my problem.
This lacks any foundation in anything other posts have said.
Just because an UNDISTURBED marker doesn't meet your expectations of precision does not mean the other Surveyor did not consider that fact in the overall scheme of analysis. But you keep saying that; I can only conclude you are stuck in an endless cycle of obsessive high school debating tactics.
Note: I emphasized "undisturbed" to hopefully interrupt the inevitable reply of something like, "you obviously can't tell or don't care that the marker is disturbed as in the photo I have posted of a fence post moved by some insane Texan."
Dave Karoly, post: 371709, member: 94 wrote: Just because an UNDISTURBED marker doesn't meet your expectations of precision does not mean the other Surveyor did not consider that fact in the overall scheme of analysis.
OK. I accept that. But the crux of the matter is when measurements to a monument do not meet expectations of precision just exactly how do you determine that it is, indeed, undisturbed? Such evidence is likely to be subjective, and what might be satisfactory to one surveyor is not to another, without either one being wrong.
Dave Karoly, post: 371709, member: 94 wrote: This lacks any foundation in anything other posts have said.
Well, if a surveyor finds what appears to be a survey marker grossly out of position, would a reasonable surveyor just dust off his or her hands and say "that's it!" or would he or she set about determining what, if any, evidence suggests that it is not in fact either (a) a random piece of junk stabbed in by parties unknown or (b) something that was probably actually placed in that position by the original survey? If the latter, what technical lines of evidence would a resonable surveyor want to consider?
BTW anyone who wants to complain that the photos I posted at the beginning of the thread didn't clearly indicate that the rod was disturbed might want to have another look:
I have been reading both of these threads and I guess maybe I missed something, because people whose opinions I've come to truly respect (I read this forum everyday) absolutely disagree about something that seems so simple. It makes me wonder if I even understand the point being debated. As I understand it, Kent's point is that a seemingly undisturbed, seemingly original monument that doesn't fit the anticipated location by a delta greater than what was common to the era, the area, and the practitioner can't automatically be accepted as an undisturbed original monument. If a surveyor who knows what he's looking at and knows who he's following expects two monuments to be 200' apart because the plat or the deed call out 200', but they measure 195' apart, the 5' delta warrants further investigation. And if those very same monuments don't match the other 80% of the recovered monuments, then that also warrants further investigation. Just because it looks like an undisturbed or slightly disturbed original doesn't mean it actually is. If the measurement on the ground matches expectations, then the monument can be accepted without much more effort, right? If it doesn't, you don't just shrug your shoulders and accept it as the work of the original surveyor without asking if he would have done such work. Deciding whether it's location is the result of common errors in practice or of gross error or of disturbance requires knowledge of what was common, right?
Have I missed it completely? Educate me if I have.
Mark Mayer, post: 371713, member: 424 wrote: But the crux of the matter is when measurements to a monument do not meet expectations of precision just exactly how do you determine that it is, indeed, undisturbed? Such evidence is likely to be subjective, and what might be satisfactory to one surveyor is not to another, without either one being wrong.
I think that's exactly the point. For starters, if a marker was supposedly placed by a survey, is there any plausible reconstruction of that survey with which the position of the marker would be consistent?
Double D, post: 371721, member: 6801 wrote: Just because it looks like an undisturbed or slightly disturbed original doesn't mean it actually is. If the measurement on the ground matches expectations, then the monument can be accepted without much more effort, right? If it doesn't, you don't just shrug your shoulders and accept it as the work of the original surveyor without asking if he would have done such work. Deciding whether it's location is the result of common errors in practice or of gross error or of disturbance requires knowledge of what was common, right?
Have I missed it completely?
I think you've got it exactly right. Evaluating the ordinary errors of a survey that placed marks of a boundary is an essential part of weighing whether some thing that resembles what a prior surveyor might have placed really is such a thing, remaining in the same position as originally set. Just because the quality of the original survey was low doesn't mean that nothing can be done. Even the low quality surveys tend to have characteristic methods and pattern.
When I find a corner in the fence posts concrete, my first thought is that it is disturbed. Now it's my job to prove it is or isn't. Checking the math is the first step.
Double D, post: 371721, member: 6801 wrote: It makes me wonder if I even understand the point being debated
Kent McMillan, post: 371720, member: 3 wrote: if a surveyor finds what appears to be a survey marker grossly out of position
This would've been useful information in the OP....
From the OP:
Kent McMillan, post: 371538, member: 3 wrote: Apparently, the fence post (what in some states would be known as the "original" fence corner) was set in concrete in a hole beside the rebar and the concrete ended up encasing the top of the rod. The rebar is the same pattern as other 1/2-inch iron rods found marking other corners of the tract that the public records indicate were placed in 1983. The survey was made before the conveyance and the land was then conveyed using a metes and bounds description prepared by the 1983 surveyor calling for this marker at the corner.
Is there something here; that would lead me to believe that you had not found a monument "grossly" out of position and that you were now left with determining whether the top or bottom of a slightly "disturbed" monument was the best position to hold?
Best Regards,
Dougie