Kent McMillan, post: 371722, member: 3 wrote: 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?
You've come full circle, this was the process Nate stepped us through to begin with. What a trip it has been!
Double D- you've got reason to be confused. Really there is no disagreement. Just a bunch of talk and then some more talk, and now we're back to where we started.
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.
RADAR, post: 371743, member: 413 wrote: Is there something here [in the above]; 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?
I suppose that if I did not think of land surveying as requiring trained powers of observation, one of my favorite stories about observation might not be this one :
"Dr. Harold Emery Jones, writing in the 1930s, told of how when he was a student, Edinburgh surgeon Joseph Bell (1837-1911) presented them with a mysterious liquid: "This, gentlemen, contains a very potent drug. To the taste it is intensely bitter. It is most offensive to the sense of smell. But I want you to test it by smell and taste; and, as I donÛªt ask anything of my students which I wouldnÛªt be willing to do myself, I will taste it before passing it round" Here he dipped his finger in the liquid, and placed it in his mouth."
Why spoil the ending?
Yuriy Lutsyshyn, post: 371685, member: 2507 wrote: 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 🙂
Yuriy, that is also the technique that I would use in Texas in the case where there are no nearby markers from which to reestablish the position of the severely bent rebar. The assumption is that the rebar was originally plumb when set, so if the base below the bend is plumb and the ground is stiff enough to have held the base in place as enough force was applied to the top section to bend it, then just removing the rebar and replacing the straightened rebar in the same hole is a not unreasonable method of restoring the marker. Setting a tripod and optical plummet over the center of the straight section and confirming that the top of the bar as reset is in the same position via the plummet is sometimes a worthwhile refinement.
Would you even with the gross error? Seems would only need to tie surrounding corners and establishing the position to reset the original? I'm new:)
I have no issues straightening a bent corner and resetting if it is in the correct position.
jaxsmitty, post: 371756, member: 11693 wrote: Would you even with the gross error? Seems would only need to tie surrounding corners and establishing the position to reset the original? I'm new:)
You mean, would I rehabilitate a bent rebar marker that was grossly out of the position described? Probably if I thought it was worth getting a tie to. The rebar was there, regardless of whether it is a boundary corner or not and may represent something other than a tie-down stake when everything is sorted out. On the other hand, if it is clear that it is not a survey marker of any sort, no.
Thanks for your reply. Have been following this page for some time and decided to check it out. Nice to see your procedures in other states.
jaxsmitty, post: 371757, member: 11693 wrote: I have no issues straightening a bent corner and resetting if it is in the correct position.
+1
'Correct' position or original position? Not necessarily one and same.
I've always said we can only do the best job we can do. Anyone who would just consider that rod a corner is a dumb ass. Just my opinion.
jaxsmitty, post: 371757, member: 11693 wrote: I have no issues straightening a bent corner and resetting if it is in the correct position.
Suppose the monument, called for in a deed, was placed and the record dimensions to it that are known to be accurate to +/- 5'. You suspect that the monument was subsequently moved about 5'. You have reason to believe that the monument was subsequently moved about 5'. But you can't be sure of that. That is what we are talking about here.
Accept or Reject?
If by chance the bottom of the rod was 5.00' +- And on line I'd be like, he'll yes.
I see. Much more rural for that much play in records. I've never seen any.
Guess we just have better surveyors in fla. Haha
For those new to this board, and may be confused about what has gone on this and other threads, what you need to understand is that "high school debating tactics" doesn't even come close to what tends to happen here on occasion.
What Kent likes to do in order to try and prove his superiority over other posters is first to set up a false narrative (the straw man), and accuse anyone who doesn't bow at his alter of measurements, first, last, and always, of advocating some ridiculous position about something they do not or never have advocated or believed. No matter how strenuous his target(s) protest, the straw man is repeatedly drug out of the barn and beaten. A few colorful examples:
Kent McMillan, post: 371558, member: 3 wrote: Someone who uncritically accepts anything they can find near a fence corner post? Maybe not so much.
Kent McMillan, post: 371568, member: 3 wrote: certain habits of the mind such as uncritically accepting whatever one finds wherever he or she finds it,
Kent McMillan, post: 371570, member: 3 wrote: the whole notion or concept of ordinary errors was dismissed by some posters as irrelevant, presumably because they felt that they could tell just by *looking* at a monument whether it was disturbed or not.
Kent McMillan, post: 371579, member: 3 wrote: a cautionary tale for the benefit of the surveyors who want to uncritically latch onto whatever they find, wherever they find it and demand that it be something it isn't.
Kent McMillan, post: 371582, member: 3 wrote: Your blinders locked you onto the fact that there was a rebar there and that was the end of the hunt. You thought that either end of the rebar would suit you just fine as the boundary corner with no further inquiry.
Kent McMillan, post: 371606, member: 3 wrote: if a surveyor is unwilling to consider what the ordinary errors in a survey that placed a monument would be, but isn't bothered by the thought that a rebar dangling in the air from some concrete around a fence post that obviously has had some major life trauma MIGHT just be disturbed, how can any marker ever qualify as disturbed? I mean, if you don't want to use measurements as an important clue and don't want to use observations, is ESP all that is left?
Kent McMillan, post: 371625, member: 3 wrote: Actually, there was loads of resistance in a previous thread to even the very CONCEPT of ordinary errors as a measure of gross error. So, presumably an error of about five feet would not figure into the evaluation of the rod in the photo and all that would remain are the characteristics of the (former) monument as seen in the photo (which didn't seem to bother most readers).
Kent McMillan, post: 371626, member: 3 wrote: Yes, that would definitely be evidence that suggests disturbance. However, there is a long line of posters who would not be bothered by that fact at all.
Kent McMillan, post: 371671, member: 3 wrote: a necessary corrective to the free-floating idea that anything resembling an old survey marker must necessarily control any boundary corner in the vicinity.
Kent McMillan, post: 371681, member: 3 wrote: 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.
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.
The real kicker is that whenever Kent is challenged to produce the supposed statement or position (the straw man) that he has accused others of making, he usually doubles down. Watch and see.
Brian Allen, post: 371777, member: 1333 wrote: The real kicker is that whenever Kent is challenged to produce the supposed statement or position (the straw man) that he has accused others of making, he usually doubles down.
LOL. Why would a person need to do more than to read this thread to see the habit of mind at work? Fence post + Rebar = Here it is!
Even though your traversing the property and find the corner 5 ft out and fence post obviously disturbed? Are you just making a point that some lazy surveyors would find it and call it a corner?
jaxsmitty, post: 371795, member: 11693 wrote: Even though your traversing the property and find the corner 5 ft out and fence post obviously disturbed? Are you just making a point that some lazy surveyors would find it and call it a corner?
"Out" relative to what?
DDSM:beer::beer:
Relative to the legal description or deed.
:beer:cheers
Or relative to 4-5 other recorded corners...
