Hey! I just thought of something! what you you do if you math from all the other corners hit the top of that angled-rebar right on, smarty-pants.
(The "smarty-pants" is kind of the universal "smarty-pants" addressed at no particular person).
You got it Tom. The owner MOVED the fence corner to fit the MATH...just like the tripod jockey showed him.
LOL
DDSM:beer::beer::beer:
Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner!!!!!
[USER=7285]@Tom Adams[/USER], I'm sorry you don't remember from the old board the horrible names that Kent called Scott Freshwaters wife. They were truly terrible and beyond the pale.
Kris Morgan, post: 372434, member: 29 wrote: [USER=7285]@Tom Adams[/USER], I'm sorry you don't remember from the old board the horrible names that Kent called Scott Freshwaters wife. They were truly terrible and beyond the pale.
That's right....I remember he gave her a lot of crap. I guess I don't remember the name-calling thought.
What's the story of the fence line that comes into the damaged support corner with the IR in the pan view?
Kent McMillan, post: 371558, member: 3 wrote: Okay, so far, only John Putnam has been observant enough to recognize that the "original fence corner post" is wildly disturbed. A land surveyor will be able to make that judgment. Someone who uncritically accepts anything they can find near a fence corner post? Maybe not so much.
Measurements demonstrate that the rebar was originally set to mark the corner in a location more than 5 ft. distant from where it is shown in the photo. You are looking at an entire welded steel pipe brace section that was pulled out of the ground, moved about 5 ft. East, and just set in some new holes on ground that didn't fit the profile of its previous location, which is why the corner post is canted so far out of plumb.
Does a land surveyor have to have some idea of what the expected errors in a survey were? Uh, hell, yes.
In your original question: "Here's the question: Do you consider the top or the bottom of the rod to mark the corner? I mean all we hear is "original monuments control" and this rebar would appear to be that originally set and described in the deed of record. So, presumably in that world the corner is either (a) the base of the rod, (b) the top of the rod (since that is visible), or some point between the two." you were very specific to ask where on the rod is the corner. Although it is obvious that the rod and the post have been as you say "wildly disturbed", nothing at all in either of the two photos would leave one to think that it had been moved 5' and your question implies that you know the corner location is somewhere on the rod, you just want us to determine the most logical or correct spot on the rod. If you want to belittle others for not knowing the rod corner brace and attached fence has been moved 5' since the original survey, you should have at least shown enough evidence so that a person could deuce that fact.
This question/scenario has me very suspicious. You stated that there was a galvanized gate post at the original location, is there a gate attached, and if so why would someone install a 5' gate? Do you happen to have lat/long of this area so that others can get a better idea of what has been happening in the area, or even better, do you have more photos showing the whole story? I would love to see photos of the new gate post and how it is tied in along with showing the original corner brace.
kkw_archer, post: 372561, member: 5453 wrote: In your original question: "Here's the question: Do you consider the top or the bottom of the rod to mark the corner? I mean all we hear is "original monuments control" and this rebar would appear to be that originally set and described in the deed of record. So, presumably in that world the corner is either (a) the base of the rod, (b) the top of the rod (since that is visible), or some point between the two." you were very specific to ask where on the rod is the corner. .
Actually, the second question in the intial post was:
"Or, might the corner be somewhere else?" It was right below the photo of the obviously disturbed marker. :>
Kent McMillan, post: 372565, member: 3 wrote: Actually, the second question in the intial post was:
"Or, might the corner be somewhere else?" It was right below the photo of the obviously disturbed marker. :>
True your second question does say that, the original intentionally misleading question does not. Back to my question now, do you have any other photographs of this area or a lat/long? It sure seems like a fabricated situation to me.
kkw_archer, post: 372571, member: 5453 wrote: True your second question does say that, the original intentionally misleading question does not. Back to my question now, do you have any other photographs of this area or a lat/long? It sure seems like a fabricated situation to me.
Would you agree on second inspection that the photos I posted obviously show a rebar that isn't even in the ground attached to some concrete around a fence post that clearly has something wrong with it? If so, what conclusion should a surveyor draw from those two facts alone?
The conclusion I draw is that my LG Vista Phone is not a very good device to view your photos, especially after they have been downsized, to go on the forum. I also conclude that you were made nervous by my previous post, My Interesting week.
I also conclude that you are more hung on the numbers than I am. I don't put a punch mark on my caps. I am afraid, that if the monument spins, we will have error introduced. So, I set the middle of the monument and cap correctly.
And, I am not sure why you feel the need to correct surveying in other locals.
But, then again, it would probably not be too hard to retrace one of your surveys, were I to need to.
Is it raining there?
N
Kent McMillan, post: 372572, member: 3 wrote: Would you agree on second inspection that the photos I posted obviously show a rebar that isn't even in the ground attached to some concrete around a fence post that clearly has something wrong with it? If so, what conclusion should a surveyor draw from those two facts alone?
No, using my monitors and the photographs you provided, I can not say that the photos obviously show a rebar that isn't even in the ground. The grass directly in front of the rod blocks a good clear view, and when I try to zoom in the photograph becomes to pixelated to tell anything about it. That being said, you can make a reasonable assumption that both the post and rod have been disturbed, however nothing in either photo would lead a person to believe that they had been moved five feet.
Let me give you the opportunity to avoid my question the third time: Do you have any other photographs of the area that show both the new galvanized gate post and the original corner brace, or can you provide lat/long of the area so that others can get a better view of what is going on at this corner?
[MEDIA=youtube]vfUrrvzY8QA[/MEDIA]
kkw_archer, post: 372575, member: 5453 wrote: No, using my monitors and the photographs you provided, I can not say that the photos obviously show a rebar that isn't even in the ground. The grass directly in front of the rod blocks a good clear view, and when I try to zoom in the photograph becomes to pixelated to tell anything about it.
If the lower 0.03 ft. of the rod were actually in contact with the dirt (instead of being visible in the photo and labelled "Bottom of 1/2" Iron Rod" or something similar, that would probably mean that the rod could not have been disturbed? Is that the point?
That being said, you can make a reasonable assumption that both the post and rod have been disturbed, however nothing in either photo would lead a person to believe that they had been moved five feet.
So, you can tell that both the post and rod appear to have been disturbed, but you can't tell whether or not the top of the rod is 5.27 ft. from its original position or 6.12 ft. from it? Does that mean that the rod probably isn't disturbed? :>
The first thing I do, on any boundary survey; make some kind of measurement, from something, that would allow me to find and verify the markers I am looking for. Maybe start at a center-line intersection and go from there. Depending on the job, I'd either measure with a tape, total station or GPS. I've been doing this since August 11, 1975 and would think that is SOP for ALL surveyors. I would assume that most others here would too.
That being said; I would also assume that you would do the same thing. The tell tale question at the end, gives away your little stratagem. Some less sedulous may have missed it, distracted, maybe by billable time.
Kent McMillan, post: 372583, member: 3 wrote: If the lower 0.03 ft. of the rod were actually in contact with the dirt (instead of being visible in the photo and labelled "Bottom of 1/2" Iron Rod" or something similar, that would probably mean that the rod could not have been disturbed? Is that the point?
As I said, I can not tell for certain that what I am looking at is indeed the bottom of the rod, and I did say that both the post and the rod appear to have been disturbed. The point is, nothing in either of the photos would imply the rod or post has been moved 5'.
So, you can tell that both the post and rod appear to have been disturbed, but you can't tell whether or not the top of the rod is 5.27 ft. from its original position or 6.12 ft. from it? Does that mean that the rod probably isn't disturbed? :>
No, like I said, the rod appears to have been disturbed, you just can not tell how much based on the two low quality photos provided.
I also believe this is almost entirely a fictitious scenario that you have conjured up.
Didn't read the whole thread. But if it's typical of other Kent threads, he started with just enough info to bait some into giving an answer, and then doled out information which put the circumstances in a very different light.
The proper answer is so simple that I'm sure someone else already posted it, but here goes anyway...
Whoever built the fence pulled the iron, which was at the mathmagically correct location per the measurements of the surveyor in 1983, and set the fence corner in that precise spot. Then to be helpful, because he knew that surveyors somehow use the information on the rods, he planted it into the concrete base so that it couldn't get pulled out & lost, and so it would be easy to find.
Straighten up the fence post, locate several points of the outside edge of the post at the base, obtain the mathmagical centroid of the shots, and there's your corner.
But of course, in that part of Texas, it doesn't really matter because every time someone surveys the property, they write a new description for the property to match their measurements. Tough to be wrong when you redefine the surveyed property in the image of your survey.
eapls2708, post: 372617, member: 589 wrote: Whoever built the fence pulled the iron, which was at the mathmagically correct location per the measurements of the surveyor in 1983, and set the fence corner in that precise spot. Then to be helpful, because he knew that surveyors somehow use the information on the rods, he planted it into the concrete base so that it couldn't get pulled out & lost, and so it would be easy to find.
Straighten up the fence post, locate several points of the outside edge of the post at the base, obtain the mathmagical centroid of the shots, and there's your corner.
Yes, I had a few takers urging essentially that same thing who likewise failed to notice that the fence post itself looked out of whack in a way this is most consistent with the whole brace section having been pulled out of the ground and moved to another location (as it in fact apparently was).They also fell victim to Suchere's equation:
IR + FP = EOH
Where:
IR = Iron Rod or Iron Pipe
FP = Fence Post
EOH = End of Hunt!
Heck, your talking about some scraggly scrub brush in central or west texas. The only sensible thing to do is get to the end of the hunt by any means that appears to have a semblance of reasoning. Your photo makes it look like the whole fence line going away from the camera is leaning and lining up really nice with that corner post.
5' this way or that - 25' this way or that won't make $100 difference in property value of that scrubby patch of hard packed dust. Just straighten up the fence post, make some nonsensically precise measurements of it, call the rebar off by 0.8325' to uphold your reputation for pointing out the failures of those who came before you, and call it good.
eapls2708, post: 372666, member: 589 wrote: Heck, your talking about some scraggly scrub brush in central or west texas.
Yeah, it's unlikely to be worth much more than $30k per acre. The tract that was marked by that #4 rebar (before it was uprooted and transported to the location seen in the photo) was actually placed by a competent surveyor and was tied afterwards by another competent surveyor. In other words, the record actually reflects where the corner is. What a concept!
