There is a discussion going on about whether GIS will be the mapping system of the future and whether it will be the go to place for boundary information. I don't think there is any doubt about, it's the way to go and I'm fully for it. This GIS way of mapping just didn't fall out of nowhere. There has been a lot going on for over 30 years to develop it. The need for it was recognized long ago.
Many surveyors didn't get on board, many are still strictly against it. The is no end to the horror stories when it comes to GIS and boundaries. I think everyone in the survey business knows why, the parcels are just not shown where an accurate boundary map would put them. So the real issue is getting the coordinates of the parcel corners input so that the map shows where the boundaries are on the ground and the coordinates take you to the legal monument. I think maybe some don't think the GIS can handle this but it can. I'm no expert but I have messed with ARCMAP enough to know that it is plenty capable of handling the data just fine. It can even handle LDP's. Even custom small LDP's, I've done it. So once the data is entered in the proper and accurate manor you can switch around to what ever projection you want, no problem.
GIS is all developed and going or ready to go, the brave new world is here. If we want it correct all that needs be done is seed the coordinates to the legal positions of the corners. So this gets us down to the real issues here. First who pays, and second after they pay boundary surveying is not going be what it has been in the past. Some say, and I realize, that the law just can't be accommodated here, that it can't ever be resolved because of the law. I don't believe that.
One of the issues is our land tenure system. The way that the whole history of conveyances and boundaries have developed, the need for total research back to day one to properly get the boundary in its original location where by law, it never moves from. I understand this, I've had my nose in the old books at the court house plenty of time. Some may think we may never escape from this or that it's a great system, they make their money from it, its just the law. I don't think so, it's expensive and its backward, something from our past that doesn't need to continue. Our nation can't afford it. Landowners want to be able to get on their computers and see where their boundaries are (they already do, its just not correct). We live in the great information age, it's just natural to expect that.
So I believe surveyors should get on board, help convince the public why it needs to be done right, why they should pay. Ah, but we got the law of the land, this Rube-Goldberg contraption that's developed over our history, folks with firmly entrench power that live off the complex contraption. This isn't going down easy, but it must.
So how do we go forth into a new day, a simpler faster and more efficient way. We seed the GIS with the legal positions of the corners, that's how, and it is a lot of surveyors work leading to retirement. But the law, and 400 years of records that must be researched by the nerds before they will say where the corner is. Well, I'm for getting it right as much as possible but 99.9% is far to high a goal. And besides, many forget that boundaries are a landowner thing. It's the nerds with all their attention to every detail that get in the way. Landowners can agree and landowners can have all the due process they want to pursue, but in the end either by agreement or by adjudication, the position of the corners can be finalized, seeded into the GIS and a new day, new way, begin. We survey the boundaries and present our solutions to the landowners to accept or reject. For all the corners they accept (most by my prediction), or agree to with their neighbors, the courts simply adjudicate, it's done. All others they litigate, give the landowners their day in court until the judgment is rendered. This will be the final original survey, sanctioned by the landowners. After that the Rube-Goldberg contraption is dumped into the landfill of history. Simplicity, through the use of technology will rule the day. After that the past is history and not some mess of paper to continually wade through, resurvey, tweak or continually break down.
This IS going to happen. The surveyors choice is to be part of the steamroller or part of the road. I want to end my journey in the drivers seat, not mashed into the pavement.
If you don't want the work, they'll easily find someone who does.
A couple of things...
1) GIS is not a map. It is a georeferenced database.
2) The parcel layer is a tiny, minuscule part of GIS. Many applications don't need to know where the parcels are located.
3) according to the highest ranking GIS guy in California government...our computers are more powerful than ever, the software is incredibly powerful and loaded with features...our data is cr*p. His exact word...cr*p.
Geographic databases are definitely a wondrous and mighty tool. I use two or three daily in my work. But if I've read your opinion correctly; you are removing the actual monumentation of boundaries from the ground to the clouds.
Boundaries apparently will no longer be demarcated by monuments but by geographic coordinates. "Damn the pins, I have a 15 sv fix!" might become our professional war cry.
The lofty position precedence occupies in our jurisprudence would have to be turned on its ear for that to happen, imho. As long as there has been real property, there has been real monuments.
There no doubt is a large quadrant of the future horizon that belongs to geospatial information systems. I, for one, feel there will also always be a need for learned professional folks whose understanding of the sciences are relied upon for the catalyst between the "dirt" and the "disc".
Here is one of my sentences:
So the real issue is getting the coordinates of the parcel corners input so that the map shows where the boundaries are on the ground and the coordinates take you to the legal monument.
Your right, but one of the things you do with a GIS is produce a map, all kinds of maps.
And, cr*p is right. That's what needs to be fixed and costs real money.
> There is a discussion going on about whether GIS will be the mapping system of the future and whether it will be the go to place for boundary information.
Actually, the real discussion is about how reliable information will ever get into any GIS if there are lots of folks who feel that they can't be bothered to (a) do adequate research and (b) do adequate field investigation.
I think that most GIS practitioners are not licensed surveyors and not all licensed surveyors are good property surveyors. The GIS data is only as good as the person inputting the data. There a lot of other reasons why GIS will not rule all. I don't understand why surveyors would want it to. Also, blind reliance on coordinates is never a good idea. Again, I am not against GIS, but it is not a solve-all system for boundaries. Sure does make for good discussion though.
The corner data entered into the Cadastral parcel data should be required to have the status of an original monument, the marker being the place of the legal established corner. It shouldn't be based just on the opinion of a surveyor unless that opinion is accepted by the affected landowners (with proper documentation). The actual documents of acceptance, conveyance to a line with end monuments, or if necessary judgment should be required to be entered into the public record and available in the GIS database. A symbol that represents such legal status of the corner should be adopted and shown by the viewer, with a click allowing access to the supporting data. That way it would be simple to see which corners are good and which are still fuzzy. This becomes a transition point from the past and a new beginning for the future. No need to research back any further as the point has been established and the supporting documents are available.
Every landowner would be given their due process to have all the research back as far as they want, explore every available piece evidence, litigate every issue they desire. In the end whether by a conveyance (line adjustment), acceptance of the opinion of a surveyor, or adjudication to judgment, the corner entered into the system would be final, elevated to the status of an original controlling corner. Where any previous line was prior would be irrelevant at that point, but the position of the moot line wouldn't altered.
Why GIS Will Pre-fail
> The corner data entered into the Cadastral parcel data should be required to have the status of an original monument
(while, of course, not really being an original monument or even anything of record anywhere),
>the marker being the place of the legal established corner.
Read: "fence corner"
> It shouldn't be based just on the opinion of a surveyor
(particularly since many surveyors may decline to give the opinion that a fence corner is other than a fence corner),
> unless that opinion is accepted by the affected landowners (with proper documentation).
This really does sound like a perfect mission for the US Power Squadron and the geocaching community. I mean, the whole object of the exercise is to get coordinates on fence corners and to dress those fence corners up with some sort of a pedigree that makes them sound like something special. You could have a form for an "Established Corner Recovery Note" that the USPS members could fill out every year or two, either reporting that "found Established Fence Corner as described" or "Established Fence Corner not found", which would cue the fence contractors to contact the interested landowners for some Established Fence Corner installation work.
I think your prediction will come to pass in some form in the future. I vote for Kent to be the official line weight designator for the TX territory parcel map.
".our data is cr*p."
Just to be clear, the CA head honcho meant that the data obtained and used by the GIS community is crap, right? "Our" didn't mean the land surveyor community's data, correct?
I have the impression GIS tools have a way to go before they're ready for millimeter accuracy long term data. Aren't they kind of fuzzy about which vintage state plane coordinate system is which? And isn't there an absence of support for geodetic motion? Not to mention the absence of data repositories with a commitment to store data for hundreds of years.
I know it's cold up there LR, it's @#$^ cold here too but, sometimes taking care of exposure to the elements can have a profound effect on your physical health, which has a direct affect on your mental health and cognitive processes.:-O
These may cost an extra dollar or so to keep your feet warm. These are Made in the USA by people who invest in American jobs.
Wigwam Socks
[sarcasm]We'll just GIS EVERY OTHER parcel.[/sarcasm]
Who's money and how long do you think they're willing to wait for EVERY boundary discrepancy to rear it's ugly head?
Just for a real world connect to your litigious panacea you only have to visit the foreclosure process in Florida and the "rocket dockets" as a future model for adjudication.
One more time, how fast did you expect this process to be? 😛
Yes he was speaking to a room full of GIS people.
"...removing the actual monumentation of boundaries from the ground to the clouds."
You don't use cloud-based measurement to set monuments?
Dave
Mr. Day,
They're just not getting it. Every time a landowner wants his corners set, a surveyor has to go back through a string of conveyances and subdivisions to do the job right. 50 years from now, that string will be twice as long. People already balk at the price of a survey, so corners will be cut. Pretty soon property owners won't be able to afford a survey. They'll just do the simple thing and say to their neighbor, "Hey Fred, do you agree this is our property line?" And surveyors will all wonder why they haven't had a job since that sweet lil $75,000 job setting corners on a 70' X 100' residential lot.
Why can't any of them see this? How many subdivisions of subdivisions are "paper subdivisions" not recorded with a surveyor's map or pins in the ground? Or even worse, pincushions. And what about a seller's intent? Isn't that intent every bit as important as mathmatical considerations? Out of that string of conveyances, which one is the "original conveyance?" How much research is adequate? And why does this have to be done over and over and over? What is the limit of what people are willing to pay for this gross duplication of effort? Why can't every paper record affecting a property be attached as a PDF to the GIS map as a backup check? Why wouldn't an electronic marker be as good as a physical marker? Aren't total stations and those newfangled GPS thingies "electronic" measuring machines?
Kent has the kind of genius to allow him to instantly go to that one and only "correct" original coveyance, thereby saving loads of "adequate research" time, but what of the rest of us who are not as gifted?
Dave
> Kent has the kind of genius to allow him to instantly go to that one and only "correct" original coveyance, thereby saving loads of "adequate research" time, but what of the rest of us who are not as gifted?
Actually, in the part of the United States where metes and bounds descriptions are well written, those original severing conveyances are referenced in the description. They should also be shown on maps. This being the case, the next surveyor can readily verify that the conveyance referenced was when title left common source. Rakettenwissenshaft? Uh, no.
There is little need for the GIS itself to be precise in what Leon is describing. The geographic objects could essentially represent links to survey products. For the user interface, the linework could be left to "close enough" tolerances and resolution to accurately depict the geometry of the parcels. Selecting the parcel could then open recorded surveys. This is fairly easy, I'd think. And regardless of how the legal part of Leon's suggestion falls, this will likely be the way surveying is done in the future. Surveyors following the work I'm doing today in the next generation or two, won't be surveying the way I am today. They'll navigate to the monument with ease and they'll be able to compare the title boundary of their subject parcel to the title boundary of the adjoining parcels in the office, without ever stepping foot on the ground. Why? Because the surveys will all be geodetically referenced with clear definitions of the monuments that define them. There is a lot of land still carrying 100 year old descriptions, so it'll be a while before it's the norm, but it is happening... glacially perhaps, but it is happening. How the US Power Squadron or geocaching figures in to this is beyond me. This requires surveyors with expert knowledge to happen. That is why I would think the actual working part of this might not be the database, but the elements in the database - in other words, instead of the parcel layer of the GIS defining the precise location of a title boundary, the signed and sealed (digital or real) survey attached to that layer would.
The legal aspect of what Leon is describing will be much trickier to pull off as it will require an entirely different land registration - from Common Law to a Torrens system. Some don't agree with this, but in my opinion, the Common Law system provides for several different boundaries of a property: Title (as the senior deed describes), Occupational (what is actually possessed), and ownership (which could be one or the other or both if both lines are coincident). A GIS approach to title could work even in a Common Law system as a means of archiving data, but it would not stand as the ultimate authority of ownership because rules of adverse possession would still apply.
This week alone on two separate jobs, I was able to use coordinates to find monuments within a couple of tenths of a foot. The monuments of course still define the boundary, but the coordinates led me to those monuments within minutes of being on site. Both or these jobs required using coordinates two tracts away, using the descriptions of the tracts between known coordinates and the subject and determining position estimates for the subject. I'm still amazed how this stuff works so well sometimes. The question for the future will be how best to streamline the process of evaluating all of that data into the real world boundaries on the ground.
Thanks for that. Something to read of actual substance.
