Quoting R. Hills earlier comment "Geez That is really dumb. To follow his logic,
he could have used the found monument as the witness corner.:-|
There is a surveyor locally who will reference corners found in very close proximity to his opinion of where the corner is supposed to be.
He will not pincushion in the dirt only on paper. It doesn't due the land owner much good and it perplexes any surveyor following his work.
I guess the title/closing attorneys kept happy."
R.Hill
Sorry don't mean to beat a dead horse here but I'm gona have to rant. I run into the same thing. Lot cnrs on plans by another surveyor that are pincushioned so to speak but only on paper. Showing the monument he found but noting a tie course under 0.1' to the actual cnr, but not every cnr. I'm assuming he draws the ref deed or plan and chooses to hold the best fitting corners, and tie courses the rest. I've been to some of these sites and the cnrs that he chooses not to hold look just as original as the cnrs he holds old ip's etc. and its not like there leaning or bent. I'm talking 3/4" solid monuments a tenth or two above grade. What happens if he happens to survey the abutting lot and then maybe the next one down...
I am not a licensed surveyor but have been working in the trade for about 14 yrs. I find this to be a pretty easy concept/rule to follow holding the monument over the measurement.
Doesn't he realize what hell this causes for the rest of us. He is fairly newly licensed but i have to assume he has to have reviewed ethics and standards, or at the very least read some of Jeff Lucas's articales.
I run into the guy every once in a while but as i said I'm not licensed so I don't bring it up.
I just don't understand why why why:-S
Just wondering if anybody has any suggestions or advice on how or whether I should bring this up with him or not. I expect to see him at a future conference coming up next week
Sorry for the long rant.
MAG-EYE over&out
I can't speak to the specific of this persons surveys. There is a general rule to consider before you consider bringing it up.
The process of gathering and evaluating evidence can be complex. We have to weave a myriad of facts and rules together to form our decisions. The minute you declare a rule I violate, circumstances will arise forcing you to abandon it.
'Monuments over math' is a valid concept, but so is honoring earned rights. If I find a monument that clearly does not fall on a senior line I'm noting it off. That principle is well founded. Point being; Just because monuments look the same doesn't mean they carry the same weight...
Of course it is possible this guy is a dufus. I couldn't say without all of the evidence...
I'v just started to get more involved with calcing boundaries in my Co.
These mons he's giving tie courses to were set in the 50's 60's, ya we can make more precise measurements now but just going with the concept that the surveyor that originally set them intended to set them with the best precision that there equipment would allow. For them to be withing a 0.1' with today's measurements why not hold it. Besides between land owners should they walk a 150' prop. line to a cnr mon and say "oh according to my plan this i.p. is not the corner its actually here 0.08' N'E" just seems ridiculous to me.
Just sayin
Your instincts are correct but changing people's minds is nearly impossible.
Recent studies have found that presenting facts and reasoning is counterproductive. There is something in our evolutionary makeup which causes us to tenaciously hang on to our beliefs especially when they are challenged by facts.
My thoughts relate more to monuments set on senior lines. In most cases a monument set against a right of way won't 'bend' the line and make the street 49.8 feet wide. The same would be true if my adjoiner subdivided and one or two pins on our common boundary were set on my side of the line. I certainly wouldn't make angle points along a 100 year old line to match the pins of a later plat.
That being said, one would hope at some point this guy would recognize the limits of our ability to measure and the limits our opinions have regarding title. Longstanding monuments should not be rejected without great cause. Nor should they be held in the face of superior evidence...
One of the things I enjoy about this board is seeing things a different way. It is also an outlet for the part of me that enjoys passing on lessons learned. One of those lessons that comes up often is that absolutes can get you in a heap of trouble. This is especially true if you allow them to become your mantra or hall mark. Inflexible rules are a hindrance to learning and growth, period. If you ignore the content of the back and forth and choose to see it as an argument it's your loss...
I've used this example before and I'm sure it will be used again to try to make a point. Let's say you've got a string of lots that were created by a subdivision plat (simultaneous creation) and the lots are 80 X 125. The local ordinances state that minimum lot size is 10,000 sq ft and minimum lot width is 80.
At least in my neck of the woods you're darn tootin that dimensions matter and you don't go messing with them. Just because I find a hunk of iron close to where a corner is supposed to be doesn't make it right. If I were to start changing lot dimensions based on your theory of the iron is good, then I have made one lot bigger and one lot smaller that now does not conform to zoning and a building official would declare it unbuildable.
Also, the corners (not hunks of iron) must fall in the road right-of-way - not zig-zag all over the place.
And then there's the age old question - how close is close enough. That's where PROFESSIONAL judgement comes into play.
As others have alluded, every case has its own set of facts. And a simple statement that you don't like what some other guy has done is NOT sufficient.
Should there not be one answer for a property corner that is not dependent on the which lot you are surveying? His methodology will give you four (5 when you include the actual iron pin location) answers. Then the question is how did he arrive at that position. Did he hold any of the found corners? Could they not be off just as much? This approach by Quickie Dickies damages our Profession (not Trade) as much as the improper us of RTK or any other procedures.
Just Can't Improve on This
:good: :good: :good:
I'll not fan the flames again but in California there used to be (and may still be) a county that actually *required* pedigreed monuments not at the record math location to be referenced that way, every dang one of them! Silly beyond belief.
