John Putnam, post: 450743, member: 1188 wrote: I don't see a problem with that if I tied the monuments for an earlier project. I have a record of survey sitting on my desks right now that depicts monuments I tied back in 2000 on a survey that I have used without re-surveying on the new survey that utilized the same control. I just make sure to note when they were tied. To be honest, I don't even care if the monuments are still there. Why reinvent the wheel on every survey.
thebionicman, post: 450798, member: 8136 wrote: Surveying a line reveals (or should reveal) the condition of monuments and possession. A lot can happen in 17 years...
Surveying is about more than just the positions. As thebionicman said, the condition at the time of the survey using a found monument as control, or even if showing it for informational purposes is important information for when the survey depicted on the map was conducted.
If you have confidence in the position previously measured, then perhaps it would be acceptable to not measure it again. But it should at least be visited to ensure that it still remains and appears to be undisturbed since the time it was measured. If shown on your current map, regardless of a note that says it was not located during the current survey, you are still implying that it exists undisturbed in the same location.
As far as not caring if it still exists, you should. If it is a key part of the basis for the location of the boundary you are depicting, how is a future surveyor to ensure that he or she re-establishes the same boundary in the same way you did? If you don't verify or care if monuments you use as controlling don't still exist because you have a position from an earlier survey, then it is very doubtful that you depicted any of your proprietary control points that you actually worked from for the present survey.
A primary reason for recording requirements is to encourage consistency between surveyors as much as possible. A key element to helping the next surveyor be consistent with your survey is to ensure that you provide spatial relationships to identifiable points that exist at the time of your survey and are likely to remain undisturbed for many years.
When I see a note that says "Not located for this survey", or something to that effect, I get the impression that the surveyor is prone to cut corners, and if he cut that one, I wonder in what other ways was he not diligent.
If I were to see a note that says "Visited to ensure monument appears undisturbed since previous survey but not remeasured for this survey", I would have a much better level of comfort about the survey overall. From such a note, I would infer that the previous surveyor had confidence in his earlier measurements, has or had undisturbed durable control points closer to the site, and at least had the integrity to ensure the continued existence of a controlling monument.
eapls2708, post: 450885, member: 589 wrote: Surveying is about more than just the positions. As thebionicman said, the condition at the time of the survey using a found monument as control, or even if showing it for informational purposes is important information for when the survey depicted on the map was conducted.
If you have confidence in the position previously measured, then perhaps it would be acceptable to not measure it again. But it should at least be visited to ensure that it still remains and appears to be undisturbed since the time it was measured. If shown on your current map, regardless of a note that says it was not located during the current survey, you are still implying that it exists undisturbed in the same location.
As far as not caring if it still exists, you should. If it is a key part of the basis for the location of the boundary you are depicting, how is a future surveyor to ensure that he or she re-establishes the same boundary in the same way you did? If you don't verify or care if monuments you use as controlling don't still exist because you have a position from an earlier survey, then it is very doubtful that you depicted any of your proprietary control points that you actually worked from for the present survey.
A primary reason for recording requirements is to encourage consistency between surveyors as much as possible. A key element to helping the next surveyor be consistent with your survey is to ensure that you provide spatial relationships to identifiable points that exist at the time of your survey and are likely to remain undisturbed for many years.
When I see a note that says "Not located for this survey", or something to that effect, I get the impression that the surveyor is prone to cut corners, and if he cut that one, I wonder in what other ways was he not diligent.
If I were to see a note that says "Visited to ensure monument appears undisturbed since previous survey but not remeasured for this survey", I would have a much better level of comfort about the survey overall. From such a note, I would infer that the previous surveyor had confidence in his earlier measurements, has or had undisturbed durable control points closer to the site, and at least had the integrity to ensure the continued existence of a controlling monument.
I agree that making the statement that you visited the points to assure they were still intact is better. But remeasuring them should not be off the table as it will be another piece of evidence that shows they have not been disturbed.
thebionicman, post: 450798, member: 8136 wrote: Surveying a line reveals (or should reveal) the condition of monuments and possession. A lot can happen in 17 years...
I very aware of what a survey should show. If the conditions on the ground have changed then they merit being noted on the new survey. I'm not talking about four corners for some ones residential lot. I have had the privilege of working, for the most part, on long term projects often covering large swaths of property. I just finished up a project on a rail yard that covers a four mile swath of land through the center of a medium size city. This entailed not only determining the railroads r/w but also numerous city street, county roads and state highways. We tied literally hundreds of monuments on the project over the last 17 year, consisting of section/DLC corners, centerline/right-of-way monuments and property pins adjacent to the site. Before construction we were involved with numerous property acquisitions for which we would resolve the property in question. For that survey we would revisit the local monuments and tie the current real property features. I did not see the need to re-tie the section corner or set out in traffic to dig up the same monument I shot five years before. There is no need to re-invent the wheel every time you go into the field. If the monument has been disturbed or destroyed, my original ties it the best evidence of its location. They don't move into a more correct location over time.
My bottom line is that there are some remote points that I don't feel need to be revisited each time I provide a survey.
eapls2708, post: 450885, member: 589 wrote: If you have confidence in the position previously measured, then perhaps it would be acceptable to not measure it again. But it should at least be visited to ensure that it still remains and appears to be undisturbed since the time it was measured. If shown on your current map, regardless of a note that says it was not located during the current survey, you are still implying that it exists undisturbed in the same location.
I whole heartedly disagree with you. It states the condition the monument was in at the date of my last visit, which I note, to said monument. I am not implying that it is still in that condition.
eapls2708, post: 450885, member: 589 wrote: When I see a note that says "Not located for this survey", or something to that effect, I get the impression that the surveyor is prone to cut corners, and if he cut that one, I wonder in what other ways was he not diligent.
Do you start all of your surveys with a solar observation at the initial point of your meridian? Do you repeatedly break down the same section each time you survey in it? I'm not saying that I should not revisit certain points, just not all of them. And that just because a remote point was disturbed or destroyed since my last survey in the area that it's coordinate does not hold the same weight I gave it in the original survey. If anything I am perpetuating it's location.
John Putnam, post: 450959, member: 1188 wrote: I whole heartedly disagree with you. It states the condition the monument was in at the date of my last visit, which I note, to said monument. I am not implying that it is still in that condition.
I guess it depends on the purpose of the survey. If the purpose is to mark out the boundary corners and lines in support of some imminent development, then I think that it's important to make sure that the monuments are still there, in good condition, and well marked. I tell clients that they should mark out the corners prominently some months prior to breaking ground so that adjoiners have a chance to declare any objections to the boundaries during the design phase- setting up the conditions for estoppel.
Other than that I'm entirely on board with reusing old measurements. I think quite the opposite from Evan on this, it seems to me that a surveyor who documents their work and monuments their control well enough to be available for reuse is demonstrating an uncommon level of professionalism. I do think that it will usually be best to at least visit the monuments to confirm their current condition.
I think both of you read something different than I wrote, or didn't read it all.
eapls2708, post: 450885, member: 589 wrote: If you have confidence in the position previously measured, then perhaps it would be acceptable to not measure it again.
John, you described a project situation wherein it would make perfect sense to reuse the measured positions. You also stated that you typically revisit the controlling monuments to ensure they're not disturbed. So if you note that on your map, what's the problem that you have with what I wrote? If you don't make that note on your map, why not?
You also mentioned a remote monument. If that monument is in a location where it is not susceptible to being destroyed or disturbed by human activity, and in a stable location not susceptible to landslide or some other natural phenomenon likely to move it, then that's another situation where it makes sense to reuse your measured position.
So how is it that you "wholeheartedly disagree" with my statement that it may be acceptable to use your previously measured position again rather than remeasure it? Or is it just the part about implying good condition on the date of your current survey? If you note the date of the measurement of that point, doesn't that obviate my concern? If you have revisited the monument to ensure it's condition or if it's in a location where you can have a very high level of confidence that it's condition remains unchanged, then is it a problem for you to make a note to that effect on your map?
John Putnam, post: 450959, member: 1188 wrote: Do you start all of your surveys with a solar observation at the initial point of your meridian? Do you repeatedly break down the same section each time you survey in it? I'm not saying that I should not revisit certain points, just not all of them. And that just because a remote point was disturbed or destroyed since my last survey in the area that it's coordinate does not hold the same weight I gave it in the original survey. If anything I am perpetuating it's location.
With that, you're just being ridiculously hyperbolic and snarky.
Mark Mayer, post: 450963, member: 424 wrote: I guess it depends on the purpose of the survey. If the purpose is to mark out the boundary corners and lines in support of some imminent development, then I think that it's important to make sure that the monuments are still there, in good condition, and well marked. I tell clients that they should mark out the corners prominently some months prior to breaking ground so that adjoiners have a chance to declare any objections to the boundaries during the design phase- setting up the conditions for estoppel.
Other than that I'm entirely on board with reusing old measurements. I think quite the opposite from Evan on this, it seems to me that a surveyor who documents their work and monuments their control well enough to be available for reuse is demonstrating an uncommon level of professionalism. I do think that it will usually be best to at least visit the monuments to confirm their current condition.
I'm not sure how you are the opposite from me on this Mark. It seems to me that you stated pretty much the same opinion, with the same qualifiers as I did. If the controlling monuments would be important to the next surveyor, make sure they're still there. When you do that, note it...
eapls2708, post: 450885, member: 589 wrote: If I were to see a note that says "Visited to ensure monument appears undisturbed since previous survey but not remeasured for this survey", I would have a much better level of comfort about the survey overall. From such a note, I would infer that the previous surveyor had confidence in his earlier measurements, has or had undisturbed durable control points closer to the site, and at least had the integrity to ensure the continued existence of a controlling monument.
eapls2708, post: 450964, member: 589 wrote: I'm not sure how you are the opposite from me on this Mark.
This is the bit I was referring to.
eapls2708, post: 450885, member: 589 wrote: When I see a note that says "Not located for this survey", or something to that effect, I get the impression that the surveyor is prone to cut corners, and if he cut that one, I wonder in what other ways was he not diligent.
But, yes. We mostly agree. That said, there are some - actually quite a few - around here that I know use old "control" that I'm sure hasn't been well documented or monumented. In those cases I believe that corners have been cut. But not simply because of reusing old measurements. It's not in the reuse, it's in how it's done.
"It's not in the reuse, it's in how it's done."
Then I think we're pretty much in complete agreement.
John Putnam, post: 450959, member: 1188 wrote: I very aware of what a survey should show. If the conditions on the ground have changed then they merit being noted on the new survey. I'm not talking about four corners for some ones residential lot. I have had the privilege of working, for the most part, on long term projects often covering large swaths of property. I just finished up a project on a rail yard that covers a four mile swath of land through the center of a medium size city. This entailed not only determining the railroads r/w but also numerous city street, county roads and state highways. We tied literally hundreds of monuments on the project over the last 17 year, consisting of section/DLC corners, centerline/right-of-way monuments and property pins adjacent to the site. Before construction we were involved with numerous property acquisitions for which we would resolve the property in question. For that survey we would revisit the local monuments and tie the current real property features. I did not see the need to re-tie the section corner or set out in traffic to dig up the same monument I shot five years before. There is no need to re-invent the wheel every time you go into the field. If the monument has been disturbed or destroyed, my original ties it the best evidence of its location. They don't move into a more correct location over time.
My bottom line is that there are some remote points that I don't feel need to be revisited each time I provide a survey.
I whole heartedly disagree with you. It states the condition the monument was in at the date of my last visit, which I note, to said monument. I am not implying that it is still in that condition.
Do you start all of your surveys with a solar observation at the initial point of your meridian? Do you repeatedly break down the same section each time you survey in it? I'm not saying that I should not revisit certain points, just not all of them. And that just because a remote point was disturbed or destroyed since my last survey in the area that it's coordinate does not hold the same weight I gave it in the original survey. If anything I am perpetuating it's location.
I do understand the logic, but it has its limits in pracrice and in law.
Most States I work in require the controlling corners of my Survey to be perpetuated. That includes (by law) that they be rehabilitated. That requires me to at least visit for condition and signs of disturbance.
Sorry for the snarky reply. I probably should have held my tongue but your post seemed a wee bit preachy.
As for my wholeheartedly disagreement, it was this part of your statement I was referencing
eapls2708, post: 450885, member: 589 wrote: If shown on your current map, regardless of a note that says it was not located during the current survey, you are still implying that it exists undisturbed in the same location.
By remote, I meant off site but still having some controlling value. For example, the only real pure boundary work I do is partitions and boundary line adjustments in the our small town. Not that I advertise but for some reason the city planner keeps on giving people my name. Over the years I have basically built up a pretty good network in the older part of town. I usually go a little overkill on monument recovery because I hate seeing a plat based on two found corners. I usually end up surveying in any centerline monuments and front property pins both sides of the road I can find, around the entire block. This data is then used to resolve the block. Then if I get another project in that block, I do not start hacking everyone's landscape again trying to retie r/w pins that at not on my property that I have already tied. Instead, I use the data from my previous work and augment it with any new monuments needed to resolve the task at hand. I also check the survey records for newer monuments in the area that may alter my previous resolution.
My comment on not caring if the monument are in destroyed or disturbed was more of a statement that position I tied originally is best evidence I will ever have of its original positions (unless a blunder was made in the original measurement). If I know the monument has been destroyed or disturbed I will note that on my survey but still hold my original positions. I'm just not going to dig up every off site pin on my survey again.
John Putnam, post: 450743, member: 1188 wrote: I don't see a problem with that if I tied the monuments for an earlier project. I have a record of survey sitting on my desks right now that depicts monuments I tied back in 2000 on a survey that I have used without re-surveying on the new survey that utilized the same control. I just make sure to note when they were tied. To be honest, I don't even care if the monuments are still there. Why reinvent the wheel on every survey.
"edit" sorry I did not read all of the posts following your post. Much of what I said below is already discussed. Jp
Really! He doesn't even give the name of the surveys and control that was utilized. I would agree if you named the surveys utilized and how the new work ties to the previous work. How do I walk in his footsteps if I don't know where they are? Furthermore this subdivision had a survey bust that resulted in existing street improvements being constructed 2.5' out of place and shorting new lot owners 2.5 off their lots (record 100', 97.5' after correcting for the incorrect survey alignment of street.). John you say ??you don't care if the monuments are still there", what happens when no monuments are still here? Are you putting your control on your record of survey with mathematical tie to the map? If you are then I agree with your statement, but if your "control" is a scribed "+" in a sidewalk and the only record of it is an old napkin in a field folder that no other surveyors have access too, then we have problems. I'm all for a land net system of surveying but till it happens, place enough information on your map so I and other surveyors can retrace and recreate it on the ground. My 2 cents, Jp
Paul, post: 450456, member: 624 wrote: Was re-reading the September issue of The American Surveyor, and was wondering what everyone's thoughts were on this particular article. I didn't see anything pop up here or the other forums I frequent, so what gives? Is everyone already doing all the stuff that Carl talks about in his article, or does everyone think that it only applies to Oregon, since your particular state doesn't have a specific narrative or notes requirement?
Does everyone think they have to explain their survey (what they held, why they held it, why they didn't hold other stuff, etc.) or is it ok to leave it up to oral testimony during a court hearing? Since it is likely that many surveys will only be adjudicated after the surveyor who did it is long gone, how does that bear on your thinking?
Here is the link if you haven't read it yet: http://www.amerisurv.com/PDF/TheAmericanSurveyor_Clinton-WritingNarratives_September2017.pdf
When the graphic cannot relay all of the issues, I write a narrative. It happens about 30% of the time and they're always jacked up. Otherwise, I think I can show it and explain it on the map so I don't have to go into the detail.
Kris Morgan, post: 451225, member: 29 wrote: When the graphic cannot relay all of the issues, I write a narrative. It happens about 30% of the time and they're always jacked up. Otherwise, I think I can show it and explain it on the map so I don't have to go into the detail.
Makes sense. For me, i cant remember the last boundary i did that didn't require a detailed explanation of some sort.
There is always a goofy deed, goofy monument, goofy recorded or unrecorded survey, etc. After 150 years of history, almost every property around here has hair on it (FYI - i never work in newer subdivisions). Those i could see not requiring much explanation.
Unfortunately, many of the goofy boundaries i work on have recorded surveys on portions of them. Most don't explain what or why they did something. If i can track down and call the surveyor, the good ones can usually can tell me all about that goofy deed, goofy monument, or goofy situation that i found. But their survey can't. This seems like a pretty serious flaw to me. What say you?
Sent from my LG-M257 using Tapatalk
I don't mind explaining things that need explaining. It's somehow writing an explanation of things that are perfectly obvious that I find difficult. It's like describing the taste of chocolate to someone without using the word chocolate. Sometimes "found monuments as shown, set monuments as shown" really is descriptive enough.
Paul, post: 451346, member: 624 wrote: Makes sense. For me, i cant remember the last boundary i did that didn't require a detailed explanation of some sort.
There is always a goofy deed, goofy monument, goofy recorded or unrecorded survey, etc. After 150 years of history, almost every property around here has hair on it (FYI - i never work in newer subdivisions). Those i could see not requiring much explanation.
Unfortunately, many of the goofy boundaries i work on have recorded surveys on portions of them. Most don't explain what or why they did something. If i can track down and call the surveyor, the good ones can usually can tell me all about that goofy deed, goofy monument, or goofy situation that i found. But their survey can't. This seems like a pretty serious flaw to me. What say you?
Sent from my LG-M257 using Tapatalk
[USER=624]@Paul[/USER] I'm probably hyper-sensitive to being questioned about my work. That's my bag and no one else's. That being said, and because of that character flaw, I try to make it a professional trait whereby there is something, somewhere, on every survey, that explains what I did. It may be as simple as calls vs. found, a note and a leader, a paragraph or two on the plat, or a full blown narrative but there is something that explains why I did what I did, hopefully.
Since we don't have record of surveys in Texas, it's all metes and bounds, and we still work with a lot of deeds that call for the ubiquitous "stake". If I measure a 3000' line, over hill and dale, and find two 1" iron pipes within 100' of the called distance, and it jives with the other occupation and adjoining deeds, I'm probably not going to say a lot about the deed call was for stakes and I found pipes. A pipe is a stake. Gimme a witness tree in the mix to prove one or both and I'll only show the calls and founds, if everything else works well. We RARELY have overlapping deeds that you can prove. 99% of the time, you can evaluate the descriptions and tell if they are in harmony with each other, regardless of where the measurements put you, i.e. call for an adjoiner. Occasionally though, we find them. Some 12 years ago, in conjunction with large O&G projects, I began to see the utility in having a comprehensive working sketch and drawing it up in cad and seeing how they fit together. It also cuts down my drafting time by a factor of 2 and I was going to make a working sketch anyway. So, I've been able to look at the big picture, prior to the field work, and decide it additional offsite corners were needed, before actually going to the field. This cut the go-backs down a lot and absorbed a lot of "standard trip charges" that were going to be present. The synergy created not only made me a better surveyor, but more efficient and profitable too. The time difference in CAD vs. the hand sketch is negligible but because I calc it, then go back through it and put the corner calls, I know what deeds close (and leave myself notes) which ones have double calls, et cetera.
So while I may not explain it all as good as should be (hopefully I did), there is a file with additional notes regarding it. If you're a surveyor who's not a butthole about life in general, I'll help you out on it. If you are, and I know I'm right, well keep digging cause there is something there either in the records or the dirt or I'd have still been working on the project. 🙂
Mark Mayer, post: 451348, member: 424 wrote: I don't mind explaining things that need explaining. It's somehow writing an explanation of things that are perfectly obvious that I find difficult. It's like describing the taste of chocolate to someone without using the word chocolate. Sometimes "found monuments as shown, set monuments as shown" really is descriptive enough.
Sure. But maybe i only eat organic, free trade, dark chocolate. Tastes alot different than hersheys milk chocolate from freddies that has very little actual "chocao" in it. How will i know unless you tell me the brand and flavor combos?
When i find that a deed for a road doesn't match bearings with the plat that is called out in said road deed, shouldn't that be noted on my survey? BTW both deed and plat were by the same surveyor. Shouldn't i then explain how i came up with the road location because it is so goofy? I'm working on that one right now. The last retracing surveyor in there (who was also platting one of the original lots) didn't say a single word about it. Though he must have known about it. It was an obvious 14 degree change between the two, but then how do i know what he knew unless he tells me on his survey? He also didnt note that rotating them onto the same basis doesn't solve the problem, as the as-traveled road (also called in the deed and the plat) is then almost 100 feet off at the deeds POB. I also cant figure out what he held to reestablish the road location. He probably held as-traveled, but he doesn't say, nor does he show the as-traveled location on his survey. And the as-traveled (today) is so windy that it doesnt match the road deed very well anyway. Depending on where he held as-traveled (again not stated or shown), the thing could shift several feet all day long.
Why wouldn't he just follow Carl's advice and state how he did it on the survey? Why make others guess? Right or wrong, it would give me something to follow. As retracing surveyors it is up to us to follow in the footsteps of the original surveyor. Doesn't it then fall on us to to also leave enough footprints for others to follow with as little ambiguity as possible?
Sent from my LG-M257 using Tapatalk
I think that our litigious society has also caused some surveyors to limit what they are saying within a narrative. They are afraid their own words will or could be used against them in a civil court(?). Jp
JP,
If you are going to court it is more probable that it is because of a lack of information rather than the opposite. Besides, these days I can't remember what I did this morning let alone 7 years from now just before the limits of liability run out.
Jp7191, post: 451399, member: 1617 wrote: I think that our litigious society has also caused some surveyors to limit what they are saying within a narrative. They are afraid their own words will or could be used against them in a civil court(?). Jp
I've actually had that happen. The ONLY thing that changed was that I'm not so "heavy handed" against offending surveyors and my explanation of obvious errors. Sure I still explain it, but there is a world of difference between "There is no rational explanation of why Surveyor XXX set the corners in this location based on any records for this tract or any adjoiners and it appears that he did not apply any of the principles of surveying when retracing this tract" vs. "It appears that the corners set by Surveyor XX are in error. This is shown by the descriptions for this tract, the adjoining tracts. The principles in Stafford vs. King were used in the dignity of calls for the retracement of this tract."
See, one is SO much better than the other. 🙂
I have not read th earticle in question, guess I will have to find it online.
I learned surveying starting in Oregon from the best corner searcher and narrative writer I have ever run up against. If you can't logically defend your boundary on paper in a way that others can follow, then you probably don't have a defensible boundary. He taught me to write narratives as if you were preparing for court so you have a record of the thought process and more than anything so you can remember what you did 10 years later when surveying an adjacent property. I typed a lot of those when I was a newbie, some ran many many pages long, then you read others that state found monuments as shown set new monuments as shown, ONLY because Oregon had a narrative requirement. I am very thankful to have had a mentor who did a professional job and not just meeting the letter of the law BUT the spirit too.
You can say a lot of things about the laws in Oregon, BUT the survey narrative law is a good one and once done correctly, a narrative is an invaluable insight into the thought process behind the conclusions AND makes it much less defensible to pin cushion something if the previous surveyor left a very good survey and notes that would be hard to ignore in a courtroom.
SHG