In Colorado, land survey plats must show "conflicting boundary evidence" and, when planting pingardens, must explain why a found monument was not "accepted", so exceptions to the standards are addressed.?ÿ
Under average circumstances, then, which of the following applies:
?ÿ
A monument established by the first surveyor, acting in good faith, is a property corner. A boundary line is the line where property rights change. Once established, a corner or line does not move, but can possibly be vacated.
?ÿ
Or
?ÿ
I stake the deed in the field, exactly as written. My measurements are superior and precise. I can not help, nor should I care, about any monument that does not meet my standards under my license.
?ÿ
I stake the deed in the field, exactly as written. My measurements are superior and precise
That is a bit of mind reading on the part of the OP...which is even more presumptive than thinking you are the best measure-er that ever lived.?ÿ
Depending on the circumstances (including the state you live in) there are differences in how one would approach a survey where the deed does not match the evidence on the ground. A previous survey is certainly evidence, but it is only that. Without specific circumstances and location, it is hypothetical. Surveying isn't theoretical, not really. The principles are grounded in reality and have no other real context.
I invite the OP to present one of his surveys where he dealt with this sort of issue, and resolved it.?ÿ
The real world problem with assumed precise measurement is that in the vast majority of cases the monuments being found were set by different surveyors working to achieve different goals.?ÿ My project may be in Block 9 and I am tying monuments found in adjacent blocks in all directions.?ÿ Those found in the block to the northwest and those found in the block to the southeast, for example, were set by different surveyors 25 years apart.?ÿ But, those are what I have to work with.?ÿ Otherwise, you do the incredibly stupid trick of attempting to find the outer corner monuments of the 80-acre addition platted in 1867 and then prorate every corner to make things fit one ideal solution.?ÿ That, of course, will never agree with what is physically evident nor will it agree with any existing survey or monuments found.
I have seen that attempted one time.?ÿ The locals were searching for a large pot, a large quantity of tar and enough feathers to take 200 chickens to supply them.
In my mind the answer hinges on whether one is actually attempting to retrace a previous survey or merely waltz around leaving all professional reasoning up to the buttons on your data collector.
That and realizing equipment was different and also accuracy standards were a whole lot less stringent. ????
The Trimble lady tells me where to set monuments, GO IN GO OUT GO RIGHT ... SAKE POINT ... GO LEFT ...SAKE POINT
Once established, a corner or line does not move, but can possibly be vacated.
True and 90 percent of the time we can follow in the footsteps of those before us to resolve where the boundary lines exist on the ground today. Problem arises when the footsteps before us lead us down a rabbit hole, sends us on a tangent, of takes us on the route of "proportion" shortcut they took because they didn't want to follow the windy road to the top of Problem Solving mountain.?ÿ
That is exactly right. We follow, but not blindly.
I do not take a stance one way or the other regarding removing stakes. It is not my chosen way of doing things, but I do say that if you are going to set another mark for a corner (that has a mark already), you shouldn't do so unless you are WILLING TO PULL OUT THE OTHERS. You may not actually pull the corner, but when you call it out as a miss, you are doing a kind of virtual pulling of the corner.
IMHO, most of this would be fixed by the honest and proper use of significant digits.