How Does Someone Use A Tie To An Unmarked Point?
> "the Westerly prolongation of the line of the remains of a Wire Fence formerly in place
> along the North line of that lot..."
>
> What? "formerly in place"? Excuse me, but WTF?
There were the remains of a fence reported in place in 1938. All that I found of the fence were the post holes. I wouldn't call those the remains of a fence, but evidence of where the fence remains most likely were in 1938.
Why Not Set It On Line? At The ROW Intersection?
> Give it some meaning.
The road right-of-way is just a line 20 ft. parallel from the lot line. The purpose of that witness stake was to fall in a position where it was expected to last.
> However, for all of the boundary information you give, you simply note crossing the county line. I would have added bearings and distances to the nearest monuments on the line at each crossing.
Well, the ties to the county line monuments are in the reference ties from the POB. I've given you the geodetic grid coordinates of the markers as well. By writing it up as I did, I can use the same set of reference ties for each of the three tracts.
OK, But Then 30' Could Still Be On Line
Whatever you do make it more useful in the future.
What bothers me is that Pipe 102 has a strong probability of being on the accepted line of your parcel and/or the adjoiner. Did you consider long and hard before discarding that thought? I mean it is only 1.13' off of the line you created, and was 1.7' off plumb. You reset it over the base position where was the top? It has been somewhere near there for 72 years and all of a sudden you are a better? surveyor? Plus it's found? position puts the line mclser to parallel with the adjoiner's fence on Lot 20.
Also check your complete tie descriptions, you have a second Point 102 at a different location.
Paul in PA
From What I See The County Line Is Based On One Monument
> Paul, he had at least three monuments he mentioned in earlier posts.
Actually, I gave ties to both of the county line monuments from which the county boundary was located and also their coordinates. How confusing is that, really?
I'm feeling left out. Kent commented on everyone's comments but mine!! 😉
>
> And I'm taking away the awesome separator... -o0o-
>
Ah, I wish I could remember who I stole that from.
Why Aren't The East And West Lines Parallel ?
> I may have missed it but did not see any mention of convergence.
>
> Course 2) S 27°49'19" W
> Course 5) S 27°49'14" W
> Course 7) N 27°49'21" E
>
> I am not used to using SPC bearings in a descriptions and I doubt any lawyers are either.
When do lawyers even read the calls of a metes and bounds description? That's what surveyors are for.
As for the bearings that are nearly identical, what you're looking at are the actual directions of the lines as monumented on the ground, not some pleasant statement of intention.
Kent
Yes, but your form for the passing calls is different and I missed it. For instance, you run to a corner and then call for the corner set or found and then the reference corners. It would be easier to read if when you passed the county line, you said from which a 7" square Conc. Mon. marked Hays and Travis is Some bearing and distance. It would then, appear, to follow the normal form that you have for reciting the metes of the description.
Just my take.
> Make the legal with out all the fluff and put the rest on the plat and/or in a report.
If you live in a state where maps may be recorded, why would you even prepare a metes and bounds description? You wouldn't. You'd describe the land by reference to the map.
The situation in Texas is that the metes and bounds description in the public records is the most permanent and accessible record of the survey unless a subdivision plat is prepared and recorded. Subdivision plats tend to be extremely busy and administrative note heavy. So they are hardly the right medium for explaining surveying issues.
New Hampster metes and bounds
> What the heck is going on in Texas?
>
> Good grief.
Perry, here is a specimen metes and bounds description from New Hampster for comparison:
>Beginning at the big tree on the town side of Joby Johnson's wood shed,
>Thence with all the blazed trees, stone walls, and other stuff along the boundary of this tract in a clockwise fashion until you get back to the Point of Beginning or pretty close to it.
>'Bout 15 acres, I reckon.
Kent
> Yes, but your form for the passing calls is different and I missed it. For instance, you run to a corner and then call for the corner set or found and then the reference corners. It would be easier to read if when you passed the county line, you said from which a 7" square Conc. Mon. marked Hays and Travis is Some bearing and distance.
Well, the county boundary is not somthing that should be used to control the boundary of the tract. It is an administrative limit only. The money number is just the specific number of acres in each county. The information from which those were calculated is all there.
See, I anticipate that any sharp surveyor would just scan the coordinate list and import the coordinates into CAD. The bearings and distances in the description provide a check on the coordinates and once that is made, you're ready to go.
OK, But Then 30' Could Still Be On Line
> What bothers me is that Pipe 102 has a strong probability of being on the accepted line of your parcel and/or the adjoiner.
That probability is zero. Did you see how far off the 1938 survey line the 1961 survey of the adjoiner fell? Basically, my work was an autopsy of the 1938 survey, explaining what killed the patient before describing the boundaries of Lot 19 that the 1938 surveyor was looking for and missed.
> There is nothing stopping a reasonably competent surveyor from placing a document including a survey and an owner's affidavit in the public records so that a lawyer need only refer to the vol/page of that document in deeds or other documentation that the lawyer may find necessary.
>
> That way, the only thing the lawyer can foul up is the vol/page of the document.
I take it that you don't realize that would prevent the landowner from availing himself of various of the adverse possession statutes? In Texas, the deed must identify the land within itself, not by reference to some other instrument.
Kent
>
> Well, the county boundary is not somthing that should be used to control the boundary of the tract. It is an administrative limit only. The money number is just the specific number of acres in each county. The information from which those were calculated is all there.
>
> See, I anticipate that any sharp surveyor would just scan the coordinate list and import the coordinates into CAD. The bearings and distances in the description provide a check on the coordinates and once that is made, you're ready to go.
Two things, one, a scanner does not a sharp surveyor make, nor does a sharp surveyor have a scanner.
Next, while I agree with you about the boundary, it probably will control who gets to have the taxes on the entire tract. Typically, around here, the majority holder county gets ALL the taxes. So this would be of GREAT VALUE to your client as I'm sure that Travis and Hays counties tax rates are not the same.
Hey, I'm not knocking you, but as you said to me, if you don't want comments, don't post it.
🙂
Kent
> > See, I anticipate that any sharp surveyor would just scan the coordinate list and import the coordinates into CAD. The bearings and distances in the description provide a check on the coordinates and once that is made, you're ready to go.
>
>
> Two things, one, a scanner does not a sharp surveyor make, nor does a sharp surveyor have a scanner.
Well, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I don't know any sharp surveyors who don't have a $50 letter-size scanner. That is pretty much a basic tool.
> Next, while I agree with you about the boundary, it probably will control who gets to have the taxes on the entire tract. Typically, around here, the majority holder county gets ALL the taxes. So this would be of GREAT VALUE to your client as I'm sure that Travis and Hays counties tax rates are not the same.
That probably is a rural East Texas thing. On that tract, they get two tax bills, one from Travis County and one from Hays County, each for the areas within the respective county.
That's why I pointed out that the information of real value is right at the top of the description, i.e. the areas of the parts of the tract in each county. That is what the appraisal districts will base their renditions upon.
In Ontario we use "PART" to describe an encircled boundary
on a Reference Plan that is deposited in the Land Registry Office.
Thus there would be 5 PARTs to use to describe the surveyed parcels as "PART 1, 2 3 4, 5 " on Deposited Plan 61R-12345.
We do it KISS here.
YOS
DGG
Long drive from Texas
> In Ontario we use "PART" to describe an encircled boundary on a Reference Plan that is deposited in the Land Registry Office.
Derek, the reason we don't use that system in Texas is that we'd spend all our time driving up to Ontario to visit the Land Registry Office.
> I have to admit I'm fascinated that you have basically flipped what I tend to think of as a 'showpiece' survey upside down. When I want to show someone an example of my work, I tend to dig out a really slick MAP, not a report.
Well, in that case, the client didn't need a map and it would have cost a significant amount of money to turn one out. So what I settled for was basically a diagram that would aid someone reading the description.
> My guess is that this is something that you've put a lot of thought into, in terms of putting the focus on what is important in a survey, not what looks pretty.
Yes, over the years I've formed some opinions about what is really useful in the older written descriptions and tried to project forward ten or twenty years to try to give whomever will deal with mine a similar insight into the basis of my opinions. I mean, the basic situation was that two surveyors, one in 1938 and one in 1961 had surveyed two of the lines of Lot 19 and arrived at wildly differing results. While the 1938 surveyor generally did excellent work, that tract got the better of him for some reason. It may have been that it was the first week in January when the survey was made. At any rate, I arrived at a third conclusion as to the lines of Lot 19 and so felt obliged to leave an adequate explanation for posterity as to what my basis was for abandoning the 1939 work that apparently none of the adjoining landowners had relied upon.
> I'm feeling left out. Kent commented on everyone's comments but mine!!
Sorry, I fixed that oversight. You're right about the metes and bounds description I prepared representing the opposite end of the spectrum of practice from those places where the map is of record and detailed and the description more of an afterthought.
