Temporary Line Markers

[E_Page]

I agree, and should clarify my agreement with Ben. A valid use of the CR is to find and replace existing monuments. That assumes that you have done the research to know that it is a monument of some kind.

An example might be finding an apparent lot corner monument along a road construction project. It's likely to get torn out by construction activity, so you tie it out. You don't do a complete boundary survey of the lot to determine if the monument is in the correct location as you determine it. You simply preserve the location so that when a surveyor is hired to verify the monument locations, this one is still there (or the location perpetuated by a new mon) for that surveyor to evaluate within the broader picture of the survey for that lot.

No value judgement on the veracity of the mon. Merely a recognition that it is a monument of record and an attempt to preserve the position as you found it.

[E_Page]

If you're going to the CLSA conference in Reno this year, find me. I'll buy the 1st round.

I think I still owe you one from when you passed the LS a year or two back. So I guess that'll be the 1st 2 rounds.

[bubblewatcher]

I have seen some strange things tied out and CRs filed on them.
Example: Intersection that had a spike and (4) 2' tos at one time, over the years all that remained was 2 tos. Paving job was completed and the surveyor had taken one of the 2' tos and tied it out set his tag on a new spike and filed a CR. Thanks for moving the intx 2 feet. Know what you are tying out.

example 2: c-nail on intx that did not fit ties, was replaced with spike and washer with new dimensions to existing ties. Looks like the new intersection to me. Know what you are tying out.

[goodgps]

We often times don't "Establish" lines or boundaries. These are established by deeds, or other maps. When we "Establish" such lines, it is during the creation of new parcels or lots, By means of Subdivision or Parcel Map.

Other times of Surveying, We are "Retracing" lines which have been "established" by other means.

If the argument goes . . . that we "establish" a mark on the ground, . . . that is incorrect. We are merely "Marking" a previously "established" point on the ground.



"There is no substitute for knowing what you're doing"

Good

[bruce hall]

that lovely attachment that Terry Conners posted is taking issue, I think, with the "retracement" or "marking" theory. But, then again, what does the Board know anyway?

With that being said, I certainly wouldn't want to discuss the merits of "retracement" verses "establish" with any of the powers that can mess with my world.

[Jim Frame]

Don't forget that the verb "establish" is also used in the statutory definition of land surveying (§8726 of the B&P Code):

"(c) Locates, relocates, establishes, reestablishes, or retraces any property line or boundary of any parcel of land, right-of-way, easement, or alignment of those lines or boundaries."

.

[bruce hall]

My memory is sometimes sketchy, and it helps when someone reminds me of things that I should know by heart.

[Ian Wilson]

PLS8176

I've got a copy around somewhere. It must be at home. I'll try to remember to post it tonight.

In short the definition of "establish" is set at "establishing" something in the mind of the other person. In other words, as a professional talking to your client or an adjoiner, you can "establish" in their mind that the scratch in the ground with your toe that you mention is "somewhere near where the line is" as being the "precise location without fail of the line".

Interestingly, it has to do with an order for gloves at the end of WWII and an old price list. The new price list wasn't out and the buyer relied on the old one to order the gloves. In his mind, the price was "established" by the old list since he did not have access to the new list.

Kind of like Wheeler v San Bernardino. That case had just about nothing to do with liability for checking an RS but the implications of the case strike fear in the hearts of County Counsels throughout the state.

[goodgps]

Certainly, we "establish" new land boundary lines and Mark them in accordance with the written law, and file maps thereof.

We "retrace" boundaries, during a boundary, Right-of-way or lot/block/parcel survey.

During the retracement exercise, should we set a marker (of any kind) [defined as durable] we then, are recognizing a material discrpency. ie. they weren't nuthin set there before, . . . We also file a Map !!!

During a survey, we may discover deed/doc/ mapping discrepancies. After a due dilligent process, we educationally "guesstimate" where everything fits together, based upon deeds maps docs, testimony and other gathered evidence. We come to terms with our findings, Set durable markers and FILE A MAP.

The Idea of a "Supreme" surveyor going to a corner . . . going "North" 200 feet, slam a corner/stake or something, then East then south, then west, And stating that it is now "Established" is . . . well . . .really not quite right !!

My statements are to assist such Supreme beings into the belief that Land Surveying is a LEARNED trade/profession and really an associated way of life.

When you visit a new area, on vacation, dont you see all the survey marks ?

and bye the way . . . "3 rods from farmer Smiths Barn, and 2 rods from Mrs, Eggebraatens oak tree ARE legitamate witness to an established corner," (possibly marked by a post) ?

"Good" Mood today :^) yaaaay

[Gromatici]

I think we should all fall back on how the LS Act and those who enforce it define the word. When you do a retracement of the surveyed line (or one that hasn't been surveyed) you are establishing it per the LS Act. You may not be establishing it per the Subdivision Act, but that is another matter.

[goodgps]

Great news for the "Good" guys.

I had exactly the same situation that Ken did on his original post.
The 1/2 price (temporary stake guy) got wet feet and bailed out.

The property owner hired me to do a real record of survey set real tagged corners and file a real map.

We go tomorrow !!!!! WORK. like manna from the heavens WORK
I love it.

contrary to what you may think, "Goodman" doesnt give up.

[bruce hall]

time someone posts.

[goodgps]

I notice that some folks seem to adhere to court cases and conduct their surveys according to what some judges may have decided in a similar situation.
Well . . . My daddy said "the best way to find a boundary corner, is dig"
Then he handed me a shovel and said "dig boy"

Well kids, it really goes deeper than that. First of all we didnt have metal locators, and fancy pre-calculated postions with GPS or "nuthin" like that.

We began at a reasonable point, we measured and WALKED a base line.
Evidence was collected along the way and decisions were made upon Evidence.

In these (quite wonderful) times, we have the ability to "pop" a few centerline monuments, orient our pre-calcs, slam some WOOD or metal stakes, rods, pipe or what the heck ever, throw up our hands "touchdown" and file (or not file) a map. BOOOOO

Evidence baby . . . . I can hear Jim Rome saying it !!!

irregardless of the money, we must stay true to the profession. Surveyors that are willing to do the work, are less likely to "sandbag" the services and low-ball prices.

This week I filed two corner records to replace two obliterated coners simply because I found EVIDENCE. If I dont do it now, the corners may become LOST.

I beseach thee my desperate bretheren, times are tough, yes, but respect the profession, and those professionals present, past and future.

Set Iron, and draft the map after hours if need be. collect enough money for the survey and PA checking fee ahead of time.

(OR send the map to Wolley for review)

:^) "good"

[Gromatici]

Most of what we do is based on Court Cases. Order of Importance in deed calls, proration, evidence of original monuments over deeds calls, types of evidence and their weight, junior vs. senior rights, overlaps, gaps and principles enumerated such as "you can't convey what you don't own" and water boundaries. Otherwise we would just be expert measurers and deed stakers who would leave the discrepancies up to the Courts to decide. These all fall within our purview to resolve BEFORE it ends up in court. There are certain types of issues we can't resolve such as presriptive rights and adverse possession, but these are unwritten rights that usually need a Court to have ripen into title anyway. Most of the others can be handled without the courts interference and without someone Constitutional rights being abrogated.

The only reason you even dug for that monument as a kid was because the courts have upheld the long standing case law in England that monuments hold when called for and when the parties acted or relied on them in good faith over a period of time (and the Surveyor feels that they are within tolerance given the terrain and time period in which it was set). That's all Court cases. The pure Surveyor (Expert measurer) would use his GPS unit to set a new point and be done. I'd have to say I'd rather be in the former group of professionals and not a technician.

I think this is a little off topic, since we're talking more about what the proper interpretation of State Law is and not survey procedures.

[E_Page]

"Evidence baby!"

That's what boundary surveying is about. Eric is absolutely correct in that it is the courts that have directed us as to how we are to consider that evidence.

Since it would be just about impossible to legislate every scenario we are likely to run across in a career (or perhaps even a year) of surveying, it is the courts that have interpreted and often defined for us some of what we think of as "survey" principles.

It is the courts that have defined the principles that drive our search for evidence. It is scientists, physicists, geodesists (very specialized surveyors), and electrical engineers who have developed and defined the principles by which, and the tools with which we measure.

It is mathemeticians who have developed the principles and methods we utilize to calculate and adjust our measured data.

As surveyors, we haven't really come up with many of our own principles. But we are the ones who bring all of these principles together to find the evidence, measure it, adjust it, analyze it, and form opinions based on it.

Without utilizing the guidance of the courts, it is quite likely that as an incompleat surveyor, one would often be precisely.... wrong.


Eric, I need to offer one correction to your otherwise salient comments. It is not necessary to have a court involved to ripen prescriptive or adverse rights. They ripen on their own by meeting the legal criteria for the statutory period of time. The court merely recognizes that fact by quieting challenged title. The court is not granting title in one party or the other, but interpreting the facts and giving recognition of already existing title based upon whether or not the criteria has been met for a sufficient length of uninterrupted time. This then gives comfort to anyone who then deals with the title of the affected properties.

As with any other retraced boundary, we can offer an opinion on such boundaries, but no one is bound by our opinion. The real issue is how we present our findings. Regardless of whether a surveyor's opinion places the boundary on a described line or on a different occupied line, he had better present all relevant evidence relative to that boundary, and he had better have a good understanding of the laws pertaining to AP, and most importantly, how the courts have treated cases with similar fact sets.

But now, we are veering way off the original topic.

[bruce hall]

put it might be "You're on your own." Unless you're real good at picking your traveling companions.

I know that I can't say "no" all the time. Eighteen months later and this thread rears its' head. Who'd a thunk it?

[dmi]

Some of the posts I have read in this thread are truly cringe worthy. I am certain that I have made similar contributions of my own in the past and for that I humbly beg your pardon.

[Gromatici]

Ken,

Thank you and anytime. You're a true professional: you can read a post, get the point, make up-building and applicable comments and contribute to our edification.

Evan: I believe I was referring to making the unwritten fee that has ripened (fee simple or other interest) "marketable" and putting it into the chain of title through a court action or other means (like LLA etc). Thanks for the clarification.

Now that it's been about a year since I've been on my own, I'd have to say I'm more concerned about LS's setting stakes and not filing them than the proper use of you're and your. I've done this many times in my life, which is why I have people review all my official documents and proposals. Of course if I'm on a discussion forum, I assume we're all professionals, or trying to be, and provide the leeway necessary to "get the point" of what is being said and the courtesy to allow for error's in typing and grammar that one would expect from busy people generous enough to take the time to reply to problems or questions we all face.

Back on subject: I have clients who don't even want to "file anything" so it's been an interesting year. I'm sure we haven't seen the end of surveyor's setting hubs and walking away. I think I saw a paint dot recently: you think they filed a CR for that?

[LS_8750]

Ric's post #51 rings like a hymn praising the virtue of the profession. Us new to the clan can read this post and see the forrest through the trees, see the public need as it relates to our duty to perform.

Wooley's text tells the story about the suckers that fall for the little old lady trick. I find it's the older generation that does just that, which leads to these temp corners, or surprisingly not brought up yet these "approximate corners" - the engineer's pet - while us that see the right thing to do per Ric and Wooley and the rest watch our prices (our livelihood) get undercut and our prestige as professionals and our value to the public deteriorate in the eyes of that very public who then perceive us as Voodoo practioners or con artists.

Thanks.

Everybody is doing it, I see it every day. I watch myself get beat out on price for the cheapest, simplest, tasks yet still requiring a day in the field.

Licensed outfits are doing this where I am. I prefer not to call them out as criminals like Wooley (although I agree with you Wooley) simply because they are my predecessors - I reside in a small county - and by the looks of things they do good work.

Make it stop so we can go on earning the living we deserve.

I smell a CE mandate here. Call everybody to the task of recognizing the theme of this very thread. Enough is enough...

I just spent field 3.5 days on a topo I bid for 2... Lowballing? No! I just spaced it..... Dammit. I went out there myself and held the rod through manzanita and poison oak and got every shot we needed. That's quality over quantity..,

[LS_8750]

It seems to me that by properly educating the public, and our brethren, regarding the requirement for filing a map as being standard practice in order to protect the public, this phantom temp corner undercutting thing would disappear.

The virtue of the RS. It would make a great CLSA brochure which we could attach to proposals, and demonstrate the solidarity of our LS community...

[E_Page]

Education won't make the practice disappear. many surveyors who do it already know that they shouldn't, but since "everybody" does it, it must not be a big deal, or so the logic goes.

Where education might be most effective is among the agencies and among the developers. Agencies because so many working there are clearly ignorant of the law while appearing to the general public to be an authority on such things. To many of the general public, a survey is just another part of the land use and development permitting process, so whether a map is required or not would seem should be addressed by the agency where the permits are processed. Because of that perception by the public, the employees and managers at those agencies should be informed.

Developers, although the bottom line is whether or not a project will make money, should be interested in the issue because the lack of a map required by the PLSA might later compromise their surveyor's ability or effectiveness to deliver service in later development steps (can't complete that topo or issue that ALTA update if one's license is suspended, or may not be able to get staking done in a timely manner if much of one's time is spent on responding to a Board complaint and on drawing and submitting maps which have been piling up and should have been done months or years ago). In some cases, the lack of a statutorily required map might result in a project being delayed in that title issues which may have come to light when the map should have been filed might pop up at a time when dealing with them is far less convenient or when time constraints connected to the entitlement or construction process are in play.

Many developers might still look at it as a balance of risk. They may wish to try to get by with temp corner points and no map because it saves them money. They might intend to delay it now but have it done later in the project as a means of cash flow management, thinking of it as just an item to be checked off in the development process, and that the effort will only make the difference between knowing the boundary location +/- .5' vs knowing it +/- .01', which they really don't care about. Or they may intend to get by indefinitely without spending that money. If they don't see it as an issue that has a real possibility of delaying their project, costing them money for not doing it, or as an issue that adds liability for them, then an "accurate" boundary survey isn't seen as a real necessity.

There will always be those surveyors who will give the client what they want regardless of the law and their knowledge of it. Some will worry about it, want to do the right thing, but still give in to pressure from clients and engineers (neither of whom give a whit about your liability) because their too afraid to lose the work. Others are in the business of cutting corners in order to get projects based on price regardless of economic conditions.


Ken, if your article is well received in the Cal Surveyor, think about doing a version which can be submitted to publications read by developers and building or planning officials of public agencies. Maybe make the point in that one that if the reader's surveyor is cutting these corners, what other corners might he be cutting that translate to quality and correctness of staking for fixed works. Those are the mistakes that will hit developers in the wallet and that building officials will see.

[mpallamary]

Whatever happened to these days? Why can't everyone freely exchange ideas that benefit us all?

[sanchezmikea]

The real problem I see is that on large projects (Caltrans, MWD, subdivisions, commercial etc, we set constructions stakes all year round for the last 38 years I have been surveying under the direction of LS's, RCE's, GC's etc and never once have to file CR's, until you set the same exact stakes for an old widow who cant afford a boundary survey to build a CLF to keep out the tweakers, NOW you have violated the law according to Mr. Wooley LS.

[sanchezmikea]

Unless you are a member of his association or his employee, then perhaps it was a different matter, like when he set all those fence stakes for the large water project he did, yes we "swallow the camel, but choke on the gnat". The high priests of our profession are guilty of the greater sin, for they judge others by the law, they feel they are immune to it when it comes to curb stakes (set off R/W, building corners by setbacks of PL, 20's and 80's on PL, ROW "takes", and virtually anything which uses coordinates that are somehow related to property lines.

[sanchezmikea]

When large firms provide Caltrans and other entites with CAD drawings that have on them lines representing property lines or right of way, are they not giving precise dimensions to the line, if you say no, go take a CAD class, please. Google, Zillow, County GIS (form of CAD), City GIS, etc, place improvements in a file along with property lines, section lines, R/W. Have they not now established virtual (and measurable) property lines, if you accept that a surveyor "establishes" property lines when he drops a block from a tract into a CAD file with the monuments he measured, and scales and rotates (compass adjustment). The courts have been quite clear on this, only a court can establish a property line, usually defaulting to the monument of record, as a convenience for the court. Surveyors offer only their opinion (how many property lines can fit on a tag?) which at this time in California, does not have the force of law. As one surveyor put it " the definition of a property line is an imaginary line dividing two ownerships, Surveyors are the only people in California licensed to have that imagination (except the old RCE licenses)