Chain!

TTaylor · Post by **TTaylor** » Tue Dec 09, 2014 5:52 pm

So, Deward is leaving this forum after a long 2 week stint.

I'm not sure what his mission is, but maybe he will find an audience somewhere else for his message.

E_Page · Post by **E_Page** » Fri Dec 12, 2014 9:21 pm

Keithwill wrote:I don't know about others, but I can read and understand a court case a lot better, if I can see the surveys/plats that are being debated.

That's almost always true. It was sure a lot easier to see what was going on in the Chatsworth case once the maps were provided.

As for the Hero of Houston's random quotations and irrelevant posts to TX code (what's that got to do with CA surveying???), I think that he has taken his credibility here for about as downhill a slide as it can get.

Time to move on to more helpful threads and topics.

LS_8750 · Post by **LS_8750** » Sat Dec 13, 2014 8:45 am

In light of the direction this discussion has gone, we can count on Randy Newman to bring a chuckle to the situation:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hdgcyT_nsBA

TTaylor · Post by **TTaylor** » Sat Dec 13, 2014 5:13 pm

Well, I am chuckling!! I've always liked him.

Where is that thumbs up button?

Keithwill · Post by **Keithwill** » Sun Dec 14, 2014 8:25 pm

Probably could discuss some survey issues, not just button pushing!

Keithwill · Post by **Keithwill** » Sun Dec 14, 2014 8:35 pm

How's this: Can those expert measurers today, accept the fact that many years ago, we did not have the measurement abilities of your instruments today, yet we did as best we could with what we had, and we set monuments in good faith for the boundaries that we were attempting to establish?

And why do you come along now and not accept our work and set another monument very close by?

What is going through your mind, when you reject our monuments and set new ones at your very precise measurement?

Just let it roll around in your mind and wonder about it.

LS 4722 · Post by **LS 4722** » Sun Dec 14, 2014 10:42 pm

When surveyors stop looking at existing monuments as something that must meet math, and start looking at them through the eyes of the court and the eyes of a land owner whose title is in direct relationship to the monument, then they will not pincushion.

dewardkb · Post by **dewardkb** » Mon Dec 15, 2014 5:09 am

Record of Survey, in the City of Glendale, County of Los Angeles, State of California, Book 230, Page 64.

Do as I say but not as I do.

LS 4722 · Post by **LS 4722** » Mon Dec 15, 2014 6:21 am

dewardkb wrote:Record of Survey, in the City of Glendale, County of Los Angeles, State of California, Book 230, Page 64.

Do as I say but not as I do.

http://dpw.lacounty.gov/sur/nas/landrec ... 30-064.pdf

If you are going to call them like you see them it would be a good idea to open your eyes first

dewardkb · Post by **dewardkb** » Mon Dec 15, 2014 6:48 am

FD.OLD PK NAIL/TAG EITHER LS 3547 OR LS 3347 IN TOP OF GRANITE ROCK - NO REF 0.17' W X 0.15' S OF R/W EC

My eyes are open....maybe yours are not.

LS 4722 · Post by **LS 4722** » Mon Dec 15, 2014 7:34 am

dewardkb wrote:FD.OLD PK NAIL/TAG EITHER LS 3547 OR LS 3347 IN TOP OF GRANITE ROCK - NO REF 0.17' W X 0.15' S OF R/W EC

My eyes are open....maybe yours are not.

Well, to educate you, here are a few facts.

1. This is a two sheet RS, but I am sure you knew that.

2. That PK/tag is in a rock on the side of the road. No improvements are built to it. It's near the top of a down slope and it's OFF location in regards to the City right of way line per their monuments.

I would ask you to post a link to your filed surveys that you have done in Texas, but I don't think you can link a personal file cabinet.

I surveyed in Texas for a while. All I can say about what I saw in Texas is the same answer that Sgt. Gunny Highway gave to Col. Myers in "Heartbreak Ridge"

Col. Meyers: [during a readiness exercise]: What's your assessment of this situation, Gunny?

Highway: It's a ( Google the answer Deward), sir.

Col. Meyers: Say again?m

Keithwill · Post by **Keithwill** » Mon Dec 15, 2014 9:06 am

LS 4722..Your post #80 is right on!

Except, when is that going to happen; seems to me that the trend is even more for expert measurements, rather then accepting existing monuments!

Ric7308 · Post by **Ric7308** » Mon Dec 15, 2014 9:25 am

Will someone please go kick that rock 0.17' east and 0.15' north.

Keithwill · Post by **Keithwill** » Mon Dec 15, 2014 9:34 am

Ric7308......that was my thought....looked like a pretty shakey foundation for a monument?

Looks like a tire mark on the side of the rock......pushed it out of position?

Keithwill · Post by **Keithwill** » Mon Dec 15, 2014 9:37 am

I would think there would be a better "monument" to argue about?

As in one of those pictures with two capped monuments touching side by side?

LS 4722 · Post by **LS 4722** » Mon Dec 15, 2014 9:42 am

Ric7308 wrote:Will someone please go kick that rock 0.17' east and 0.15' north.

I would but my foot hurts.

Here is a very interesting thing about Campbell Road.

That road was deeded to the City of Glendale in 1938. From recall I believe the deed began at Mountain Street and went all the way up to Melwood. I do have an exhibit of the deed but I cannot seem to find a scanned copy of it.

Anyway, the centerline as monumented and perpetuated by the city crews hold as the original monument positions and if a tag in a rock doesn't fit, well, then it just does not fit.

Probably my fault, I should have payed more attention to Texas surveying, after all, 6 rebars for one position and no record at all (except the private ones) has to be something that's just way over the head of this California surveyor.

dewardkb · Post by **dewardkb** » Mon Dec 15, 2014 10:04 am

There are multiple examples of you ignoring the monuments on the ground, why try and deny it? Anyone can see multiple virtual pin cushions who looks at the drawing. You seem to be saying you ignored it because it is disturbed yet this information does not appear on the drawing.

Let's take another one then.....FD. RUSTY SPIKE AND TIN 0.2' DOWN - NO REF - S 57 deg E. 0.18' FROM LOT LINE AND R/W LINE INTSECTION

How can you deny the fact this drawing has "pin cushions"?

Keithwill · Post by **Keithwill** » Mon Dec 15, 2014 10:15 am

I do know that a surveyor or two in Texas, has stated that no junior monument that is not exactly and I mean exactly on the senior line will be accepted! Remember the vice grips story on bending a rebar onto line?

I can understand the remark from Lucas about going back to the Mayflower time period to determine where the boundary REALLY is!

That rationale then explains why any subsequent junior monument is ignored as the only boundary line is where it was established originally and no subsequent resurvey that leaves a monument off that line.....is simply wrong!

That rationale is simply technician measuring and ignoring any and all subsequent resurveys of adjacent land boundaries.

Hence, pin cushion corner monuments at the exact measured distance of the written deed. (original deed)

And then of course there is the rationale of the BLM's alternate method of subdividing PLSS sections by using ONLY the original protracted section center lines as the evidence of those lines.....any subsequent corner monuments are ignored if not EXACTLY on the protracted line.

LS 4722 · Post by **LS 4722** » Mon Dec 15, 2014 10:19 am

You seem to be saying you ignored it because it is disturbed yet this information does not appear on the drawing.

I DID? Just where did I say that Deward?

PS Did you even bother to look at the 2nd sheet of the RS? Maybe you can find a cushion or two, as for me, I am signing off from this thread. You seem to just want to start a fight or argue over things that in the long haul, just don't really mean a thing.

Keithwill · Post by **Keithwill** » Mon Dec 15, 2014 1:33 pm

LS4722

Hey stick around, we can always discuss more interesting topics!

Like the BLM's alternate method of subdividing sections. However, I would suppose that your practice does not get into subdividing sections?

Keithwill · Post by **Keithwill** » Tue Dec 16, 2014 8:17 am

Speaking of the BLM alternate method of subdividing a PLSS section; does anybody here follow that procedure in subdividing a section?

Keithwill · Post by **Keithwill** » Tue Dec 16, 2014 4:57 pm

Hmmm, thought that was an easy one?

Keithwill · Post by **Keithwill** » Fri Dec 19, 2014 9:14 am

Or, nobody will admit it?

Olin Edmundson · Post by **Olin Edmundson** » Sat Dec 20, 2014 7:05 pm

LS 4722 · Post by **LS 4722** » Sat Dec 20, 2014 7:30 pm

What do you do? And if you are to hold the point on your lot, are you not creating problems for future surveyors?

You hold the pipe. To hell with the following surveyors.

If you reject the pipe you are impacting the adjacent title holder. People have sued for much less than 2 inches.

California Surveyors Forums

Chain!

Keithwill

So what about it Deward?

Deward

Ric

Deward

Calling off monuments

Be careful what you do