California Surveyors Forums

William Magee wrote:

Steve Martin wrote: So why don't you post a few of your surveys (that you have bragged about) for us to comment on?

I'd be too embarrassed being as my measurement skills just don't compare. I'd hate to be subject to ridicule for the magnitude of error I find acceptable in the work of prior retracements or of my own.

While I do not think it is worthwhile to engage further with a troll, if anyone wants to call me to discuss why I do not believe in fudging my numbers as is his preference, you are welcome to do so.

-Dave Ryan- wrote: Steve, I love what you did on that RS with the monument history. Leaves no mistake about the varying descriptions and conveniently serves the history right up for the next surveyor. I've probably taken the lazy way out before and said something to the effect of "...accept as the same monument previously reported with varying descriptions...". Yours is much more useful.

Monuments are important! Let's take care in describing what we find.

Dave Ryan,
Arcata, Ca.

Thanks Dave,

Lee Hixson deserves most of the credit on that one.

It has nothing to do with fudging numbers, rather it has more to do with what was so succinctly stated in 153 Cal 477; 95 P. 888 Young v Blakeman:

"If the position of the line always remained to be ascertained by measurement alone, the result would be that it would not be a fixed boundary, but would be subject to change with every new measurement. Such uncertainty and instability in the title to land would be intolerable"

Although Young v Blakeman was concerned with interpretation of deed v ground measurements, the excerpt has far more reaching applicability than its original intent.

That and the deviation of 0.04' at mid distance of a measurement of a half-mile long line is practically imperceptible

Again, it has nothing to do with fudging of numbers. Rather it has everything to do with the value of numbers.

Steve Martin wrote:Anthony,
I disagree. The map clearly shows and describes what is being held. The corner histories tie that back to the record evidence which may or may not be a continuous chain back to the original monument. Would you hide gaps in the chain back to the original from the reader? My preference is to document the facts as I know them so the next Surveyor can evaluate my survey. The survey narrative is a part of that. Document well enough and you stay out of court.

We can document and declare all we want, but that won't keep one from losing in court with an incorrect survey. The truth of the matter is that if you don't have a tagged monument, you don't know as fact that a certain monument came from a certain map. We can make an educated guess and describe it as well as possible, but that's it. Then there is the question of what value this guess is providing. If your reader is a future surveyor who is reviewing and scrutinizing your map, they'll be going through all of the history of recorded maps and deeds and will make their own analysis based on the actual source documents. If your reader is a common property owner, they're not gonna really care where the point came from, they're just interested in what monument is there and does that monument represent my corner. I've wondered if at times if we may have too much documentation that is cluttering the record and distracting us from the true task at hand. For example, this posted map on one line shows a measured bearing then 5 different record bearings. In a few more years this will grow to 10, then 15. Where does it stop? Don't we have some discretion as surveyors to choose when showing certain records could be of value or to choose when specifying a source of a monument could be informative to a reader?

The CEAC ROS checklist has this to say:
"Record measurements in parenthesis to be shown when beneficial to the interpretation of lines or points or substantially different from measured."
Every measured location is subject to some amount of uncertainty, at minimum 0.01'. And how about between open 2" IPs?Calling a record measurement between two off by two hundredths is hubris.

Straying a bit from the original post but I'm with Olin and Magee on this one. While I appreciate the detail and explanation shown on the Wilson and Hixson map and I found it easy enough to follow, I tend to show minimal supporting record information and would not typically show every record that exists for each monument and line on the map (especially if they are all in agreement). I think that the monument record is helpful on this map, particularly where the corner monuments have been buried by levees and tied out and reset through the years by this agency or other surveyors. A variation on this method could be an ideal solution for the predicament of the original post. Or you could just try to form a complete sentence to explain the situation instead of "FOUND MONUMENT O.U."

Map reviewers are quirky beasts, I recently had to add "no record" notations to found tagged monuments even though I knew who set them and it was the same surveyor who filed the original subdivision and we are holding all of the monuments. At the end of the day it's easier to just give the map checker what they think they want in order to get the map filed. Usually I am the only one who feels strongly about their insult to the record. There was even a monument on my map that had a different surveyor's tag on it than was shown on the record map and I eventually changed the tag number on our map to match the one on the record map even though it is not what I found because the map reviewer kept insisting that I had it wrong and it's not worth the time to try to explain it to them. They know better in the county office than we do from the field, that is the fact we have to accept.

I do not know the intended audience of this map but I expect since it has "precise monuments" and CRTN ties that it is someone more sophisticated than the average hay farmer but generally speaking I try not to call 2 inch diameter monuments off 1/2 inch and I also never report my measurements in tenths of seconds. I seldom have any reason to show the extreme detail shown on this map and I also have more than one client (which I assume the agency surveyor's are only accountable to EBMUD) so it is something I cannot relate to easily.

All in all I thought the corner history notes and the narrative were pretty good!

I would also tag the no tag monument if I plan to hold and show it on a map. Drop a plastic plug in there and stop the madness!!

Anthony Maffia wrote:...
Every measured location is subject to some amount of uncertainty, at minimum 0.01'. And how about between open 2" IPs?Calling a record measurement between two off by two hundredths is hubris.

I think that this is the crux of the issue; some people see it as "calling it off" while others see it as reporting their actual measurements.

Edward M Reading wrote:

Anthony Maffia wrote:...
Every measured location is subject to some amount of uncertainty, at minimum 0.01'. And how about between open 2" IPs?Calling a record measurement between two off by two hundredths is hubris.

I think that this is the crux of the issue; some people see it as "calling it off" while others see it as reporting their actual measurements.

With all due respect Mr. Reading, if a map shows a detail, and shows the property line and graphically shows a monument symbol off of that line and gives a falling distance, how could it possibly be interpreted that the surveyor means for the line to be running through the monument?

Food for thought:

http://www.amerisurv.com/PDF/TheAmerica ... l10No5.pdf

mpallamary wrote:Food for thought:

http://www.amerisurv.com/PDF/TheAmerica ... l10No5.pdf

You da' man!

Olin Edmundson wrote:

Steve Martin wrote:Anthony,
I disagree. The map clearly shows and describes what is being held. The corner histories tie that back to the record evidence which may or may not be a continuous chain back to the original monument. Would you hide gaps in the chain back to the original from the reader? My preference is to document the facts as I know them so the next Surveyor can evaluate my survey. The survey narrative is a part of that. Document well enough and you stay out of court.

We can document and declare all we want, but that won't keep one from losing in court with an incorrect survey. The truth of the matter is that if you don't have a tagged monument, you don't know as fact that a certain monument came from a certain map. We can make an educated guess and describe it as well as possible, but that's it. Then there is the question of what value this guess is providing. If your reader is a future surveyor who is reviewing and scrutinizing your map, they'll be going through all of the history of recorded maps and deeds and will make their own analysis based on the actual source documents. If your reader is a common property owner, they're not gonna really care where the point came from, they're just interested in what monument is there and does that monument represent my corner. I've wondered if at times if we may have too much documentation that is cluttering the record and distracting us from the true task at hand. For example, this posted map on one line shows a measured bearing then 5 different record bearings. In a few more years this will grow to 10, then 15. Where does it stop? Don't we have some discretion as surveyors to choose when showing certain records could be of value or to choose when specifying a source of a monument could be informative to a reader?

And not just that, but there's not many clients who would be happy paying for this amount of documentation.

Olin Edmundson wrote:

Edward M Reading wrote:

Anthony Maffia wrote:...
Every measured location is subject to some amount of uncertainty, at minimum 0.01'. And how about between open 2" IPs?Calling a record measurement between two off by two hundredths is hubris.

I think that this is the crux of the issue; some people see it as "calling it off" while others see it as reporting their actual measurements.

With all due respect Mr. Reading, if a map shows a detail, and shows the property line and graphically shows a monument symbol off of that line and gives a falling distance, how could it possibly be interpreted that the surveyor means for the line to be running through the monument?

What always seems to get lost in these discussions is that there is a difference between showing your measurements and accepting monuments. You can actually do both.

My apologies Mr. Reading, I see that I actually misread Anthony's original comment you responded to. He was referring to record being "called off" I typically think of monuments being "called off" and got confused. I'm in agreement and don't mind seeing actual measurements between two found monuments even when they are extremely close to record. If a map shows perfect record between two found points you know that's not perfectly true, and you wonder, how true is it? But I can see logic on the other side as well. This is one of those discussions that will continue for generations to come. Whoops, stepped into this one! Help! Let me out!

Please let me know if it is sticking up (how far), is flush, or is down (how far).

I'm currently working with a map, at the SE corner it says "found 5/8" rebar accepted as original monument per such and such Tract Map" In the field we find a 5/8" rebar. The original Tract map describes 3/4" pipe being set. I wonder if this surveyor still likes the position. As a rhetorical question, what happens when one makes the wrong guess about the source info? When source data is given on a map, is the monument being honored because it is believed to be from a particular source, or would its position be honored anyway and it just happens to be from that source?

Mr. Reading wrote: "What always seems to get lost in these discussions is that there is a difference between showing your measurements and accepting monuments. You can actually do both."
I would think that reporting ones expectation of error would take care of that? I typically think of most surveys I do as being plus or minus a tenth of a foot. So when I see a call of 0.04' right offline I associate it with 0.14' right to 0.06' left of line. I think we as surveyors need to come up with a better process of expressing our error budget on the map. My 2 cents, Jp

Reading through the full thread, a few thoughts come to mind.

1) You do not have to be, nor are you expected to be absolutely certain that a monument found in the field is the very same one as called on some previous record. Boundary location matters are decided upon a preponderance of the evidence. That means that if it is more likely that the monument you found is the same one as shown/described on a previous record than it is to be some random goat stake that is just coincidently almost at the calculated position where you expected to find it, then you should call it as accepted as being the monument per that reference.

Bear in mind that descriptions on previous records often contain minor errors or deviations from what was actually set. For example, map calls for a 3/4" IP and you find a 1/2" IP. The number of surveyors who are not aware that the proper dimension by which to identify pipe size is the inside diameter is not small. Whenever you find a pipe that has an actual size within about 1/4" (or half inch when you get to 2" or larger) of the record size and that's the only substantial difference you note, you should probably consider that a minor error in the record description. If it's a rebar or other form of solid bar, +/- 1/4" is a pretty common descriptive error. If the record calls for a cap and you find none, but otherwise the monument is the right size (within parameters described above), check for any indication a cap of the right material may have once been attached. If you find any such indication, IMO, you are now way beyond a preponderance. If it calls for a tag, be aware that the most common method of attaching a tag is with baling wire. Unless the monument is in a well location well protected from the elements and traffic of any kind, the wire normally only lasts a few years. The tag may be in the dirt nearby, or it may have been washed away by storm runoff at some point or even picked up by a sharp-eyed magpie.

If you feel that you need to be absolutely certain that a found monument is the same monument before accepting it, you should probably refrain from making decisions on boundary matters where there is any uncertainty or contradictions in evidence, refer it to a surveyor with a great deal more experience, and maybe even work under that more experienced surveyor until you've gained enough experience to be reasonably comfortable making decisions where the evidence is not entirely clear and consistent.

2) I really like the idea of providing notations on the map regarding the history of monuments where the nature of the evidence leaves any question as to the nature or location of a corner and its monument. I am a proponent of not only providing enough info to allow a following surveyor to recreate the points and lines I identify, but to provide enough info, data and description of reasoning, to make it very easy for a following surveyor to agree with my conclusions and difficult to disagree. In other words, I want to make it clear on my map that to reasonably come to conclusions differing from mine, any following surveyor had better be able to find evidence that I was unable to find, and that evidence had better be superior to the evidence I used.

3) We have to remember what the purpose is and who the audience is, who the readers are as we prepare our records of survey. The purpose is to identify where we found the boundaries to be, what we based those conclusions on, and to spatially relate the points and lines of the boundary to all the other parts of the boundary, to the controlling elements of the boundary location, to any other features which may have an effect on boundary location or title, and to any other features we decide would be helpful for a reader of the map to find the boundary as we located it. Most of us have no problem understanding that.

Most of us also understand that the audience for our maps will include other surveyors, our clients (although sometimes we might get the feeling that certain clients will never look at the map after receiving it), title company employees, and perhaps lawyers and paralegals. Others that many of us often fail to consider are our clients' neighbors, subsequent purchasers of the subject and adjacent properties, judges, and groups of people of ordinary intelligence of widely different backgrounds otherwise called juries. Granted, for most of us, having judges and juries consider the maps is going to be a rare occurrence, but one we need to be prepared for.

Our maps need to make sense to all of these potential readers with minimal to no explanation necessary. Which leads me into one of the side topics that have come up in the thread: Depicting the differences between our actual measurements and the record and/or physical evidence found.

Different surveyors look at this in different ways. There are those who report something like "Fd. IP & cap 'LS XXXX', 0.06' N & 0.04' E of corner", there are those who, as Steve & Lee did on the map Steve posted, do something similar by showing a direction and distance from the corner, even though that distance is only a few hundredths of a foot. And there are those who graphically place the corners at the found monuments at the locations their measurements found them in, and report differences of distance and direction from record dimensions of those lines.

A few years before I obtained my first license, I worked for a surveyor who used that first method, and at the time, I thought it was a good method. The second method is practically the same, just using relative polar cords from the calculated corner rather than rectangular. Many of these surveyors will explain that when they are showing these minimal differences, they are showing how well they actually agreed with those positions.

OK, that makes some sense from a mathematical point of view. The problem with that is that rarely, if ever, does the surveyor give any other info to judge the relative positional errors for a following surveyor to judge other than from a gut feeling based on their own experience whether the stated positional difference from corner to monument is close enough that the map maker is saying "I accepted this mon as reasonably marking the corner" or, "this monument differs enough from the calculated corner that I do not agree that it reasonably marks the corner".

The reasoning of showing how well one agrees with the monument starts to fall apart when you directly ask them whether the monument is at the corner or not. Some will be easy, such as an iron pipe shown as 0.03' away, but the answers tend to get a bit more wishy-washy when the differences get out there around 0.15' and up. Another problem is that some surveyors will duplicate this method and their understanding is that whenever a difference is found by measurement, the corner and monument really are at different locations.

For a map reader who has no understanding of relative positional tolerance, it is all but inexplicable how a monument can be shown to be some distance, any distance from the "true" corner yet still mark the property corner. And if two different surveyors use that same method at the same monument, they will come to the conclusion that the corner is somewhere near the monument, but the surveyors aren't capable of telling anyone just where it is because each surveyor says it's some distance one way or another but not the same.

If your RS is of a control network and not relating boundaries to monuments, the paper pincushion along with error ellipses or other indications of the quality of your measurements is an acceptable method, IMO. But because of the confusion that the method creates by leaving unresolved ambiguity as to just where the true boundary lines and corners are relative to monuments, I don't think it is a good method for the purpose of identifying boundaries.

For most non-technical people, the numbers, however they are reported will mean very little except to the extent of a general feeling of size. For most, boundary lines beginning at one accepted monument and ending at another, showing a slight difference in distance & direction between measured & record will make much more sense. Using that method, if a found monument is shown to be some distance off the corner location, it's much more clear that the surveyor did not accept the monument. That method of reporting is much easier to explain than trying to explain after the fact that some differences indicate "the degree of agreement" and that some such monuments do mark corners and other such monuments don't.

Bear in mind that any aspect of your survey that you are unable to adequately explain to someone damages your credibility and the level of confidence that person will place on the results of your survey. If that person is a surveyor, your explanation may be adequate. If that person has no technical background, the less that your map is designed to convey your reasoning and conclusions so as to make the complex understandable, the more difficult it will be to explain in a way that the non-technical person can understand it.

It's not enough to be technically correct. You must also be able to explain why it is correct on the level of understanding of your audience.

4) There are those who actually do reject a found monument because it is not one that matches the description of any in an original conveyance or on a map referred to by an original conveyance, even if the corner position falls on the monument found. First, realize that what you learned in college, that unless a monument is verifiable as an original monument and is called for in the deed, that it cannot be accepted to define a corner position is one of those rules that if held as an absolute, is pure horse crap.

The surveyor needs to have a good understanding of the true quality and reliability, not only of his own measurements, but of the probable quality and reliability of the measurements of 1) whoever defined the dimensions contained in the original description, and 2) whoever set the monument you found in the field.

Together with that understanding, you need to keep in mind that property owners have a right to rely on the results of surveys, for whatever purpose the survey was made, that were performed by qualified individuals. If a monument was set during a boundary survey and the landowners accepted it as marking the line or corner, you need a much better reason to reject it than that it isn't an original and that it doesn't match your measurements.

Your boundary survey isn't an original survey. Should the landowner be able to rely on the results of your survey? If you rejected a previous surveyor's monuments based on measurements alone, why should the landowners or a following surveyor give your survey any evidential weight? If they do their survey by the same rules, then your monuments aren't originals, your measurements and his measurements are unlikely to place the calculated corners at precisely the same locations, so of what value is your survey?

I've often disagreed with Magee on this forum, but in this instance, he's right and provided an excellent case cite to back it up. Once a boundary has been physically placed on the ground and relied on, the physical evidence of that placement is better and more reliable evidence of the intended true boundary location than are measurements, even with modern top-end equipment, following dimensions based on measurements or calculations, usually of unknown provenance, recited in a deed.

IMO, the licensed professional surveyor needs to make a clear decision of whether or not a monument will be accepted as properly marking a corner - that is appears to he the result of a reasonable attempt to place the monument at the true corner position - thereby making tangible the intent of the parties who created the line. If the surveyor decides that the found monument was a reasonable placement to mark the corner - given the combined reasonably expected errors in the measurements of the survey by which it was placed, and one's survey in finding it, then accept the darn thing. Indicate on your map in a manner that leaves no doubt as to whether you accepted it or rejected it, and depict/report the boundary lines as meeting at the monument as you located it. Show the corner position and monument position to be different only if you reject the monument, and include an explanation why it was rejected in your narrative or map notes.

Landowners and other non-technical people who may have occasion to try to interpret your map primarily want to know where the boundary is and whether they would be able to reasonably identify the boundary lines and corners by the physical objects placed to mark them on the ground.

5) Addressing the question in the OP, identifying a found monument by its origin or otherwise stating origin unknown... I think that whether or not you accept the monument, you should state the origin if you know it. If you don't know the origin but it appears on some previous map, you need to reference that map. If the first map on which it was shown indicates it as being of unknown origin, then you have legally incorporated that note into your map by reference, so I don't believe it is an absolute requirement to repeat on your map that it is of unknown origin. But, I do believe that it is a good idea to include both the reference to the map and an "O.U." notation.

Monument Descriptions

According to the laws, both case law and statute, monument have always been of paramount consideration when determining the location of boundaries. The proper identification and description are key components of boundary establishment and retracement.

If the preceding paragraph has always been true - how did we get to the point in which a monument is described as "Fd. Mon." or "SSM" (standard survey monument) or "Fd. Spk."? How does this comport with Bus. & Prof. § 8764 (a) which states:

"All monuments found, set, reset, replaced, or removed, describing their kind, size, and location, and giving other data relating thereto." [emphasis mine].

I can name no less than 6 types of "spikes" i.e. railroad, cut, boat, gear/spindle/gin, dura-nail, MAG, - how does "spk." adequately describe a spike?

The same can be said for washers and/or tags i.e. aluminum, steel, brass, copper - which is it?

What is with all of the abbreviations? I do not understand.

As mentioned in an earlier post, steel pipe is measured by the inside diameter. In fact, steel pipe has an ANSI standard which states it is measured by the inside diameter - plastic pipe is measured by the outside diameter.

I specify how the pipe was measured, inside or outside diameter, on my maps. Do you? Why or why not? Curiously, I have had map checkers ask me to remove the reference to inside or outside diameters, once.

Map Checking Monument Descriptions

A portion of our business is serving as a map checkers for several agencies. We recently had a licensed surveyor refuse to show the depth of the monuments on his map (Karoly, I agree you with you, it is important). His reasoning? He has never shown depths in the past and the local ordinance doesn't require it. Oh, he added "who is going to pay me for that?". I believe it is so important I sent out one of our guys, driving 50 miles each way, to measure the depths and document it with photos for the surveyor to add to his map - uncompensated time for the company. He still refused to show it on his map. Never mind the fact on the initial submittal his state plane coordinates were completely wrong, the boundary was incorrect as established, and he surveyed and mapped two city blocks more than was needed to establish the boundary and yet, he made his stand on the monument depths.

"Accepted as" or "In Lieu of" - Annoyances

These two terms are often used incorrectly, "accepted as" and "in lieu of". For example, in some jurisdictions we will have a surveyor find a "spk" and show it "accepted [or in lieu of] as 1" i.p" - using their senseless nomenclature. I would no sooner describe my 1999 Buick Park Avenue as an "accepted as a 2017 Ford F250". If the tag is the same number and the monument is of different character the monument can be attributed to the surveyor or record which could properly be "in lieu of". However, a unaccounted for spike doesn't become a record pipe by way of "accepted as" or "in lieu of". I attribute this misuse to training by campfire story. The ever present "that's how we've always done it" - translated directly, I have no sense of my own, I only work here.

In the event a surveyor finds a monument of unknown origin and the location, balanced with other evidence, is determined to properly mark the corner it can be labeled "accepted as [the southwest corner of lot 1...]". "Accepted as" is better related to location, not provenance. No reference is simply no reference.

Tony Cuomo wrote a letter on "in lieu of" several years ago - attached. I believe he is correct. A couple of our surveyors have written the language for our map checking letters for "accepted as".

Measurements v. Record

If a surveyor doesn't show the measured values between monuments, what is shown on the map? Is it proper to show the record values when the measured value varies from the record? If so, what is the tolerance before measured is shown? How is the tolerance determined?

In the event measured dimensions differ from record dimensions and the surveyor doesn't show the record dimensions on the map - has the material discrepancy been properly documented?

Ed Reading is correct when he says "I think that this is the crux of the issue; some people see it as "calling it off" while others see it as reporting their actual measurements". If it has to be explained you wouldn't understand. I have maps in which I have mathematically "called off" every monument on a line by holding each monument of equal value/weight to establish the line. The fancy name for this process is linear regression.

Tagging Found Monuments

It was stated on this thread there is no law requiring monuments to be tagged. This is a true statement. However, there is a 1974 board opinion stating found monuments accepted as control must be tagged and a contrary opinion, by a random legal department, stating the tagging of monuments has no inherent value, circa 1990, if I recall correctly. This should be corrected, by statute, requiring found [durable] monuments accepted as controlling must be tagged with the licensee"s number. Why not?

The Rabbit Hole

I regularly speak to land surveyors that see a lot of work of other land surveyors. They see the work either through the agency review process or expert work. Many of these folks do not know each other. It is without exception these folks tell me we are in a new era of poor quality work, the rabbit hole. One pervasive aspect is the land surveyors only survey to a budget, professional standards and laws be damned. Although hardly uncommon, this is evidenced by dedkad's comment "...there's not many clients who would be happy paying for this amount of documentation." Since when was the standard set by a clients ability to pay [not directed to dedkad, rhetorical question]?

In my expert work, often land surveyor negligence, artificial contract limitations on the scope of services or client's unwillingness to pay are no defense. The land surveyors' costs for negligence in my expert work is over $3 million - very little of which is construction related, mostly boundaries.

I was recently reviewing a contract map checker's work. The letter accompanying the redlines was in an indiscernible written format. No sentence structure, unclear meaning or purpose. This is the new regulatory body? Apparently so. Never mind the fact the redlines were patently wrong in their comments as to the boundary location.

Recently, I found a land surveyor that was negligent in not filing a record of survey on a marginal bit of work - which I reported to the BPELSG. He attempted to make it right by creating a record of survey - which demonstrated that he was actually incompetent.

After listening to these folks, bearing witness myself, I have to agree we are squarely in the rabbit hole.

Thoughts?

D. Woolley

Dave,
I 100% agree with everything that you have written here. (never thought I'd say that :) )The lazy descriptions and unnecessary use of abbreviations always drive me crazy. It doesn't take long to do it correctly. I have never understood it.
Thanks for the thoughtful post.
Ed

David Kendall wrote:...I also never report my measurements in tenths of seconds.

...All in all I thought the corner history notes and the narrative were pretty good!

Thank you David. You will notice that I adhere to a standard of bearings to the nearest second in the body of the map, even where the distances are so short that the seconds are insignificant. It is not the case on this particular survey, but typically the CRTN stations are 20,000'-30,000' from the project site and at those distances it does make a little difference. I found that surveyors were calculating coordinates in from these ties, so in order to help them get close to the surveyed coordinates, I've included the tenth of a second in the CCS83 Basis of Bearing ties. It is not really necessary in this case as the reference station is only 5,000'-6000' away.

My intent in posting the map was to add an example of monument descriptions to add to the discussion in a positive manner.

"Magee" hijacked the thread and let loose his inner troll.

Now I had not felt like putting any energy into his trolling, but others are contributing here in a considerate manner, so perhaps a few comments are in order.

William Magee wrote:Brass disk set in concrete 0.04' off line? Some darn good measuring going on there.

William Magee wrote:

Steve Martin wrote: So why don't you post a few of your surveys (that you have bragged about) for us to comment on?

I'd be too embarrassed being as my measurement skills just don't compare. I'd hate to be subject to ridicule for the magnitude of error I find acceptable in the work of prior retracements or of my own.

William Magee wrote:That and the deviation of 0.04' at mid distance of a measurement of a half-mile long line is practically imperceptible
Again, it has nothing to do with fudging of numbers. Rather it has everything to do with the value of numbers.

Looking at his comments, and wading through the sarcasm and derision, it is not the fact that we did not accept an adjacent retracement survey, what is really bothers him is showing a monument (which is not a part of my survey by the way) off line by 0.04’. He does not believe you can measure that good, it is close enough, just fudge it over in the mapping and show it on line, appears to be his line of thinking.

I believe the relative value of numbers should not be hidden from the reader, fudged over, or rationalized somehow as close enough to someone else’s measure.

I was taught to write down exactly what you measure, and by measure I include measurement by inversing between traverse or double determined, adjusted ties.

The relative value of numbers can be quantified. I have in the past included statements on the map “Relative positional accuracies are on the order of +/- 0.02’”. Looking at the network (closed figures) of static GPS ties for this project, the value of the numbers, or the relative accuracies are on the order of +/-0.025’, call it +/-0.03’.

Most everyone was taught about significant figures in high school. When you show numbers to two decimal places the implication is that that number is accurate to two decimal places. If a number is only accurate to 1 decimal place (fudged up or down by 0.05’ to 0.1’ by some value judgement), then it should only be reported to 1 decimal place.

For the one extraneous monument that “Magee” picked out, even if the offset was less that the estimated relative positional accuracy, I would still show the offset as what was measured and not fudge it over. It is not a part of our survey. We are just showing the relationship to our survey.

When I see a map where everything measured equals record, I wonder if the guy was ever on the ground recovering monuments and measuring at all. It also brings up the question, and I think the courts would look at it this way too, what else is he fudging on?

Perhaps it would have been better to not show the few extraneous monuments, potentially confuse people, and subject yourself to trolling from “Magee”. My thought was that they are monuments we tied in the course of our survey, show all of the information we had available, and just maybe someone in the future could use them to retrace my survey.


I agree with Evan that the quote Young v. Blakeman is good law in that boundaries as established upon the ground, recognized, agreed to, and acquiesced to for a long period of time, control over math (bearings & distances) from the deed.

The whole case is instructive, and the few sentences before the posed quote put it into perspective:

“When the division line of adjoining owners is designated in their respective deeds as a line beginning at a specified distance from a fixed object, the only method of ascertaining the location of the line on the ground is by measuring the required distance from the object. Experience shows that such measurements, made at different times by different persons with different instruments, will usually vary somewhat. The position of the object or monument at which the course begins may also be changed and the change may not be known to the parties, or there may be no means of ascertaining its original position. If the position of the line always remained to be ascertained by measurement alone, the result would be that it would not be a fixed boundary, but would be subject to change with every new measurement. Such uncertainty and instability in the title to land would be intolerable. For these and other reasons the rule has been established that when such owners, being uncertain of the true position of the boundary so described, agree upon its true location, mark it upon the ground, or build up to it, occupy on each side up to the place thus fixed and acquiesce in such location for a period equal to the statute of limitations, or under such circumstances that substantial loss would be caused by a change of its position, such line becomes, in law, the true line called for by the respective descriptions, regardless of the accuracy of the agreed location, as it may appear by subsequent measurements. The court found that the line in question had been thus located by the predecessors in interest of the parties, more than thirty years before the suit was begun. The evidence of the fact, though entirely circumstantial, is reasonably satisfactory.”

I find nothing in there to justify fudging numbers however. Even “Magee” admits he is stretching and reading into to it:

William Magee wrote:Although Young v Blakeman was concerned with interpretation of deed v ground measurements, the excerpt has far more reaching applicability than its original intent.

I don’t believe you are going to find a court case on point for changing the numbers based upon a personal tolerance (fudging, I call it). The courts would look at it as a de minimis issue (de minimus non curat lex).

I do find it interesting that “Magee” would turn to a case about boundaries established upon the ground are controlling over deed distances to support his relative value of numbers theory, as the case is in direct opposition to comments he has made here on the “sanctity of the true and accurate legal descriptions” and others he made as an enforcement consultant for the Board.

Evan brings up a more substantial issue. I am against pincushioning as much as anybody. I get the feeling Evan was reacting to some trends he sees in the industry and perhaps a presentation at the recent conference, or even the discussion at Dennis Mouland’s last seminar in Sacramento. However he did mention me and Lee by name.

Lee has written some pretty good notes on our Record of Survey to explain what was done:

We are in fact retracing the original 1940 survey of our property.

We find some irregularities in a modern survey adjacent to our property that did not appear to retrace the same 1940 survey. Not finding agreement and acquiescence in that survey, we have used professional judgment in not accepting monuments from that survey and have put into the record that we do not agree with that adjacent survey.

To me pincushioning is saying we measure better and I am going to put a monument next to this other one established with an acceptable procedure, recognized, agreed upon, and acquiesced to. That is not what myself and Lee did. We did not accept the evidence and procedures of an adjacent survey that should have retraced the 1940 survey.

I like the letter posed from Tony Coumo. We are not obligated to accept a monument just by its mere existence.

I stand behind our survey. I think Lee did an excellent job with the notes.

Thank you to those who have posted positive comments.

Again this has nothing to do with fudging numbers. It is about what value numbers represent. A surveyor performs a faithful, accurate and precise survey of a section line and accurately and precisely places a substantial monument upon said section line. He located the line and established a position upon it. A later surveyor comes along and surveys that same line with a highly accurate survey. The latter survey finds the earlier retracement is not on the latter surveyor's highly accurate survey by mere millimeters. Instead of acknowledging the former survey as being a correct and true location of the line as that would mean placing a break in bearing at the monument, the latter surveyor depicts the monument as being off line by those few millimeters.
Even the BLM recognized in the 2009 rewrite for latter retracing surveyors to acknowledge that senior lines can bend to faithfully performed earlier junior retracement surveys. Again, there is no need to fudge, rather simply acknowledge the break in bearing.
I think Young v Blakeman said it best. Along the same line of thinking, we can accept prior faithful and accurate retracements instead of changing the PHYSICAL (not mathmatical) location of the line each time a more accurate survey is performed.

The “Rabbit Hole” of Map Checking

Dave,

You raise some good points about the lack of consistency (or even competence) in the review of submitted maps.

While CEAC does have a Guide for the Preparation of Records of Survey and Corner Records, there is – to my knowledge – no Statewide equivalent for the review of subdivision maps. There are excellent local guides, such as San Diego’s, the City of Los Angeles, and San Francisco. Heck, San Joaquin County has a Guide with necessary Statements and listing of the ever-changing elected/appointed officials for the Cities.

Subdivision Maps are creatures of the Government Code. However, the boundary of the land being subdivided is something that should be constrained by the strictures of the Professional Land Surveyors’ Act. The geometry and local ordinances pertaining to the interior mapping is fairly straightforward – notes relating to conditions of approval notwithstanding.

A suggested Legend of Abbreviations goes a long way toward an efficient means of identifying monuments and controlling lines. Of course, studying the reference maps in a given area also provides background for long standing local practice.

As far as the “Rabbit Hole” goes, the maps of today are what practitioners of tomorrow are going to be retracing. Evan points out the varying audience for our maps. As a community, we ought to be leaving easier-to-retrace footsteps, not bunny prints.

.IGNOR OFF

William Magee wrote:Again this has nothing to do with fudging numbers. It is about what value numbers represent. A surveyor performs a faithful, accurate and precise survey of a section line and accurately and precisely places a substantial monument upon said section line. He located the line and established a position upon it. A later surveyor comes along and surveys that same line with a highly accurate survey. The latter survey finds the earlier retracement is not on the latter surveyor's highly accurate survey by mere millimeters. Instead of acknowledging the former survey as being a correct and true location of the line as that would mean placing a break in bearing at the monument, the latter surveyor depicts the monument as being off line by those few millimeters.
Even the BLM recognized in the 2009 rewrite for latter retracing surveyors to acknowledge that senior lines can bend to faithfully performed earlier junior retracement surveys. Again, there is no need to fudge, rather simply acknowledge the break in bearing.
I think Young v Blakeman said it best. Along the same line of thinking, we can accept prior faithful and accurate retracements instead of changing the PHYSICAL (not mathmatical) location of the line each time a more accurate survey is performed.

It is not the act of some surveyor pounding in a monument that has the potential to "bend" a previously established line, it is the recognition, acceptance, and long acquesience to a monument by the adjoining landowners that would make a monument define a boundary.

A BLM retracement survey is a special case of a boundary survey. My take on the 2009 manual rewrite pertaining to junior monument on a senior line, is that IF (a big if) the retracement surveyor determines that the junior corner was set based upon a faithful retracement of the senior line, then it becomes the best available evidence of where the senior line was actually run upon the ground.

2009 Manual of Instructions:

Junior–Senior Corners
7-23. This situation exists where one set of corners was established for one side of the line, and a second set of corners was established for the other side of the same line in the course of a later resurvey or retracement.

The line is regarded as having been fixed in position by the senior survey and subsequent dependent resurveys or retracements. If both sets of corners are recovered, a junior survey, if it was established in the course of an obvious careful resurvey or retracement, reporting the most recent measurement of the line, will be used for alinement of the line and for control in restoring a lost senior corner of the line.

7-24. This procedure is not advisable where the junior corner was not established by an obvious careful resurvey or retracement, evidenced by its recovery far off line. That condition can only be shown by retracing enough of the line to determine its bearing. Where there has been extensive loss of corners, particularly the senior corners, the existent junior corners may constitute the best available evidence of the line itself. In such a case the junior corners will exercise control for both measurement and alinement.

7-25. Restorations of lost corners on a junior-senior line are controlled by the regular corners. These include the corners that were originally established by measurement along the line and other corners that have been established in an obvious careful resurvey or retracement along the line. A lost junior corner will be reestablished on the line by using single proportionate measurement between the nearest regular corners to the right and left of the lost corner. The position of a restored junior corner should be verified by a retracement of the line to the next original junior corner in each direction.

7-26. In some older surveys, the policy was to establish junior corners without a careful retracement of the senior line. In these cases, a recovered junior corner not actually located on the line that it was intended should not control the line for measurement or alinement. The new junior corner will be positioned in a cardinal direction, north or south on a latitudinal line, or, east or west on a meridional line, from the original junior corner onto the line intended. These new junior corners are established after a retracement of the line.

7-30. A junior corner established without a retracement of the senior line ordinarily is not used as a control corner in restoring a lost senior corner. However, where an obviously careful retracement of the senior line has been made and the field notes state clearly that new monuments were set on the line, the monuments become the best available evidence of the position of the senior line. In such a case the junior corners will exercise control for both measurement and alinement of the line to the same extent as closing corners (section 7-41).

7-31. A different problem is where the record tie from a junior corner to a corner of the senior line is fictitious, grossly in error, or in some way irreconcilable. If the junior corner in such a case is recovered, it should normally control the proportions along the junior line regardless of its disagreement with the record. If there is no evidence whatever of the junior corner, and ample proof that the retracement of the senior line was not made as called for in the field notes, the junior corner should not be restored without verifying the nearest authentic junior corners in each direction. The restoration should then be made by the method most nearly in harmony with the official plat(s). No general rule can be advanced. The procedure to be adopted will have official sanction prior to remonumentation.

The real issue at play here to me is the trolling of certain CLSA members by a semi-annomous troll. Imbeded in this thread is a perfect example of a troll, completely off topic and aimed at deriding the work product of someone who has disagreed with him in the past.

Evan Page in another thread did a good job calling him out on the trolling: OC Witness Corner OCT 2017
http://clsaforum.californiasurveyors.or ... age#p45531

It is worth a read. I wish I could write as thoroughly as Mr. Page.

In this thread, I posted an example of monument histories to add to the discussion, and "Magee" trolled about a monument that was not even really part of my survey, purportedly at a property corner that I had not surveyed, and from a survey I disagreed with on another line. Given those facts, it was my call to not to inadvertently lend legitimacy to that monument.

Moving on, again the Young v. Blakeman case quoted by "Magee" to support his preference of fudging his measurement numbers to match someone else's record measurements when they are "close enough" has nothing in it to support that "close enough" number theory.

Looking at the particular quote:

"If the position of the line always remained to be ascertained by measurement alone, the result would be that it would not be a fixed boundary, but would be subject to change with every new measurement. Such uncertainty and instability in the title to land would be intolerable"

What does that realy say? Measurments change. It does not say measurements change, unless they are close enough to someone else's measurement. Measurements change, and we as professionals should report what our best estimate of that measurement is.

While I may not always reply to a troll, I just wanted to give a counterpoint for consideration by the community here.

Now off to the NALS conference. it looks to be a really good program.