California Surveyors Forums

Please express an opinion using just the map.
Thank you.

is that there are a whole bunch of thirty foot wide lots with a 150 footer in the middle of all this stuff, with a weird one at the south end, but maybe I missed something.

I agree with Bruce

Generally 30 feet wide like Bruce except for Block G and Lot 63, Block I.

Dated 1904?

This is in the vast undeveloped area referred to as "San Diego". Just measure between the original wood stakes at the lot corners. You will probably trip over them.

other than Block G, Lots 43 & 44 in Block E & lot 63 in Block I, I read it as the lots are 30 feet wide.

Lots 43-44 MIGHT be 50 feet wide. They could also be 30 feet wide.

OK, I'll bite. Just using the map, and a Google Earth image, I'll say 25' wide.

Keep in mind that that is a transcribed copy of the original map. By 1915 the original, possibly on butcher paper, was falling apart and the County Recorder saw fit to transcribe it. Somtimes there are discrepancies with other transcriptions, or the original, if you can get a hold of it.

Surveyor and former schoolteacher S.L Ward's measuremnts were generally reliable. A Quaker, he was one of the few to actually file Record of Surveys back in the 19th century. Not having his original map to look at, we do not know how his map was reinterpreted by the County Recorder.

PS. From History of San Diego Land Survey Experiences by Curtis Brown & Mike Pallamary -
Simpson L. Ward...became Licensed Surveyor No. 91, one of those who obtained their title at the time of the first Land Surveyor's Act in 1891...
Elected County Surveyor in 1898...

Look like 30ft exc for the 150ft and 62 and 63.

Measure the block and divide.

At the annotation of the lot dimensions and where and how they are placed.
Could it be interpreted that the dimensions are along the meandering line of the mean high tide?
In addition there is a 15 foot +/- deficiency between Witherby and Cassiday Streets when assuming the dimensions shown are calling out street frontages.

I think the lots are not measured along the meander line but are 30 feet wide. As to the shortage of 15 feet and don't see an overall dimension that would prove that.

I would assume that this is a protracted map based off the section lines and railroad location, and the 30' is not lot frontages but the width of the lots. It appears that the lots are perpendicular the the straight segment of the railroad tracks. Ultimately, what do the improvements show. It looks like to me Google Earth has between Lot 54, Blk E & Lot 1, Blk D 2600', the map has 2610'. Not to bad, 0.11' per lot proration.

"Please express an opinion using JUST the map."

That's what Couple wants, I guess.

Distances expressed are lot widths, not meander distances. Whenever I see waterfront residentential subdivisions of any vintage indicate meander lines, they show a definite set of courses and give bearings and distances of the entire meander course, which is generally much longer than a lot width.

On a property along the open coast, a squiggly line as shown on the attached map is generally used to indicated a variable and ambulatory boundary, and not to accurately depict the precise sinuosities of the shore. On open coast, if it is a sand beach shore, the minor sinuosities may not even actually exist, and reasonable meander lines would seldom be less than 300' long. Never have I seen meanders on a subdivision like this with courses as short as 30', and never have I seen the sidelines of lots defined by the length of an ambulatory (ever moving) boundary. It would simply be non-sensical.

As a survey tech reading the map (gotta be a newbie tech as an LS or experienced tech would not come up with such a theory), one should be able to dispense with the theory that the distances expressed might represent meandered distances rather quickly by inspecting Witherby St, where half widths of 40' are shown at Pacific St, Block G, where the same 150' is shown along the Pacific St RW as near the shore, and at the end of Eaton St, one would expect to see larger dimensions along the shore than those expressed farther upland. Especially at Eaton St, where at the angle that the street and shore meet, one would expect to see a dimension of between 40' and 45'.

15' of discrepancy in 1/2 mile between measurements reported from 1904 and those obtained by modern equipment are not unheard of and not a reason to start considering a reason which does not fit with standard practice at any point in time. It's worth investigating whether that 15' occurred mostly in one location as a blunder (confusion in street width, incorrect calculations/measurements at the jog in Pacific St, dropped a rod- aka 1/4 ch - in the measurements somewhere) before moving on with the assumption that the error is systematic such as the original surveyor working with a stretched chain.

Additionally, Lot 62 shows "30" but there is an angle point in the ocean side of the lot. I see 30' widths subject to proration or improvements.

So, is this a trick question or am I missing something?

question to ask regarding this subdivision is " how wide is Cassiday" using JUST THE MAP?

I saw this same map lately while working south of Eaton Street. I take the lots to be 30 feet wide as measured perpendicular to the side lines. Pacific street is shown to have a curved centerline on a Record of Survey as I recall.

Good observation Bruce I did not catch that but extenuating evidence would indicate that the width of Cassiday Street is 80 feet, however if this map creates that portion of the Street then it is questionable.
Evan, I guess in the big scheme of things being licensed and practicing privately for over 28 years , 15 in New York and close to 12 years in California, I could certainly be considered a newbie or I hope at least elevated to an experienced survey tech. When I was newer newbie I learned quickly and painfully to consider everything imaginable when performing my duties. I have not derived a theory; I only have asked a question and am grateful for the responses from participants to this discussion.
This map depicts the most critical data appurtenant to any such map in a most unconventional way and I will go way out on a limb to state that all whom study the map would agree with that. A 15+ foot discrepancy over 2610 feet provides an accuracy of 1:174, and a stretched chain would really have to be stretched, somewhere in the neighborhood of 4.5â€￾, over half a link a.k.a 7.92â€￾. Blunder? Maybe and to isolate where this disparity occurs would be a difficult at best and most likely unachievable. It is unfortunate that the problems were not addressed earlier before the properties involved have increased in value to around a half a billion bucks but on the bright side there are still potentially millions to be made by lawyers.
Paul, yes the southerly 1250’+/-(roughly lots 6 thru 61 of block F) of the subdivision is on a curved portion of S. pacific Street concave easterly having a radius of approximately 11819’ and it appears the intention was to create parallel east west lot lines on all of the lots in all of the blocks. The lots along the curve obviously will have a concentric easterly boundary but the large radius (whether defined by arc or chord) creates the curved lengths along the individual lots insignificantly different from the 30 foot dimension that is if the 30 foot dimension is assumed to be the perpendicular distances between the lot lines.

I've only got a couple more years than you do, apparently. But the information as presented on that map is not done so in a way that is out of the ordinary for older subdivisions. The idea of basing lot widths on identical dimensions, but as measured on an everchanging boundary, without having a bearing to complete a supposed meander course in order to give a following surveyor, or a landowner attempting to take possession of one's lot, a means by which to determine the actual lot width or to recreate measurements from a known, fixed point, just isn't something I've ever seen in a little over 30 years of surveying across the several states I have worked in.

As to the 15' discrepancy, as I stated in my previous post, it is certainly something you should investigate, but considering the vintage of the subdivision, it is not something to be alarmed about, and isn't something to prompt one to start looking at very unlikely potential explanations before having considered and eliminated the more likely ones. Knowing nothing about the reputation of this particular surveyor beyond what others had posted, I would have considered the limitations of equipment and probable site conditions in 1904 as compared to those of 2011. I have seen far worse than 1:174 precision in the old maps, notes, and descriptions. You ought to take a look at some of the old townsites surveyed under the 1868 townsite Act. It is not uncommon to have 10' to 15' of error in just one townsite lot that may be 50' x 150'.

While map dimension reporting as you consider may be possible has never been a practice in mapping of any vintage in any jurisdiction I have worked in (incl. a few Atlantic seaboard states, a couple midwest states, all Pacific Coast states, and a couple in between), I have run across the results of widely varying measurement methods in older work. In some areas, particularly in some eastern states, it was common practice to make and report measurements with the slope of the ground rather than horizontal. Some surveyors brought that west with them and one may find that method having been used up into the 20s or so.

Whatever you consider as a possibility, you still have to begin with a presumption that common practice was followed. And the more out of the mainstream of common practice the method you suspect is, the more conclusive the evidence you will need to show it was employed.

In each case of finding large discrepancies with old maps, I first recognize the limitations of equipment and the sitre conditions. If the differences are greater than normally expected due to that, I investigate potential mistakes in both my work and that of the original surveyor, trying to isolate the discrepancy. If I'm not familiar with the surveyor, I'll ask around among other local surveyors to get a feel for the reputation of the original surveyor. Sometimes you might find that the original surveyor typically deviated from otherwise local standard practice in some way, but I never presume that without reliable information supporting it. I never, and am suprised an LS would, presume a significant deviation from standard practice based upon an inspection of the map alone, unless that deviation is clearly indicated on the map.

Given the information shown on that map, and the way it was shown, I just thought it so contrary to common practice that I could only imagine a newbie giving it serious consideration. That, plus the setup of "Please express an opinion using just the map" later coupled with a consideration that one's recent measurement indicated significant discrepancy just said "newbie" to me.

The other possibility is someone setting up a trick or "gotcha" question for some reason. That happens occasionally on these forums, but I don't find it particularly useful to limit surveyors from bringing into the discussion those things that a reasonably prudent surveyor would consider. Nor do I find it useful to toss out one piece of the puzzle, get people to offer opinions based on one piece, and then as the discussion progresses, toss in other pertinent bits of info, the timing of what's being offered or withheld generally designed to get people to express an oopinion early on that they will have to backtrack on later.

If your point is to lead students in an exercise of the pitfalls of offering opinions based on unsubstantiated assumptions, there may be validity in it. But it has little value in professional discussion.

I'll be glad to engage in serious professional discourse with you if you have something serious to discuss, just don't play these silly games of offering some far out conjecture or theory while doling out the puzzle pieces one at a time.

The 30' dimension appeare to be a quirk of the scrivener, their drafting techinique would indicate a preference to dimensioning the lot widths at the rear of the lot, block "c" is what I make the assumption on. I cheated a bit a pokes around on SD County survey records GIS; you might to take a peek, might help sole some of the mystery.

https://www.sdcountyluegepay.com/SRI_Internet/