California Surveyors Forums

This survey was interesting...The PDF is a prelim one that has been edited to protect the guilty - those that do not file!!

Anyway..this is what I came up with. I had to toss out old city notes showing a found original (I guess!!) iron pipe and a set 2" x 2" at the terminus of the street I was working on. The bothersome thing about the city set 2" x 2" is that they show a C/L distance of 105.29' ( 105.00' rec) to the hub from an intersection ( 90 ° streets ) but a calc distance on the street sideline of 80.00', which is the record value.

Comments? Critiques?

What is the font you are using in the body of the drawing? It looks almost like hand lettering.

Stephen Johnson wrote:What is the font you are using in the body of the drawing? It looks almost like hand lettering.

That's a font called "Architek'

I am yakking about a city 2 x 2 then realized I never posted the field notes for it..July 1927


The more I look at this the more it appears that the city just busted 0.29'

LS 4722 wrote:I am yakking about a city 2 x 2 then realized I never posted the field notes for it..July 1927


The more I look at this the more it appears that the city just busted 0.29'

I do believe you are correct on the city bust. I wonder if it was a measurement or a placement bust. Without having measured it in the field I can't determine which is determination is correct.

I wonder if it was a measurement or a placement bust.

Same here. I was thinking that the 'set 2 x 2' was one that was just placed by the 1927 crew on the C/L produced and then later on a distance was measured to it. It was not uncommon for the city to do that, set a 2" x 2" on a line produced as an additional tie though they usually place it farther away than 3 tenths.

However...

There have been two following surveyors that I know of who have used that 105.29' dimension. One of the errant surveyors is shown on my RS, the other surveyor who used that value filed an RS for the area in 1940. He shows the terminus citing the city field book. He also shows that he finds an iron pipe like the one shown on that field book page, at 80.29' from the corner of Olds and Mobile, yet the city field book records a record 80 feet from the same corner.

Occupation trumps surveyors

Isn’t the city surveyor referencing the distance measured to the monumented (by his reference to the found 2" pipe) boundary line of the street? Then perpetuating this line by setting ties to what he found on that day? Jp??

Proud7191 wrote:Isn’t the city surveyor referencing the distance measured to the monumented (by his reference to the found 2" pipe) boundary line of the street? Then perpetuating this line by setting ties to what he found on that day? Jp??

At first glance it would appear that the set 2x2 @ 90° to C/L was being controlled by the found 2" pipe...but..there is ambiguity when you look at the two sideline dimensions that show a record 80 feet on both sides of Olds.

As it stands, that 2 x 2 could be on the C/L produced past the end of Olds Street, or it could be at 90° to the pipe...who can say what it is with certainty.

And...

It really does not matter to me if they are city opinions or private opinions, using that additional 0.29' would create a slanderous location for the common deed line because the line would land 2 " inside a brick building that has been in existence since the 1950's.

"It really does not matter to me if they are city opinions or private opinions, using that additional 0.29' would create a slanderous location for the common deed line because the line would land 2 " inside a brick building that has been in existence since the 1950's." quoted from LS4722


What if the city ties and the 2x2 hub made the foundations fit better than record did? Thanks for the discussion, Jp

What if the city ties and the 2x2 hub made the foundations fit better than record did?

Well..that would be nice..less notes on my RS then