California Surveyors Forums

Howdy folks,

I am reviewing a survey wherein the surveyor (no longer in practice) has adopted a mathematical solution to establishing a line as opposed to using the metes and bounds description of the line. He used the term "Backing in" to describe how he established the line.

I am curious as to what this term means to other surveyors. If anyone wants to weigh in I would welcome any thoughts. Obviously I have my own opinion.

Thanks to all who might reply.

What does a mathematical solution mean?

Has he backed in a particular corner from a witness tree?

I've heard the term used when deciphering a description's courses to utilize a qualified bound to intersect another course. I can't think of using a mathematical solution otherwise.

Thanks guys. Instead of following the bearings and distances, he wiggled the distances around with no regard for the angular alignments. Really interested in knowing if anyone has used or seen the term before.

Why don’t you post the map? If you can

The Board rules prohibit the posting of any maps, even if 50 years old and even if the surveyor is dead.

That’s a stupid rule! This would be a great way to talk about actual survey issues instead of all the trash talk that tends to happen too often here. It’s hard to have enough context to even try to figure out the situation from what you’re describing. I’ve heard there are some that find it acceptable to use least-squares for final boundary resolution, if this was 50 years ago perhaps he was ahead of his time and technologically advanced.

The Board rules prohibit the posting of any maps, even if 50 years old and even if the surveyor is dead.

Here's an excerpt from the relevant rule:

For the purposes of this rule, work product does not include any work product in which the poster has effectively redacted the document to remove any reference to the author, client, location, agency, and processing jurisdiction.


The way I read it, you're free to post the map provided that you redact the identifying information.

I have tried it. Every time I tried posting a map, I am told I cannot do it. The last time I tried, a troll accused me of trying to embarrass the surveyor who prepared the map. That, of course was not the case as I own the records and business of that deceased surveyor.

Put simply, it is against the rules.

Well something is not adding up here, maybe someone’s got it in for you, Mike. And haven’t there been maps on here before? I swear that I’ve seen them and can even remember ones that you’ve posted. In any case, sharing and discussing maps on this forum could be a great learning opportunity. All I hear are complaints that surveyors these days don’t know what they’re doing, this could be helpful in the development and advancement of our profession.

I would think "backing it in" would entail skipping one or more courses in the description until you found one that fits the deed description for distance and monumentation, and proceeding backwards from the deed calls to find the points you have skipped over. And if nothing is found going backward, then using a mathematical resolution: Compass Rule, Least Squares Adjustment, finding a transposed number, whatever.

Thanks Olin,

Yes, someone has it in for me. It is one of the trolls who posts without identifying themselves. As a general rule, every time I try to post educational maps, they complain and the map is taken down. It is unfortunate.

Dave, yes that sounds like what I was looking for. I have an opinion but I think it important to solicit other opinions to get a better perspective.

Many thanks to you fellows!

Mike: send the map to me via email. I will redact and post it for you.
If I get banned for doing so, good riddance.

Thanks Peter.

Happy Thanksgiving. It is a big one.

Hey Mike!

Don Wilson discusses this procedure in his book, Forensic Procedures for Boundary and Title Investigation. I attended his seminar when the book came out and I remembered reading this and having some questions for him on the subject. Page 130 and 216 discuss reversing course and provides several references to cases where reversing course was relied upon.

In reading his references and points on the subject, it is most obvious that common sense should dictate the use of the procedure and it should be abundantly clear that the contrary is completely ruled out along with some hope that any occupation would aid in the final location of the line if reversing course is used.

Hope all is well!
Casey Lynch, PLS
Ramona, CA

While my first guess would be that he ran the courses backwards, the fact that he wiggled the courses ( changed things from the deed) leads me to conclude that he had some sort of possession lines he was trying to fit that he did not disclose.

George Marchenko

Thank you fellows for your comments and insight.

Casey I will check out the excerpt. Hope you are well.

There are no lines of possession, use, or occupation.

Thank you everyone who contacted me and send private messages. The strip in question is a utility easement and there is nothing built within the described locations. It is out of location by as much as 300-feet. The actual location is marked by hundreds of pieced and remnants from the original wooden stave pipeline.

Mike P.

It looks like you have discovered a material discrepancy (facts found on the ground cause 300 foot shift), I assume you will be filing a Record of Survey showing conflict with the recorded map.

Brian.

Indeed, yes. it is material.

Backing in sometimes is necessary when interior lines of a deed are not clearly identified, but there are defined later calls, or closing calls.
I interpret this to allow me to work backwards from the P.O.B., if and when necessary.

I recently worked on a project that required this, and my R.O.S. is in the County Surveyors Office for review. See the attached deed.

Thanks! It is great to get such good feedback.

that's how its done, agree with Keith

Olin,did you get my messages?

Oh, hey thanks, I see them. Never notice that mailbox icon. I’ll take a look.