Community Forums


So close but so far away!  

Page 4 / 5

Posts: 71
50+ posts
Joined: 7 months ago

In my survey area, most of the pin cushions I witness seem to come from those without local knowledge.

Until recently, the main four Surveyors around here used different colored flagging and in some cases different materials for pins.

My mentor started painting his pins back in the 60’s....a practice we continue even though we cap our pins now too. Plenty of times we’ve found two rebars at a corner and with a little scratching can tell which one we set.

Marking lines on a small residential lot last week, we found the four corners pretty quick but after collecting, one was .28 out. Knowing the original Surveyor, it was highly unlikely that he would have that error. I asked what color flagging was found and knew it wasn’t right. Dug a little deeper and found the correct corner. 

Funny thing is, the newly set corner didn’t check to any line????

Posts: 1223
1,000+ posts
Joined: 9 years ago

With all of those, certainly one is close to the right answer (your latest version of it).

My question is which one(s) appears in a record. (I am in a recording state.)



D Bendell
Posts: 101
100+ posts
Joined: 2 years ago

No way! Set another one...

Posts: 5524
5,000+ posts
Joined: 9 years ago

I suspect in some (many?) of the instances posted there isn't a single right answer for a missing monument. 

I'm thinking of the several older plats I have tried to run least squares fit on, and found residuals of a half-foot or a foot all over the place. This is just the record, without looking on the ground. Curves are the worst. One subdivision has a curve where the C/L and the lots on both sides calculate out within rounding error.  And 200 ft away in the next plat the curve data is inconsistent and no 2 parameters let the lot lengths fit within better than a half foot.

So it is easy to see why two surveyors might come up with different locations, and more so if they don't check all the adjoiners.

But not digging to see the nearby older monument, and not accepting one that has been there for years seems poor practice. There theoretically is only one corner there in most cases, and somebody has set it.

I do know of a case where if I were licensed I would set a second mon. One subdivision seems to have relied on a PK nail set in pavement to mark a quarter-section corner that I think was a replacement for one destroyed after lots on the other side of the street were laid out, and the nail doesn't check with the older lots. I would give each subdivision it's own quarter corner, and record those.

Perhaps among the pictures posted there is a similar example, recorded or unrecorded.

paden cash
Posts: 9295
5,000+ posts
Joined: 9 years ago

Fewer and fewer surveyors are practicing today that, like myself, began their careers with chain and transit surveying.  Performing a survey in this manner required some techniques that are probably lost now to antiquity.  One that comes to mind is understanding a line and determining how it was monumented in the field. 

Another technique that seems lost today is understanding the difference between your current measurements and those made by a previous surveyor.  Surveys originally measured with a chain require a whole different level of understanding to retrace.  Simply discounting an existing monument because its proximity doesn't match a calculated location by 0.13' probably ignores most of the chapters in any surveying textbook.  Placing another monument 0.13' adjacent takes "wrong" to an entirely different level.

But as the plethora of photos indicates, this is becoming the norm.  The techno-barbarians are winning.

1 Reply
Norman Oklahoma
Joined: 4 years ago

2,500+ posts
Posts: 4473

We need to appreciate that a 1:10,000 closure was considered good, which translates into a traverse around a section misclosing by 2 feet. And closures in the 1:2500, 1:5000 range were acceptable.  

Page 4 / 5