California Surveyors Forums  

Go Back   California Surveyors Forums > General Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-11-2012, 03:02 PM
BoundaryMan BoundaryMan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 77
County Surveyor threaten me

I did a survey for property owner who has no boundary dispute with her neighbor.
I filed the attached CR (redlined by Co Surveyor) as I established a standard lot of a tract. However, County Surveyor wanted me to file a RS because, based on his field check, he alleged: “Set Mon. Doesn’t Fit Improvements, Possible Encroachment”. I asked the County Surveyor which section of code triggers a RS in this case. He did not really give me an answer and said if RS is not filed, he will bring me to the Board.
My thought: CS can put a note on my CR if he does not agree with my survey per PLS Act. I did not look for mon. by RCE 18752 as it’s a junior monument. Also 8766(b).
Did I violate any codes by not filing a RS on the attached survey?
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Tract 9450 Record Map.PDF (3.61 MB, 474 views)

Last edited by BoundaryMan : 08-11-2012 at 03:10 PM. Reason: Typo
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-11-2012, 08:42 PM
Jim Frame Jim Frame is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Davis, CA
Posts: 906
§8766(b) doesn't pertain, since you submitted a CR, not a ROS. My guess is that the CS is concerned about material discrepancies in dimensions as disclosed by the differences shown on your CR -- §8762(b)(2) -- and/or the location of improvements -- §8762(b)(3).

This is the first time I've heard of a field inspection for a CR, though. Is that common in Orange County?

.
__________________
Jim Frame
Frame Surveying & Mapping
609 A Street
Davis, CA 95616

Last edited by Jim Frame : 08-13-2012 at 06:33 AM. Reason: Wrong county.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-12-2012, 08:30 AM
Anthony Maffia Anthony Maffia is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Contra Costa County, CA
Posts: 331
It's Orange County, not L.A. County, and the R/S checking fee for lot retracement is free there.

The survey checker may have had personal knowledge, or more likely, the neighbor has also had a survey performed, and that surveyor has a R/S under review. Or the neighbor complained about the set monument.

I'd follow the suggestions on the CR. Locate the other monuments, then explain as a note why a certain junior monument wouldn't be held. Convert to R/S.

I don't get the "he's threatening me" bit. Is there something else, like a phone conversation or letter?
__________________
Anthony Maffia, LSIT
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-12-2012, 11:01 AM
LS 4722 LS 4722 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 274
OC Surveyors comments

Well, this is real interesting to see.

I know of one other situation where a county field crew was sent out to do a field check on another LS's RS. This happened a long time ago, maybe 10 years or so. The person that was field checked was Lee Fisher, who used to head up the LA County RS division. Lee is no longer on this earth but when I spoke with him about it, he was, to say the least, quite upset about the whole matter. I think it was Riverside County that field checked Lee.

I have done just one survey in OC. It was a corner record. I generally just do not venture out of LA County, for reasons such as what the OP is all about.

On that CR I found original pipes and decided to also provide additional information by tying out the street monument ties in the cul de sac I was working in. I submitted the CR and it came back red lined. The 'request' was that I show record tie values along with my measured values. I called the county and asked why should I do this? I told the person that it was not required by the LS act. I was informed that 'this is how we do it'. The phone call ended with me telling the checker to file the CR as it is. That's what they did.

Has the County of Orange passed an ordinance that allows the CS, at his whim, to send out county field crews to perform non county authorized work such as doing field checks on a CR? It really does not matter if an entire crew was sent out or just one individual on his lunch break, there is nothing in the current statutes, that I am aware of, that gives any CS or their subordinates the right to do field checks on any document that needs to be filed, RS or CR. I wonder what budget project the CS placed the crews field time for that venture?

I can see a few flaws in the posted CR. The existing S/W RCE 18752 was not recovered on the lot line produced. At the intersection of Tulare Avenue and Tulare Street, an existing S/W exists where the OP says nothing was found. Both of these are big red flags. Another very important item is that there are no ties shown on the CR for points 1, 2 and 3. A surveyor saying 'Found nothing, established by ties per XXX pg yy' really is lacking. I think we all know that very few tie sets will actually tie out to one certain point. If the ties are used to reestablish an intersection and no monument is set by the filing surveyor, then they should show on the CR the ties found and the method used to reestablish that tie intersection. One could use tangent ties, or best fit, or any other different methods but if you don't show what you did with the ties the CR is basically useless.

Well LS 8886, live and learn.

Tract No. 9450 is also a nice piece of work as to how not to do a retracement. There are four fine details on how to reject pre existing corners. Details "A and B" in particular. These two could close to the RW line, but to reject them as being on lot lines produced is just comical.

The 2x2 and found pipe along Fullerton tell me that both of those monuments were set using other centerline, or maybe sideline, control
that differed from the 1976 subdivision. Well, one good thing I can say is that in Detail 'C' and 'D' shows the tie bearing to seconds..that very important note when a pre existing corner misses a retraced line by 0.02' and 0.05'.

I was under the impression that we were to discover where existing property lines exist, not recreate new positions. I guess I was wrong.

Last edited by LS 4722 : 08-12-2012 at 11:09 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-12-2012, 11:05 AM
LS 4722 LS 4722 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoundaryMan View Post
.... I did not look for mon. by RCE 18752 as it’s a junior monument. .....
Junior to what??? Are you saying that a common lot line monument that has existed 36 years is junior to a 1923
paper survey that shows zilch?

PS Even though the CS may have crossed a line field checking the CR I support his position.

Last edited by LS 4722 : 08-12-2012 at 11:18 AM. Reason: agree with CS
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-12-2012, 12:39 PM
land butcher land butcher is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: calif
Posts: 1,092
While his basic survey looks pretty good, it is hard to understand how the CS can find S&W's that LS 8886 did not. That would cause me to question his throughness in the field.

As for original monuments, CalTrans has been there and now it's a whole new ballgame, nothing is going to fit the original survey.

Years ago a prominent LS stated "with the use of EDM's no one walks the CL anymore and a lot of monumentation, record or not, is not found and could impact the results of your survey".

I disagree with the tie comments of LS4722. The tie notes will indicate whether they are swing ties or tangent over. I think all professionals know that swing ties almost never intersect one exact location and by creating the triangle from 3 or square from 4 and establishing the best fit intersection is normal practice and a simple proration. To show msd and record to me is overkill but if insisted on should be done on a separate CL tie CR and it's recording number placed on the lot survey CR by the CS as you are superseding the current tie notes.

I did a RS in Sunset beach and Caltrans had remonumented PCH and pretty much ignored the original CDH ties and notes. As one Caltrans office employee stated; "how close do they have to be its a gear spk with washer, anywhere on it is good as far as we are concerned". The CS made me write a written explanation of how I did the survey. Since my recently graduated civil engrg son read the map and told me how I did it, I resorted to a "Dick and Jane" explanation to satisfy the CS. I also asked the CS "Who are we doing these maps for, Are we making them for other professional surveyors to use or any person on the street. If we are trying to make them understandable to the lowest IQ on the planet then we need to completely revise how we make maps."

Lastly, viewing google earth and his note of where he set the o/s to the SE corner it would appear that the gutter might be encroching into the property not the other way around.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-12-2012, 03:00 PM
LS 4722 LS 4722 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 274
Butcher

Quote:
I disagree with the tie comments of LS4722.
I wont get into a discussion over your tie note..standard/proration practice comment since I know different, so you do it your way and I'll do it mine.

http://dpw.lacounty.gov/sur/nas/land...FB1720-591.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-12-2012, 03:12 PM
LS 4722 LS 4722 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 274
Two more examples Butcher

Bad City work in both surveys... Bad surveying by more than a few surveyors in the area. Doesnt anyone even look for buried originals anymore? So dont get me started on ties..

http://dpw.lacounty.gov/sur/nas/land.../RS246-066.pdf

http://dpw.lacounty.gov/sur/nas/land.../RS246-067.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-12-2012, 03:12 PM
BoundaryMan BoundaryMan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 77
Thank you Jim. That’s why said County was in the bankruptcy mode few years ago.

Thank you Anthony, It was on the phone.

I disagree with LS4722. Found ties stated in field notes have same legal standing if monument cannot be recovered.
I also disagree with LS 4722-Found S&W RCE18752 is not necessary controls. In this case, north line of Lot 5 is not controlled by S&W RCE 18752. I never use junior monument to establish senior line. If you did before, your survey will come back to you. If you hold REC 18752, you are recreating new position.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-12-2012, 03:16 PM
LS 4722 LS 4722 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoundaryMan View Post

....I disagree with LS4722.
Good. Now do me a favor, change your login name to maybe something like "Mr Prorate"

Quote:
Originally Posted by BoundaryMan View Post

In this case, north line of Lot 5 is not controlled by S&W RCE 18752.
Oh really? So, what monument on the 1926 paper survey never stepped out of the office map will you use
to re establish Lot 5?

Last edited by LS 4722 : 08-12-2012 at 03:24 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 08-12-2012, 04:27 PM
land butcher land butcher is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: calif
Posts: 1,092
It's interesting how the ties did not intersect on the RCE map but the CL of Pacific is a straight line.

The RCE also ignored a non record 2x2.

I would have to spend a lot more time then I want before I would say whether or not the S&W would hold the north line of lot 5. There is a lot of info here that needs evaluating.

And the city ties are from what?
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-12-2012, 05:11 PM
LS 4722 LS 4722 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 274
BM

Quote:
Originally Posted by BoundaryMan View Post
... If you hold REC 18752, you are recreating new position.
RCE 18752 did his survey in 1976. On his map he says that iron pipes were set at each lot corner. Homes were laid out from these pipes and walls and fences were constructed. Builders and then owners accepted these monuments. That's 36 years worth.

Now you are saying that holding the RCE monument will create a new position, how can that be? It is where it is. Your prorate creates a new position.

RCE 18752 set four pipes along the south line of his tract. Two 2" pipes and two 3/4" pipes as well as the SW at the C/L Tract line int., all of these being the best evidence of the north line of your lot 5. How many of those did you recover?
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-12-2012, 07:30 PM
BoundaryMan BoundaryMan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 77
LS4722, with due respect, here are my humble thoughts:
1) Lot 5 of Tract 798 also had improvements built in 1926. Does Lot 5 required to move its improvements to ACCOMMODATE this junior tract?

2) Order of Importance of Conflicting Title Elements
A) Right of pocession (Unwritten conveyance)
B) Junior/Senior Right
C) Written Intentions of Parties
1. Call for survey or an actual survey upon which the conveyance is based
2. Call for monuments
a) Natural
b) Artificial
3. Adjoiners
4. Direction & distance
5. Direction or distance
6. Area
As you can see call for monuments is ranked lower than Junior/Senior right. What are your thoughts?

Last edited by BoundaryMan : 08-12-2012 at 08:40 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08-13-2012, 01:56 AM
LS 4722 LS 4722 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 274
Thoughts

Quote:
Originally Posted by BoundaryMan View Post
..... Lot 5 of Tract 798 also had improvements built in 1926. ?
Tract 9450 was 36 years closer to original monuments and evidence lines of possession than a 2012 retracement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BoundaryMan View Post
.....Does Lot 5 required to move its improvements to ACCOMMODATE this junior tract?
You don't show improvements, so what is there to talk about? Lot 5 has two dwellings on it which suggests a deed cut parcel that created a second building site. The division monuments could be in place. An RS would be necessary if those were found and used, but since OC does not charge for checking those, why not just do one?

The curbs in the area look new. There is new paving as well as H/C ramps, so the ties you are working with in 2012 are probably not the same ones that Tr No 9450 was working with. Does the gutter have any date stamps in it?

Your CR also does not show any sideline monuments in the area. Full width walk starts at the south line of Tr No 9450 and goes north. That leaves open area south of that Tr line where a search could have been made for the west corners of Lot 5. Near the angle point in the north edge of the driveway at the SW corner of lot 5 is where I would sweep. The same goes for the rest of Lot 5. The pipes TR 9450 set could very well be in place.


Quote:
Originally Posted by BoundaryMan View Post
.....What are your thoughts?
Map the walls along the north line of Lot 5 as well as their intersections coming from the north for the other lots of Tr 9450. Toss away the proration attitude and get some practical common sense working for you as well as a shovel.

PS You may want to cooperate with the CS on this one, it would be in your best interest.

Last edited by LS 4722 : 08-13-2012 at 02:03 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 08-13-2012, 07:10 AM
brian smith
 
Posts: n/a
We can go on and on about which boundary solution is best
(myself - LS 4722 has some good points) however, Why do you file a corner record when a ROS would Protect your client and yourself? If the @#%# hits the fan the first question out of the box (from the board or some court)will be show me your ROS. I have seen a judge not let CR’s into evidence but gladly allowed ROS.
My 0.3

Bri
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 08-13-2012, 08:18 AM
land butcher land butcher is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: calif
Posts: 1,092
Quote:
Originally Posted by brian smith View Post
We can go on and on about which boundary solution is best
(myself - LS 4722 has some good points) however, Why do you file a corner record when a ROS would Protect your client and yourself? If the @#%# hits the fan the first question out of the box (from the board or some court)will be show me your ROS. I have seen a judge not let CR’s into evidence but gladly allowed ROS.
My 0.3

Bri

Either that judge needs to be educated or we should toss CR's in the trash.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 08-13-2012, 02:34 PM
Stephen Johnson Stephen Johnson is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 287
Quote:
Originally Posted by land butcher View Post
Either that judge needs to be educated or we should toss CR's in the trash.
Pretty much says it.

SJ
__________________
Stephen Johnson, PLS 6303

"I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do those things to other people and I require the same of them."

Politicians should serve two terms. One in office and one in prison.

Stop Repeat Offenders!!! Quit ReElecting Them!!!
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 08-13-2012, 06:26 PM
E_Page E_Page is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: El Dorado County
Posts: 2,011
IMO, this definitely requires an RS.

You did not base your survey on original monumentation, but rather on City ties to intersection points. Those intersection points may or may not have been the very same as shown on the map of TR 798.

The TR 798 map shows no monuments. I don't know if it holds true for that area, but in most areas at this end of the state, most old subd maps (pre WWII or so) often showed mons at the subd corners, but not always, and almost never indicated that anything was set at individual lot corners. But it is also commonly known that it was common practice for most surveyors to set redwood hubs (typically 2x2) at all lot corners. Which all makes me wonder if the positions of the 2x2's rejected by Lindquist in 1976 might be significant.

What is the pedigree of the City tied intersections? Do the ones that you used to control your survey pre-date Tr 9450? Can the intersection positions be traced back to 1926? Do the ties reliably establish one distinct position, or can you come up with several different positions if you were to pick & choose ties to any given intersection point?

All the same questions pertain to the ties per Caltrans notes.

You allude to the possibility (in Post 13) that the improvements present on Lot 5 of Tr 798 might conflict with the N line of Lot 5 as marked by points set by Lindquist. Did you make measurements to determine that, is it obvious by visual inspection, or are you tossing that into the mix without any data to support whether or not it's a valid point (i.e. Are you engaging in hyperbole?)


I agree with pretty much all of the points Paul has made. I'll add some as well.

IMO, not tying into adjoining surveys by which determinations of a common line or lines has been made falls below the minimum standard of care for a boundary survey. You need to tie into and show, not only the S&W on the projected N line of Lot 5, but any other points of that survey that a diligent search would uncover, especially if they are along the N line of Lot 5.

IMO, if you don't already know per proper research, you should be attempting to find out if it was Hillyards common practice to set 2x2 stakes at the lot corners. If it was, you should be taking a very close look at the positions of the 2x2's that Lindquist had found, and looking carefully to see if the remains of any such hubs can be found at/near other lot corners. They may be your best evidence as to the original corners. If set by Hillyard, they are your original corners.

If you suspected that improvements might conflict with either the lines you determine and/or Lindquist's line, it was incumbent upon you to locate those improvements and, at a minimum, show on your map any conflicts found.

If those improvements date back to 1926 as you suggest, then they may be the best evidence of the locations of the side lot lines. If there are many such improvements in the block of that vintage, and they show a pattern suggesting a uniform setback to side lines, those improvements are probably superior to your prorated positions. It is incumbent upon you to make this analysis. Do the improvements support your prorations, Lindquist's line, the 2x2s, or suggest different sideline locations?

Did you remonument the street intersection positions that you established per the City ties? Your symols along with the description in your legend suggests that you did. What did you set? Describe the monument or change your symbol/legend to reflect that only a position was re-established and not a monument.

You asked about monuments vs. senior rights. If the senior line can be reliably re-established with a degree of precision equal or greater to that by which the junior monuments were set, then generally, the junior monuments must give way.

But I don't see that you have that situation here. At least you have not provided the information to support such a conclusion. You are using ties to positions which may or may not be the same precise positions as indicated on the Tr 798 map to possibly impeach other monuments from a survey which were established using either the same ties you use, or in some cases, the actual monument that the City ties were made to. That is, you are arguing against accepting monuments of a survey that you did not tie into and so don't know if they fit your calcs or not; and monuments of a survey that used as it's controlling positions evidence that was equal or superior to that you used to control your survey.

Rather than rightfully rejecting a "junior" monument, you are proposing to create an even more junior position using several pieces of evidence that you hold as controlling, that is at least one more generation of evidence away from that existing in 1926 (City ties to City S&W = 1 more generation away; Caltrans ties to whatever monument existed when they came through = 1 or more additional generations away, depending upon whether they tied to the same mon that Lindquist showed or some subsequent mon or mons).

You don't refer to any records that show the establishment of Tulare St and relate it's position to Grand Ave and to Fullerton Ave or the alley. How can you use the intersections at Tulare for control when you don't cite the record establishing it's relationship to the original? How can you consider that a survey using a street that existed neither at the time of the original subdivision in 1926 nor in 1976 when Lindquist performed his survey would yield more reliable positions of the original subdivision that those determined in 1976? You really need to give this basic issue some very serious consideration.

It appears to me from just identifying these issues that Tr 9450 is not the only record survey map affecting these lines that you neither tied into nor referenced. I find that problematic. If the Caltrans RW and Monument Maps are the only records that show the establishment of Tulare St, then you should be referencing them.

RS Triggers:

8762(b)(1), material evidence not appearing on a previous record map. The Caltrans ties do not appear on a previous record map do they? Bear in mind that neither agency field notes nor Corner Records fall into the categories mentioned in 8762. Caltrans RW maps do not fall within those categories either. So if the information given on them has not also appeared on a previous record map, then you are required to do so.

You alluded to old occupation. If it is potentially indicative of the original line location, it would also be material evidence.

8762(b)(2), material discrepancy. I wouldn't consider 0.09' to be material, which is the greatest difference from record that I can discern on your CR, but there is so much info that you've neither shown nor apparently included in your boundary analysis that I don't know if material discrepancies might turn up upon a thorough analysis and proper re-establishment of the lot lines.

8762(b)(3), alternate solutions. Without a proper researching of whether the 2x2s are significant, whether old occupation is potentially indicative of side lines, or whether evidence from adjoining/nearby previous surveys would credibly support alternate locations of the lot lines, you have no way of knowing if there may be valid alternate solutions or not. I suspect that after a thoroough and valid analysis of all available evidence, you will find that both Lindquist's lines (because of their longtime existence) and possibly the 2x2s are supportable and your proration will be rendered least supportable. It is quite likely that, although one solution should rise above the others as most supportable, that one or more others may be nearly as supportable.

8762(b)(4), establishment of points or lines not shown on previous record map. If the portion of Tulare St that you show does not appear on a previous record map (remember, Caltrans RW Map does not count), then you've hit this trigger as well.


I've seen one other situation, but I'm sure there are many others, where a County Surveyor had personnel who were otherwise in the area perform a cursory field inspection to look for evidence that a field survey was actually performed, or to determine whether certain monuments within a road/street RW still existed or not. In the case I am aware of, the CS suspected that the surveyor submitting the RS had not, in fact looked for monuments in controlling positions, or was concerned that they might actually have been destroyed.

Per 8766(b) states that a field survey by the CS to verify the survey reflected on the submitted map shall not be required, but I don't see that as limiting the CS from taking it upon himself to perform a cursory visual inspection when he suspects that a field survey was either not performed or performed so negligently as to not show locations of directly pertinent monumentation that he is aware of. Personally, I think it shows a level of diligence I wish others would show. Lacking an indication on the map that a field survey was performed very negligently or perhaps not at all, I don't think the CS has any business performing field checks.


In this case, it appears fairly obvious to me that the CS was warranted in performing a site inspection and is warranted in insisting that a RS is required. Depending upon your reaction to his opinion that you should file a RS, a statement that he would bring it either to the local PPC or to the Board may have also been warranted.

Just do the survey right and file the RS. It will save you a whole lot more trouble and effort than you are likely to expend by just doing the right thing to begin with.
__________________
Evan Page, PLS
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 08-14-2012, 10:23 AM
Dave Karoly, PLS Dave Karoly, PLS is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 703
Everything Paul (LS4722) said is exactly right.

We really have to get rid of this mentality of continuously changing the answer for no reason other than the existing monuments don't fit my pretty mathematics. Find and tie all of the monuments and file a Record of Survey.

The purpose of a retracement survey is to RETRACE, not establish new corners. You are either doing an original survey (establishing new lines that never existed before) or a retracement survey (answering the question of fact of where are the boundary lines located).
__________________
Dave Karoly, PLS
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 08-15-2012, 01:53 PM
land butcher land butcher is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: calif
Posts: 1,092
Question, how many front yards are you going to dig up looking for old 2x2s or buried pipes with missing tags.
I got yelled at for sticking a long probe down after raying out the location of a PC. Even after our explanation the homeowner was still PO'd. This was a area of OC where no CL mons existed, we did quite a few lots and had to split curbs to reestablish PLS.
Are you going to throw out ties because they don't intersect within 0.005'? Are you raying them in or using a temp/tension corrected steel tape at the intersection of Rockfield and El Toro Rd in Lake Forest.
I know one surveyor that does/did a lot of monument ties for construction and resets and uses a robotic one man no matter how slow/busy the intersection. I have to question the reset accuracy, but what is the alternative. Many surveyors today fear setting up at a CL intersection and pick a random setup location and ray in the cl ties then in autocad draw the respective circles and pick a point in the middle - magic a CL int. To reset the mon I think this surveyor does a 4 point resection then sets the cl mon.
I agree that CL mons are just reference points for actual property corners, but many are long gone due to age or improvements or at the beach - salt, and some were never set. IIRC LA does not require individual lot corners to be set only exterior mons enough to establish any interior lot.
I am not defending this new LS. Being a surveyor means using as much field info as within reason. There is always 20-20 hind sight but homeowners do not have deep pockets and if we can't be profitable then raise your bid (can we bid?) or get a govt survey position.
The local govt dug up the 2"ip at RW BC in my yard but "couldn't read the tag". I know what the number is - I read it some years back.

Last edited by land butcher : 08-15-2012 at 01:56 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 08-15-2012, 04:48 PM
LS 4722 LS 4722 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 274
Butcher

Quote:
Question, how many front yards are you going to dig up looking for old 2x2s or buried pipes with missing tags.
As many as it takes. Missing tags, thats not a big problem.



Quote:
The local govt dug up the 2"ip at RW BC in my yard but "couldn't read the tag".
A neat trick for those hard to read tags is to get some Brasso and wipe some on the tag, let it set for a bit then wipe it off, the numbers come out nice and clear.

Last edited by LS 4722 : 08-15-2012 at 04:50 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 08-15-2012, 06:08 PM
land butcher land butcher is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: calif
Posts: 1,092
found rusty pipe no tag accepted as property corner. Later found to be 6in higher and 0.3' from 1"ip lsxxxx per xxxxx by someone else ME
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 08-16-2012, 03:21 AM
LS 4722 LS 4722 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 274
Pipes on hole edges..

Quote:
land butcher said found rusty pipe no tag accepted as property corner. Later found to be 6in higher and 0.3' from 1"ip lsxxxx per xxxxx by someone else ME
So, are you saying that you missed the older non tagged pipe when you set your 1" pipe?

Sheesh! Why are the old rusty non tagged pipes that are the property corners "Always" ALWAYS!! on the edge of the hole we dig when looking for them??

Gotta check the sides of those holes Butcher :P

My most memorable pipe on hole edge was when I had this chainman that was a bit of a sissy. He would put a towel down on the seat of my International Scout to have a more comfy seat. He also hated getting his hands dirty, said that the gals liked nice smooth hands and not rough ones.

Anyway, we were doing a hillside survey in Glendale in the summer. We were looking for a pipe that was near a chain link fence so the pipe finder was not a good option, time for a shovel and some dirty work.

I started him digging and he started his complaining, especially when the hole got to a depth where hand work and a trowel was necessary to keep going.

After about 10 mins of this, listening to his moaning and groaning about getting his hands all rough and dirty I said to him " Oh my, would you look at that?"

I stood up and right under my right knee was the pipe we were looking for on the very edge of the hole.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 08-16-2012, 06:21 AM
RAM RAM is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Central Cal Mountains
Posts: 589
Ok I have reviewed most of this post, read some replies, skimmed others and I have a question. Whats the big deal about filing a Record of Survey. The drafting time would be about the same, bigger format therefore easier to read, and it is recongized as an official document. So wouldn't it be a better service to your client?
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 08-16-2012, 06:34 AM
Jim Frame Jim Frame is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Davis, CA
Posts: 906
Quote:
it is recongized as an official document
Records of Survey get filed by the County Recorder, but they're not part of the Official Records, they don't alter title, and they don't impart constructive notice. They are, however, generally more accessible than Corner Records, which are sometimes ignored even by the surveying community.

.
__________________
Jim Frame
Frame Surveying & Mapping
609 A Street
Davis, CA 95616
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:22 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.