Recent Section breakdown survey

[pls7809]

Comments anyone?

This map, RS 236/29, recorded 12/9/10 in LA County and is available for download from their public works website for free.


Happy New Year everyone, then it's back to the grind.

[Ian Wilson]

I must be missing something. I can only find 3 found monuments that are less than a thousand feet apart. The exterior monuments of the quarter section are all "NOT SEARCHED FOR".

[rpost]

3 found mons, 1 was rejected; the two held were not delineating section lines and very close. No effort was made to look for the section corners or 1/4 corners?

No found monuments from the Record of Survey referenced?

I must be missing something.

[btaylor]

Confused also. The section corners could be per one of his older ROS maps that he references, so although it is not clearly stated, he is coming off the same control. Otherwise, there should be clarification as to how the section corner monuments were calculated.

Well there should be clarification either way. I would assume for the sake of argument he is referencing one of his own surveys where he tied to them in the past.

edit - also, I would not tie to a fence line to the hundredth. Looks silly unless we are talking a fence that consists of a 1/16" laser beam.

[goodgps]

No Comment.
Map prepared, submitted for review, Stamped by County Surveyor and filed.

[land butcher]

I was in a county survey records office one day and a surveyor was correcting a recorded corner record due to erronous bearings on the recorded one. It was his CR and the funny statement was, "doesn't anyone check these things".


As for the RS of this thread. I know we have some bad areas for monuments, but I agree "Am I missing something." Of course, I did a lot survey before i was licensed and we found over 20 "monuments" of all type and only one was of record. The County Surveyor accepted the map. Welcome to Laguna Beach.

[subman]

RS 121/53 (attached), adjoining/adjacent/surrounding survey.

[btaylor]

All that work to set 2"x2"s? I certainly hope they were redwood at least.

[bruce hall]

performed the survey in 2003. Looks like he was cleaning house or he had to get a record filed of what he did for whatever reason.

Although......... he coulda just taken the monuments on that street and the boat spike near the nw corner of the piq, connected the dots kinda, and said here is where the fence is. He then just pushed the aliquot section lines away from his little survey to show, on the map, the relationship from a "calcd" record, so to speak. Why survey the world when he can make this stuff work "just fine"?

But that is just a guess on my part.

After a closer look at this, that is exactly what the fella did. He held that record boat spike per the underlying RS, although it didn't have a tag, and the county stuff in the road, tied it together, then popped everything in from the underlying RS and some county road maps/ties. And there you have it. It might have been "nice" had he gone easterly from his northeast corner, but he had a map that showed a line about 53 feet east of his east line, so why bother expecially if that point was waaaayyyyy down in that gulley.

[TIB]

rpost is not missing something. The ROS is missing something. A lot of somethings. The pertinent info and data should be shown. not missing. The sec and 1/4 corners not searched for? Really! C'mon now! Without any intention to "flog" , ridicule or offend the Engineer of record, or anyone else, and looking at the ROS as is. one (I) can only conclude that the Survey, or at least the ROS is poorly done. For many reasons. Does any disagree?

[coast]

Each map should stand on its own. Period.

Who the heck is checking these Record of Surveys at the County?

How does this garbage get through?

You can't see it now, but I'm screaming at those PDF'S and their creators!!


No es bueno por nada.

[pls7809]

There could be a lot of reasons why this map was recorded the way it was and why the survey was done the way it was. I agree with Bruce. The 2003 date is peculiar, though.

[pls7809]

Personally, I believe the county should have placed a note on the map regarding the lack of monumentation and the lack of searching.

Woodcutter - this map is public record. If he wasn't prepared for the public to see the map he shouldn't have recorded it in the state it is in.

[Mojavegreen]

Finds 3 monuments...prorates the NE section off of monuments he never searched for and then calls off one of the monuments he finds by 0.04. I wouldn't believe that story if you told it to me but I have seen it with my own eyes. Here I am trying to do a good job so that the next surveyor that comes behind me has something decent to work off of.

[pls7809]

And maybe that 0.61' x 1.89' difference between the fence and property line could be solved by finding the section corners, quarater corners and / or other monuments shown as set or found and accepted on the previous RS's.

[E_Page]

Attached is the 1937 RS from which this RCE cites his Section info.


1937? Prorates from record and then calls off a fence by less than 2'?


The polite comment would be to ask if we are missing something. Sadly, I doubt that we are.

However, Ryan, I agree with Woodcutter to an extent. Even though this RS is publicly available on the LAC website, the purpose for posting it here is much different than it is there. It would have been appropriate to redact the names to protect the innocent(?) to the extent that any who are curious enough must go to the trouble to find the RS at the LAC website.

Well, at least the Section breakdown components are clearly labeled that it is based upon record. The note missing is "This survey is only 1/4 of a survey and 3/4 mathmagical exercise".

[land butcher]

In reference to Dave's post.

A airline pilot performed heart operations and gave lectures on the procedures. It was only recently discovered that he was not a certified/graduate medical doctor. He did this for many years.
Is everyone he worked under and hospital going to lose their license over him, I think no one.
It would appear we might be a little hard on surveyors.

On the same note, surveyor's can be held liable for their work even after death, whereas a hospital can kill a baby due to negligence and nothing happens, why, well it takes 3 same incidences before it has to be reported and with a $250K cap (estab in 1976) on malpractice it's impossible to build a case in today's money.

[dmi]

I appreciate the fact that you took the time to post this thread. It provides an extremely useful point of departure for discussion. I do not see a useful purpose in trashing someone's work product, for the sake of trashing the work product.

Your post provides us an opportunity to reflect on what it is we do and what we think we should be doing.

I'll reserve my comment except to say that the record of survey does not appear to provide enough evidence to form a sound professional opinion. The questions I ponder are. What is the evidence that controls the location of the lines to be surveyed? Have I made a proper search for all the relevant physical and written evidence to retrace the boundary that is the subject of the survey?

As far as I know we do not have a provision for a RECORD DATA RECORD OF SURVEY.

[subman]

From the 2009 CEAC ROS Check Sheet, it would appear the items flagged with a * below are what inquiring minds are interested in and how that minimum requirement was met.

SURVEY PROCEDURES
* Survey based upon sufficient control.
* Additional survey information required (8762)
______ Prorations correct.
______ Sectional breakdowns correct.
______ Deed interpretations correct.
______ Durable monuments sufficient in number. (8771)
______ Monuments tagged. (8772)
______ Relationship to adjacent lines of record when pertinent. (8764)
* Methods of establishment of lines or points shown where necessary. (8764)
______ Other

[rpost]

I believe it is important to display these issues on our forum. I like to know that there is a certain accountability within our community. Not only should everyone feel free to openly comment on any recorded survey, we should also hold each other accountable. Our job is to protect the public. What better way to learn than having a survey openly commented on.

I have been noticing an unfortunate trend. Recently when questionable surveys have come across my desk, the surveyor of record can not be found on the CLSA website. I enjoy knowing that if someone has a question about one of my surveys he can look me up here and call me directly. This forum is a great sign that some members of our profession are not complacent.

If one of my surveys made it on to this website in this manner I would be very concerned. This gentleman should be on here learning from our criticism and working on filing an new Record of Survey! Hopefully with more field work.

[bruce hall]

mind as far as looking at this again. The fella in 1937 did really, really, really, really good work. It must be true. I tell you why.

The guy who resurveyed some of that work in 1990 measured EXACTLY the same bearings and distances between the monuments as the published values of 1937. Check it out. Right down to the arc second for the bearings and within a hundredth for the distances. Not bad for half a mile stuff in who knows what kind of terrain. That guy Wright (RE 977) did an excellent job in chaining and turning those angles and setting those pipes of his. Must be true or LS 3572 wouldn't have measured those values that were published in the 1990 RS.

Golly Jee Wilikers, this guy in 2003 (or is is 2010?) has in his hand, two maps with the same bearings and distances on the lines that are common to both maps

Now you take the above with a grain of salt, or two if you have to.

As to the map at hand the survey really should have searched for the closest monuments to the PIQ which was 335 feet east of the northeast corner of the PIQ, another pipe about 300 feet south of the southeast corner of the PIQ, and the pipe about 330 feet south and 652 feet west of the southwest corner of his PIQ.

If he had found those 3 pipes he wouldn't need to go all over creation looking for the quarter section lines, unless he wanted to resurvey the world again to see if he got the same numbers as the other two maps. And he could have left off those calls about didn't search or find anything at the quarter corners.

The fella in 1937 did a hell of a job. The guy in 1990, did he really measure this stuff and publish the values that he measured? The guy in the 2003 survey, he told you what he did.

He found three monuments out there and they fit together perfect. Well within half and inch, and he didn't look for anything else, and he stated that on the map. And he calcd the stuff in using two maps that were identical as to the bearings and distances between the monuments shown on both maps. And he said that also.

It could have been better-maybe(at least if he had done what I suggested above). But he told the reader of the map what he did. And evidently the powers that be said "fine". We will have to see what happens on the next survey in that neck of the woods to see if it all pans out and if the monuments are in the right place, or not.

The above is just some observations that I have made and my skewed take on the matter. And Ryan, be careful when you put in writing that you "agree with Bruce". This is just a suggestion. Although it is nice to know that someone agrees with me. Just remember that it is okay to change your mind if you so desire. I won't feel abandoned. I am alone most of the time anyway.

This is enough. Happy New Year!

[T. S. Higgins]

This is getting some pretty good discussion. The only (painfully obvious) mention I'll give it is that we don't have all the information. The Deputy Co. Surveyor might have disliked the map... even red-lined it and sent it for review several times, but there isn't really any solid reason not to record it if the RCE is insistent. The RCE who prepared it mentioned just what he did.

What we have is the opinion of this RCE regarding the location of these boundaries, and that is all the client has. The only sticking point comes up when the profession gets a black eye because a line is off, which is why I would want to get more information on how this map came into being.

Personally, I wouldn't let this thing see the light of day... but without knowing what the deeds say, what previous records say, what the situation in the field was, and what happened between this RCE and the County, I can't lay too much blame. in one camp or the other.

All I can say for certain is that he should have had his field crew looking for more of those monuments, or he shouldn't have shown the entire section as he did since it implies a level of precision that I don't think exists on this map.

This has been your "Duh" comment of the day.

[RAM]

Here it would have had a note from the Co Surveyor. I find his RCE # interesting, how old is he? Did he supervise this work?

[pls7809]

@Bruce...

I still agree with you even if you change your mind ;)

[bruce hall]

probably received his license circa 1956-1958 so he is probably around 80 years old. As to him surpervising his work, he said he did in the Surveyors Certificate.

Ryan: Thanks and I will let you know when I do.