Record Distances vs Measurements

bteas@cox. · Post by **bteas@cox.** » Sun Apr 03, 2011 10:13 am

I'd like to get some feed back on an old but current question and rule of thumb

What do you show for a measured distance on your surveys when you measure a line and it is very close to record distance?

rpost · Post by **rpost** » Mon Apr 04, 2011 3:45 pm

I'm kind of torn on this. One side of me thinks if the measurements are very close showing record would be best. It is good for consistency. That being said, each surveyor will have their own idea of what "very close" means. I hate finding several maps all showing the same measurements and measuring substantially different in the field.

I just did a survey where r&m were about 0.02' from each other on at street intersection. I used record since the three reference maps I was using all agreed. I was able to reeestablish my lot with relative ease. When I finally found a lot corner that was not destroyed it fit, same 0.02'. Done deal.

Most of the time, however, I end up deciding to show both measured and record.

LS_8750 · Post by **LS_8750** » Mon Apr 04, 2011 3:51 pm

I try to hold record whenever possible so if I measure within 0.0001' of record I call it good, oh and within 0.1" the same.

Take it to the same decimal place as record, and no more. That's what I was taught. You see a lot of metes and bounds descriptions that go out to the nearest minute only. When I see one I try to keep it the same, unless I am trying to clarify an ambiguity or a discrepancy with record, or tying multiple descriptions or maps together.

It's a judgement call in the end. But you look pretty foolish when you call a witness tree 10' away to the nearest second.

dmi · Post by **dmi** » Mon Apr 04, 2011 9:30 pm

Consider the purpose of the survey.
Consider the intended audience for the survey.
There is a group of surveyor's that do not appreciate that when you show your measurements vs record that you are merely showing the results of your survey. There is a group of surveyors that appreciate the fact that when you show slight various between your measurements(if that is in fact the case) and those of record that your survey,correlates well with record.

I almost always show my measurement vs record.

Stephen Johnson · Post by **Stephen Johnson** » Tue Apr 05, 2011 5:55 am

I mostly show record V measured at 0.05' or more difference, unless the original was a large tract to the nearest minute and tenth of a foot or 100th(one link) of a chain or even those rare 1000th of a chain(tenth of a link) distances.

RAM · Post by **RAM** » Tue Apr 05, 2011 6:22 am

0.0001' and 0.1"-really? I don't know if I can measure to that accuracy. My clients would never pay for that much fld time. That is alot of angles and reducancy.

It all depends where I am at. In town, +/-0.05, out in the woods +/- 1-5 ft, most of the time I show what I measure. Otherwise why measure?

E_Page · Post by **E_Page** » Tue Apr 05, 2011 8:11 am

Building off some of what has already been said: Consider the purpose of the survey. consider the audience or end user of the information, consider the broader circumstances.

Did your survey show any MATERIAL discrepancies, that is differences in direction or distance significant enough to possibly cause concern or an amount greater than what you would have expected to find? If this is the case, then I will show my measured vs record on each line I survey, even if those differences are minor (not material).

If I've found no material discrepancies, I'm thinking "Why upset the apple cart?" That is, why potentially alarm a client who may not know the difference between material and non-material. Like Steve said, if the measurement differences are less than your error budget, how can you definitively say your dimension is correct and the previous one not?

The way this works out in practice for me is that if I am filing a RS, I show measured and record. If I am filing a CR or not having to file any map, I tell the client that I have verified their previous survey and agree with it.

SGROBER · Post by **SGROBER** » Thu Apr 07, 2011 9:39 am

The correct location of a monument is defined by the recorded dimensions from other monuments on a map. When I record my measurements on a map, it is my evidence of what monuments I have surveyed and their relationship to each other monument included on the map.

Most of my measurements are adjusted to close a figure (and in many cases a combined grid factor is applied to the adjusted measurement). The result is my definition of that length. Of course my definition of a certain length will vary ( in most cases) from the recorded definition of that same length, by another surveyor, because no measurement is exact and because of the various methods that are used when a length is measured. No one is wrong and there is no disagreement, only a difference in one's professional definition of a certain length. I once attended a conference where the guest speaker stated that in his opinion, anyone who shows record and measured as being the same, is a liar. I disagreed with the speaker somewhat because it does happen. When I show a measured distance on a map, it is to show what evidence I have to prove out that monument's postion.

Lee Hixson · Post by **Lee Hixson** » Thu Apr 07, 2011 10:03 am

Using the term "liar" is excessive and disallows any professional difference of opinion on the subject.

TIB · Post by **TIB** » Thu Apr 07, 2011 11:12 am

Relax, Lee it's just a figure of speech

Anthony Maffia · Post by **Anthony Maffia** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 5:28 am

"anyone who shows record and measured as being the same, is a liar"

I work in the SF Bay Area, and a senior surveyor I worked for stated that this was the rule down in Los Angeles. Is that true, for the city or county?

I was taught to try to "harmonize" my measurements with record when possible, because the cart isn't carrying apples.

coast · Post by **coast** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:43 am

When someone's map shows all of the distances on their map the same as some record, I find it very hard to determine whether or nor they actually did a field survey. In my mind, I hold that survey in the same regard as a xerox of the original survey.

I firmly believe that you should show what you measure on your map. There is no rocking of any boat. Some other people may not like it.....to bad.

A Record of Survey is just that, a record of your survey, not a regurgatation of someone else's survey.

How on earth can you be seriously considering what you show on your survey upon what type of work product you're delivering?

E_Page · Post by **E_Page** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 11:00 am

Here's the assumption everyone seems to be making: That the surveyor is filing a record of survey, regardless of whether they are or are not showing record or measeure, or record vs measured dimensions.

If you have no material discrepancies, and no other RS triggers, why would someone file an RS. If you're just replacing a monument or two, wouldn't that be on a CR? Even if you've found monuments of a different character, but everything else was not material, aren't you filing a CR?

If you've found or set monuments at the corners (basing set corners on proper retracement) and the difference between what you wrote in the book, collected on the DC, and the figure on the previous record map would in each case hit the caps of the monuments found or set, what difference does it make.

If I file a RS, it's a near certainty that one or more dimensions will be materially different from record, so this is a non-issue. I show record and measured. If I'm filing a CR, there are no pertinent dimensions differing materially from record. By definition, those differences are insignificant. I may choose to show measured vs record anyway, or I may decide to keep my map clean, not confuse the landowner with extra dimensions showing insignificant, and therefore meaningless (to the landowner) differences.

It depends upon the primary audience for the CR. If it is to guide a surveyor to a monument I set or rehabilitated, maybe it's a section corner with a foot or two difference from record in distances to adjacent corners, that may not be material in a rural mountain property, but may be significant to a following surveyor, I'll show measured vs record.

If it is for the landowner, and the couple of hundredths here or there is going to mean nothing to him, and further it will not mean anything to any following surveyor, I may only show record.

If someone wants to say that I'm a liar and that I somply xeroxed someone else's map for that, they had better do it quitely and only to me. After I show them my notes, calcs, and the actual differences, they had better never say such a thing of me again or we'll have trouble.

land butcher · Post by **land butcher** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 11:02 am

You can always show " 100.00' R & M" (record and measured)

One issue is lawyers and recorders that come unglued when your survey B's & D's do not match their deed exactly.

Another thing to consider is if every distance you measure is 0.03' longer than the record. Whose equipt is more accurate.

Paul Goebel · Post by **Paul Goebel** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 12:03 pm

Curvy boundaries and road centerlines can make showing small differences in record vs. measured values very inconvenient. An otherwise simple plat becomes a mess of non-tangent curves and lots of text. This is one situation where I try to show the record values unless there is a good reason not to. Generally I show exactly what I measured on a plat.

bruce hall · Post by **bruce hall** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 1:13 pm

"Mr. Hall, are the bearings and distances shown on your Record of Survey the truth?"

"Yes they are."

"The distances that you show measured on your map are exactly the same distances as shown on the previous records in this area. Is that correct?"

"Yes."

"Did your survey work generate any raw data files so that you could calculate the distances shown on your map?"

"Yes."

"Did you provide copies of these raw data files to the plantiff or his attorneys in this case?"

"Yes."

"Did you know that there is prior testimony by the plantiffs expert witness in land surveying that the raw data files that you created do not support the measured values as shown on your Record of Survey and that the distances and bearings shown on your map as measured are really several hundreths of a foot different, even as much as 5 hundredths of a foot different than as shown on your map?"

"No I did not know about this testimony. And it doesn't matter anyway."

"Mr. Hall, you just testified that the distances shown on your map are the truth, and now you state that these values "doesn't matter anyway." Why is that Mr. Hall? Is your survey a truthful representation of the distances and bearing measured, or is it an "almost truthful" representation?"

I am sure that you guys and gals would be able to answer these questions and any questions that followed a lot better than I could. That is why I just put down what I measure, what the record was, and leave it at that. Even if it is a couple of hundreths different. This way I don't have to think toooo muucccchhhhh.

Lee Hixson · Post by **Lee Hixson** » Tue Apr 12, 2011 5:01 am

(Judge rolls her eyes, interrupts the interrogation in process, motions for both attorneys to approach the bench for a sidebar.)

"OK, Mr. Jones, you've spent 20 minutes raking this surveyor over the coals about the 0.03' difference between record and measured distances. The court is not a fool; we get the whole issue about repeatability between surveyors over time, and even during the same era, all the different sources of error, blah, blah, blah. Frankly, it's becoming very irritating that you keep belaboring the point. You're wasting the court's time and the people's time. Make you damn point, wrap it up, and let's get on with the meat of this case. Got it?"

coast · Post by **coast** » Tue Apr 12, 2011 5:55 am

Lee:

Most judges and attorneys do not understand what we do. Even if you have a valid point, which I do not admit, the judge et al will only care that you did not use your measured distances...and your only defense is that your measurements were close enough to some one elses measurements?

You will be discredited at the least, and your side will lose.

Lee Hixson · Post by **Lee Hixson** » Tue Apr 12, 2011 6:14 am

coast wrote:Lee:

Most judges and attorneys do not understand what we do. Even if you have a valid point, which I do not admit, the judge et al will only care that you did not use your measured distances...and your only defense is that your measurements were close enough to some one elses measurements?

You will be discredited at the least, and your side will lose.

Wow! So cut and dried. (Wish I had such a confident, and persuasive, understanding of how predictable California courts and judges are.)

SGROBER · Post by **SGROBER** » Tue Apr 12, 2011 10:29 am

Mr. Evan Page as well as others brought up several good points. The foremost is having respect for our professional judgement on what we put on a map. I used the term "definition" instead of measured because of adjustments and factors that are applied to my measurement. I have had differences of 0.02' with my own work, on several occasions, when I occupied and back sighted the same points from one day to the next. I will in most cases put what I measured on a map, however (in my professional judgement) If I decide that a record measurement of a length falls within the boundaries (or the error of ellipses) of my definition of that same length, I have no problem (in my professional judgement) of calling Record and measured the same. When I do show a difference between Record and Measured I am not calling the other survey inferior or invalid or proclaiming that my survey is better (for all I know the record survey may have been executed with more skill than my own). I am giving public notice of my definition of a length to prove out a position of a line or monument. The record measurement is just a valid as it was before, just as other measurements are also valid that may come later by a professional land surveyor.
The pdf illistrates what happens when you do call the other survey wrong?!!!
The larger brass is was set in 1959. The samller one was set in the 1930's

SGROBER · Post by **SGROBER** » Tue Apr 12, 2011 10:32 am

Tihis is what happens when we do call the other survey wrong

pls7809 · Post by **pls7809** » Tue Apr 12, 2011 11:01 am

Kind of off-topic, but relating to the photo...From what I have read, the BLM set the larger disk next to the smaller one as a form of acceptance of the first pipe, which was probably set by a private surveyor. I believe there was an earlier discussion of "pin cushions" like these from a couple of years ago either on this forum or on the old POB forum (RPLS.com).

Like Dave said the BLM field notes probably will clarify that situation. It probably says something like "found pipe with cap stamped..., accepted as..., set pipe with brass disk stamped...along side."

pls7809 · Post by **pls7809** » Tue Apr 12, 2011 3:05 pm

Thanks Dave, that's what I had seen before. They found the pipe, accepted it and replaced it with the BLM disk & pipe and then put the found pipe next to the new one. It was probably not the best idea to leave it above ground though because of the confusion it would cause. But if you are locating BLM monuments, you should be getting copies of the BLM notes, plats, etc. for those monuments to know for sure what you are locating.

scarpa · Post by **scarpa** » Tue Apr 12, 2011 3:09 pm

Help me out here. The field notes indicate they found an iron pipe. Then it goes on to state:

"This position is locally recognized as the corner and is accepted as the best available evidence of the original corner position.

At the corner point

Set an iron post,..."

Followed with "Deposit the iron pipe along side the iron post."

How do we interpret the notes? Are there now two monuments at that location? Or, was the iron post set in the position the iron pipe occupied? Does "deposit" indicate the iron pipe is lying near the iron post?

rpost · Post by **rpost** » Tue Apr 12, 2011 9:21 pm

I recently completed a survey where two monuments were reported to be on centerline. If I held one the other was slightly off. If I held the other.... same problem, duh. If I held the record angle it about split the two in the hundredths of a foot range. I think record is fine thanks.

I also recently came across a survey where three monuments were all supposed to be on line. Someone called the middle one like 0.02' off line. The line was over 1000'. I'm pretty sure they were all three on line.

I also recently came across a survey where a surveyor used record through three monuments, bc, ec and a tanget line. One was clearly disturbed and did not fit, at all. He probably should have shown m & r. He was a liar. The rest of his survey proved it. He got a phone call.

The list goes on. The pure fact is that each survey is different. Each resolution is different. Each measurement is different. If someone can purely argue that all field measurements should be shown exactly all the time then he has to be playing devilâ€™s advocate, especially since "measurements have a low priority".

I missed my check in by 0.02' today. Don't worry guys, I showed both measured and measured on my notes. Then I adjusted them and missed by 0.02' a day later. Crap. That monument 0.02' off I still held, but now there is a kink in the line. Maybe I should call it off. Good thing I'm not a liar.

California Surveyors Forums