Virtual Pincushions - nothing new at all

[LS 4722]

I have attached two PDF files. One is a snapshot of part of an RS done in 1937 that shows the rejection of 2x2 hubs, what I believe were original monuments, and N/W fallings to the "True Corners" of a couple of lots.

The second snapshot shows the 2015 terrain for the area. In 1937 the area was less developed.

Acceptance of original monuments, the elimination of virtual parcel corners and the other various actions by land surveyors that make the public wonder about our inability to accept a marker that private title holders have accepted will never really happen during my lifetime.

This practice started a long long time ago and is here to stay.

[pls5528]

I believe that many have bypassed the part of the Legal Principle's book on this issue???? I have seen so many instances where the original monuments are called off (on maps and in evidence in the field). One, boundary retracement I was a part of in LA, we found a 3" I.P.. It had two engineer's tags, and two land surveyor's tags in that pipe???

Why, of course, everyone knows I can measure better than YOU??

[LS 4722]

I don't think I have ever come across that before!!

I do remember one survey I was involved with back around 1971. I knew nothing at all about surveying, I just did what I was told then.

Anyway we were setting a rear corner, nice open area if I recall correctly, and found 6 2x2's in a circular pattern about a foot or so in diameter. My boss told me to place a 7th 2x2 and tag, which I dutifully did. So we leave with our added confusion new and in place.

It took me a long time to find this out, but surveying is about measuring to get to our goal, but the end of the measuring is really about finding. Once found, just document it and move on.

This is something to think about.

When a private party or an officer of the court looks at a 2 inch IP and tag, they do not focus down to the center of the tiny nail holding the tag in the pipe, they see the pipe only...nothing more. Surveyors should have eyes like that.

[pls5528]

YOU ARE SO RIGHT. AS JACK WEBB USED TO SAY ON DRAGNET----JUST THE FACTS MAM!!

[Dave Karoly, PLS]

1926

County Surveyor find original 3x3 stake.

Averages record and measured.

I've never seen that before.

[Dave Karoly, PLS]

Here is what he did...

1912 subdivision.

CS 1926:
Street bears N 40d46'35" W

20' R/W

Sideline bears N 15d11'10" E.

So on lot line R/W distance equals 24.14'.

R/W 3x3 is about 0.6' along lot line back from R/W but this is ignored.

Distance front 3x3 to rear 3x3 is 163.42'.

Get a load of this:
163.42
+24.14
=187.56
+185.73 (record lot line length CL to rear corner)
=373.29'
/2
=186.645'

County Surveyor's map shows N 15d11'10" E 186.64'.

The funny thing is it never got monumented that way (unfinished resubdivision) and the current monument fits close to the original record bearing and distance.

This doesn't matter for my survey, mostly curiosity as to how he got that distance. The bearing I haven't figured out yet.

[LS_8750]

Mr. 4722, this issue is killing us.

Mr. Lucas sounded the alarm in his "The Pincushion Effect."

I see this, and I think all of us land surveyors, see this phenomenon every day.

One legal corner is contemplated by law but surveyors argue to minutia about its location. Shame on land surveyors.

[Proud7191]

Once had a subdivision that was bounded by an existing sub and dedicated street. Two intersection monuments created the centerline and another monument that was supposed to be on the centerline was actually 0.12' north of the line. When we did the sub map we showed the Mon on line. Sub went to construction and I staked 2 catch basins on either side of that centerline Mon, believing it got destroyed by construction. An overzealous public works inspector found the monument and checked the curb face of the catch basin and all hell broke loose and many hours of time was lost trying to explain surveying to engineers that thought their catch basins would not work because they thought they were a tenth of a foot out of position. At the time it was about 9k$ worth of concrete. Needless to say I would call the monument out of position today after that experience. My 2 cents, Jp

[MikeTurnrose]

In this case, if I was that 1937 surveyor, at a minimum, I would have held those 2x2s for controlling the lot lines between Lots 1/2 and 2/3. and maybe showed them off the controlling subdivision line holding those 1 1/2" ips, if I felt I could measure that well back then?? It's kind of crazy to show those off back in those days. I think the margin of error would have been sufficient to show those as good back then.

[land butcher]

Go to Huntington Beach, you will find 2 or 3 no record spikes at almost every old town intersection in 2" dia circles. And they build $million+ homes off that shit.

[PLS7393]

You all have it wrong, lol. Just last week I staked out a building envelope for a new residence. The original 1949 tract map called for a 3/4" IP set at the end of the culdesac, and Santa Clara Co., (now the City of Cupertino) did not perpetuate the mon. with a mon. box. The adjoining street had monuments in a monument box I was able to use, (the open pipes fit). When I turned down record info to the end of the culdesac, can you guess what I found?

v

v

v

Yup, "four PK nails" on top of one another! I would attach a pic, but saving it for a future presentation, so stay tuned! One fit better than the others, so I used it as a traverse point, but wanted to split them all and call it good, lol.

[Dave Sigman]

YOU ARE SO RIGHT. AS JACK WEBB USED TO SAY ON DRAGNET----JUST THE FACTS MAM!!

Yep. I agree. I wonder who taught me that?

[Dave Karoly, PLS]

http://youtu.be/gxhuUdZzGYw

http://youtu.be/cjquGpmgwOo