rec meas or ?

[TIB]

Lot 1 record = 159.35 Lot 2 record =281.87 (total 441.22) I meas 440.51 (original mons)

later ROS indicates finding orig lot 1 corners with meas distance 158.80 (rec159.35) did not meas lot 2

common corner is lost and to be re-set, where does it go?

a. hold 159.35 from orig sub map
b hold 158.80 from later ROS
c. pro-rate

TIB

[Mr. Smith]

I will bite,

Nothing is as easy as it seems, you have no way of knowing if ROS surveyor measured Lot 2. Assuming this is not a trap question then: If you respect the quality of the later ROS surveyors’ work set at 158.8’ per ROS record. Holding the measurements of the ROS puts you within 0.29’ of the pro-rate position. Gets you thinking that the Original Subdivision was done with a stretched chain.
Without being a local surveyor one would have a hard time trusting the other surveyors work, another argument for working local.

brian

[bruce hall]

how much later is the newer rs? what year was the work performed? you got a fella that says the line is half a foot short. do you believe him or not. if you don't proportion it, but I would probably go with the recent value if I believe that the later rs surveyor didn't have a "long tape".

[LS_8750]

Where are the title lines?
Where are the lines of possession?

[Anthony Maffia]

I'd review occupation, then the quality of measured locations shown on the ROS. If they're solid, then I'd accept it as being the best evidence of where the point was and put it there, instead of where my calculator says it should have been.

BTW, whenever I expound on how I'd work out a problem or procedures, I anticipate and look forward to peer review and critique. I improve my surveying skills through dialog. I don't intend to sound preachy.

[E_Page]

Did you retrace any other lines also shown on RS 2? How does your measured compare to those lines as shown on RS2? If your distances match other distances from RS 2 well, then using the 158.8' from that map seems a pretty good course of action.

Is there any occupation? What is the nature of the occupation? How old is it compared to both earlier surveys? Does it fit either record dimension?

The prorated value is about halfway between the two records. Will that 2 or 3 tenths make a significant difference in the current or proposed use of either parcel? If so, gather more info and weigh it more carefully. If not, and if the evidence to indicate one over the other is not obvious and readily available, pick the one you feel you can best justify and move on.

I'm not advocating cutting corners or getting sloppy, but if you've narrowed it down to this one question, if the final answer being 158.8' of 159.09' is unlikely to make any practical difference to any affected landowners, and if the search for evidence to point you to one or the other is likely to take a lot more time, that added time and cost may not be worth the extra assurance you might get to use the distance from RS 2.


EDIT: Interesting and useful apparent new forum feature. After reading the first page of posts, There had been additional posts made as I was typing Hit "Submit" and rather than putting the post up, showed the new posts to the thread and left everything I typed in the respond box. Whattya know, somebody already mentioned my first two suggestions. Handy forum feature in case I wanted to change any of my post after being made aware of the additional posts. - kudos to the people behind that feature.

[TIB]

the orig map is 1950
the ROS is 1981 I match other dist from ROS good
there is wall along PL. the face wall is close to original rec dist. I believe wall const destroyed mon
there is a PM from 1975 done by same surveyor as ROS which indicate same 2 mons meas at exact rec dist (159.35)

[dmi]

I do not think it is a good idea to prorate past the improvement. Did the ROS consider the location of the wall? A difference of opinion will result from weighting the evidence differently.

[bruce hall]

"..............the face wall is close to original rec dist..............."

Which face? and who built the wall?

A simple choice of a, b, or c in the original post really leaves a lot to be desired. Many on this forum can see that each situation CAN BE different, depending on "stuff". Like the face of this wall that happens to be there. Sounds like one distance could fit one side of the wall and the other distance the other side, and maybe even the proportion would fit the middle of the wall.

[dmi]

Well yes Mr. Hall, is correct. There is in fact not enough info for anyone sitting afar to resolve the issue. All that could be offered is support for one general principle or another.

[land butcher]

I ran into something similar decades ago and I don't remember exactly how I did it, some sort of double proration. I do know the much more experienced boss of mine agreed with me.

[Dave Karoly, PLS]

The task is to restore the corner where the monument was located using the best available evidence. If the R/S measurement, supported by occupation, is the best available evidence then use it. Do not prorate or proportion.

[TIB]

how do I justify ROS meas as better evidence than record map?

[LS_8750]

That is a good question.

Maybe the Record Mapm is old, perhaps they surveyed with a chain and compass, or chain and transit? Or, maybe the old surveyor was drunk by noon and got sloppy?

Maybe the newer R/S map was done with a total station? Maybe it was calibrated perfectly, but maybe they used the wrong prism constants?

It is all about confidence in the other monuments found relative to each of your predecessors, plus occupation.

[E_Page]

You indicated that you matched other distances from the RS well. In the absence of contrary evidence, that's pretty good justification.

You mentioned the wall after my previous post. Is that an improvement done in conjunction with the original record map? If so, do you know if there is a pattern throughout the subdivision of other such walls being built on one side of lot lines or being centered on the lines? If you can discern a pattern or find a reliable record that indicates such a pattern, then use the wall as the most reliable physical evidence according to that same pattern.

[PLS7393]

As mentioned, there is a lot of variables in your situation and I would dig a little deeper for additional info before I chime in.
This is a typical Analysis Paralysis (By Alan Royce, RIP) boundary make a good sound decision and stick by it.
A record of survey is only your best assessment of of the evidence found.

[TIB]

I was leaning towards holding the ROS meas as best evidence. But then I found a PM recorded witin 1 year of ROS recorded by same surveyor as ROS. His PM now shows the same 2 mons with meas distance same as record (159.35). Since the same guy has 2 different meas by 0.5 to the same 2 pipes within a year of each other, I don't have a lot of confidence in either. The wall is close to record distance but was built many years after orig map and probably destroyed the mon in question. I still need to search for the orig rear corners. I am hoping that if I find them still existing that I can compare angles and distances to help determine a solution in front. If they are gone also, then what?
I can't justify one meas as being better or more reliable than the other, nor can I be sure if wall was built using the monument that existed at that time.
Any reason I can't consider the corner as "lost"? Pro-ration may be the last resort solution, but It might be the correct solution here. A lost corner is re-established by pro-ration.
Thoughts?
TIB

[E_Page]

Double check that PM to make sure it's not a record data PM rather than one based on a field survey.