"The Pincushion Effect"

[E_Page]

Bryan,

I have never proposed that a surveyor should close gaps. Never. You find it, you show me.

You stating that I encourage surveyors to close gaps shows that I've jumpedto no conclusions.

"[L]eap to determine intent". If you perform a boundary survey,YOU, MR. MUNDIA (under the direction of a PLS) MAKE A DETERMINATION OF INTENTWITH EVERY LINE OF EVERY SURVEY YOU PERFORM.

The only questions are how much effort you put into it and whether you do itcorrectly.

Sometimes it’s simple, requiring little effort. You have a description of"Lot 3, Happy Acres Estates", a 100' x 75' lot in a residentialsubdivision surveyed in 1968. You look at the map, see bearings, distances andmonuments. You determine at that point that the information shown on the mapdepicts the intent in picture form.

You go to the field and make measurements. Happily, you find all of themonuments as called for on the map. You bring the info back to the office, makeyour calcs and find that of the 4 sides of this lot as marked by original monuments,two of the lines are long by 0.22' and 0.08' respectively, and two are short by0.14' and 0.09' respectively.

What have you found?

You've found latent ambiguities! Did you recognize them as such? Yourmeasurements between original monuments differ from dimensions on the map. Youhave conflicting elements! That is the definition of a latent ambiguity!

You may not have recognized these differences as latent ambiguities, andthat's understandable. They’re relatively minor. It is so drilled into our logic as surveyorsthat original monuments control over dimensions that this principle coupledwith the relatively small differences between record and measured make yourconclusion automatic. The evidence at hand that best represents the intentis the monuments in the ground rather than the record dimensions that appear toconflict with them.

Let me repeat that: The evidence at hand that best represents the intent is the monuments in the groundand not the record dimensions that appear to conflict with them.

All of the facts you find in the form of maps, other documents, and thethings you find in the field are all part of the investigation that informedyour determination of intent on this simple lot survey.

Other surveys aren't so simple, the facts and resolution not so readilyobvious. The question becomes how much investigation will you do to determineintent. In a few cases, there may no longer be enough evidence to make thatdetermination. But in most cases sufficient evidence exists for those willingto make the effort to find it.

The only question is whether you exercised enough skill and diligence tohave done it correctly to locate the original lines, or stop short and declare linesthat never existed to be the true boundaries.

Use of case law: I know of no law that allows a surveyor to close a real gapon his own authority.

But I also know of no cases that penalized a surveyor for properlyascertaining the intent of the original creators of a boundary through adiligent search for evidence and proper use of it according to the same rulesthat the court will be bound by.

What states that my judgment/what I thought is an appropriate defense?

That question sounds as if you think that I just make decisions based on presumptions,assumptions, and a little conjecture thrown in just for fun.

Conjecture has no place in professional decision making. Use of assumptionsshould be limited to forming working hypotheses. If the assumptions are latervalidated by evidence, they are no longer assumptions but rather conclusionsbased on facts found. The only presumptions which should be held in a professionalopinion are those the law directs us to accept when there is not sufficient evidenceto contradict them. If there is sufficient evidence to overcome a presumption,then the contrary evidence takes its place. If evidence supports thepresumption, then it is no longer a mere presumption but a conclusion based on evidence.

Given the way I make professional decisions, your question is inapplicable.If I have followed the law in answering questions presented in a survey, thelaw supports those conclusions.

"[W]e only use case law as a tool in our defense if ever sued forincompetence or negligence."

If you haven't used case law as guidance in making your professionaldecisions, how can you use it in your defense. If you hope to use it in your defense, you hadbetter be aware of the guidance it gives and follow that guidance long beforeyou ever have the need to defend your decisions. IMO, making such decisions absent guidancefrom the law is negligent.

You are right when you say that defending yourself using only what youthought to be correct is not a good idea. You had better have a solid basis forwhat you think is correct. That basis is in law.

Yes, everyone does have lapses in judgment. That's a reason engaging in aprofession is called "practice". In a trade you are able to followtechnical manuals that tell you exactly how to handle every situation you arelikely to face. In professional practice, one must analyze each case anew andmake judgments as to the applicable methods and principles.

When one is considered to be minimally competent, they will make differentjudgments than they will after many more years of practice. The hope is thatone learns throughout one's career and becomes more qualified to make betterdecisions in more difficult circumstances.

Professionals develop skills in different areas and at different rates thanother professionals. Just because one surveyor is fearful of analyzing evidencebeyond a certain point does not mean that another is either negligent orincompetent because he proceeds to make the analysis. It may only mean that thesurveyor who didn't avoid making decisions has more confidence in his abilitiesto investigate and reason, or perhaps has more skill and ability to do sothrough study, experience and application.

I have no reason to believe that your intellect is lacking. However, youhave demonstrated that you have not fully read or not fully absorbed what I've postedas evidenced by your repeated misrepresentation that I advocate closing gaps,or that I would not have basis for my professional decisions.

Respect is a two way street Bryan. If you think I am taking unwarrantedpersonal jabs at you, perhaps you should revisit your obviousmischaracterizations of my opinions on these subjects. If you characterize mystatements contrary to how I have clearly expressed them, you leave me with twopossible conclusions: 1) that you deliberately misrepresent my statements, or2) that you are failing to understand what was plainly written. If you demonstrate that you are actuallyattempting to understand and refrain from making mischaracterizations, you allowme to recognize your understanding and answer your arguments as validlyaddressing my opinions. As it is, you constructstrawmen loosely based on my opinions in order to then knock the strawmen downinstead of presenting intellectually honest or well considered arguments.

I think you’re capable of better discussion and debate Bryan. Live up tothat expectation.

[E_Page]

I actually posted this on the Fractional section thread (by mistake)...

Here's the two points at the center of section 29 T. 3 S., R. 5 W. SBBM. (along side the lath). They are about 2' apart. Bit of a problem here.

N 33-52-47.3
W 117-25-37.3
(hand held GPS fix)
The LS pipe shows up in an RS as center of section with the found RCE pipe 1.77' se'ly. The RCE set a few other pipes at section corners, 1/4's etc. that show up on other maps. Who split the section correctly and if you find a pipe that close should you accept it to avoid a future mess and pincushion? Interesting stuff.

Who established the points first, and which have the landowners recognized? Those answers are far more important than knowing which had the better measurements and math.

[Ian Wilson]

Ian:

Both of those surveyors are top notch guys. I cannot imagine why Mr. Pintor or Mr. Crawley would set pipes that close to each other without a good reason.

I would commend calling Mr. Pintor.

As one cantancerous old surveyor once dropped on me...your work has just begun.

Ian

[Ian Easton]

Well, I'm not doing any survey work in the area I just happened to come across this when I was out for a walk and thought that it would be appropriate to include in this thread showing the 2 centers. I see Pintor's stuff everywhere in the area.

[LS_8750]

Seems like this old thread might be worth a look again.

[LS_8750]

10 years have gone by since the original post.
Question is, "what would you do?"

[btaylor]

Very confused that people are talking to Woolley and I don't seem to see any of his posts? Did he have his fonts set to "invisible" since then?

[Steve Martin]

This is an old thread and perhaps Dave deleted some of his old posts.

I do find the discussion still pertinent though.

Evan Page said "Let me repeat that: The evidence at hand that best represents the intent is the monuments in the ground and not the record dimensions that appear to conflict with them."

This get to the heart of what Jeff Lucas calls the multiple monument dilemma in US boundary surveys.

CLSA wrote an Amicus brief for Knerr v. Mauldin years ago, but unfortunately on the wrong side of the case. Jeff Lucas called out CLSA for it in print in his hyperbolic style. I resented that at first, but as I learned more about the facts in the case and case law, I came to the understanding that Lucas was right and very much in line with Justice Cooley's famous address.

Boundaries once established on the ground and recognized by the landowners are not changeable by a subsequent survey purporting to be more proper and accurate. It does not matter if the original surveys are not recorded, only that they have been relied upon.

[DWoolley]

Very confused that people are talking to Woolley and I don't seem to see any of his posts? Did he have his fonts set to "invisible" since then?

BTaylor:

Around the time they created rules for the forum I removed all of my posts in protest. I regret that decision now. I have the work backed up digitally and hardcopy. It took seven 4" binders to catalog the material.

This week the Orange County Chapter will be releasing Episode 18 of the Ten Minute Surveyor on Youtube. Episode 18 discusses the monument pincushion. Also, a bonus release to Episode 8, underground utilities. The ASCE public comment period for standards 38 and 75 ends this month.

I enjoyed seeing this post dredged up to see a post by my friend Ryan Versteeg PLS 7809. Ryan was a professional touchstone for me and I enjoyed many great conversations with him dating back to his time at CalPoly Pomona. I remember him often.

DWoolley

[btaylor]

I enjoyed seeing this post dredged up to see a post by my friend Ryan Versteeg PLS 7809. Ryan was a professional touchstone for me and I enjoyed many great conversations with him dating back to his time at CalPoly Pomona. I remember him often.

DWoolley

Seeing Ryan's post was initially jarring, since I didn't notice this was bringing up an old thread. Ryan and I worked together at LA Water and Power for one summer when we were on our college break. Always a very pleasant guy and, we kept in contact. I will always be grateful he thought of me back in 2002 when the Angels were in the playoffs and he invited me to join him and his parents for one of the games against the Twins. I think of him from time to time as well. His passing was a shock for me.

[CBarrett]

Opinions please -
How do you evaluate the evidence when lines of occupation and record agree, and an identifiable original monument is off (by several feet) on a
0.3 or 0.5 acre suburban parcel?

What if this monuments was on a right of way line, and no underlying record shows intent of creating an odd angle point moving into a commercial parcel along the right of way?

What if you are looking onto a 10 year old subdivision, where a monument on a parcel does not follow subdivided line or lines of occupation built during said subdivision (fences and tops of slope), on a minimum size lot, but you find it 2.02' feet off from a property corner. As if it was meant to be set on an offset, but no certificate of correction filed. Also, holding said monument would make the lot significantly sub standard in size (speaking to the intent, I suppose).

These are little bit beyond the pin cushion effect, but could still fit into the original monument holding doctrine. In this case, preponderance of evidence could support that the monument location is a blunder (mind you, the example I am bringing up is that line of occupation do not support monument location).

[hellsangle]

Excellent example, Ms. Barrett!

Shows you’re thinking . . . and thinking well!

Here’s the rub . . . Section 2077 of the Civil Code of Procedure . . . dictates hierarchy of construing descriptive evidence.

“Section Two Thousand and Seventy-seven. The following are the rules for construing the descriptive part of a conveyance of real property, when the construction is doubtful and there are no other sufficient circumstances to determine it:

One—Where there are certain definite and ascertained particulars in the description, the addition of others which are indefinite, unknown, or false, does not frustrate the conveyance, but it is to be construed by the first mentioned particulars.

Two—When permanent and visible or ascertained boundaries or monuments are inconsistent with the measurement, either of lines, angles, or surfaces, the boundaries or monuments are paramount.

Three—Between different measurements which are inconsistent with each other, that of angles is paramount to that of surfaces, and that of lines paramount to both.

Four—When a road, or stream of water not navigable, is the boundary, the rights of the grantor to the middle of the road or the thread of the stream are included in the conveyance, except where the road or thread of the stream is held under another title.

Five—When tide water is the boundary, the rights of the grantor to ordinary high-water mark are included in the conveyance. When a navigable lake, where there is no tide, is the boundary, the rights of the grantor to low-water mark are included in the conveyance.

Six—When the description refers to a map, and that reference is inconsistent with other particulars, it controls them if it appears that the parties acted with reference to the map; otherwise the map is subordinate to other definite and ascertained particulars.
(Amended by Code Amendments 1873-74, Ch. 383.)”

Therefore if you don’t hold the monument, some rat may file a complaint against you with the Board, (BPELSG).

Another reason why boundary surveying is - more art than science. Your hypothetical seems to provide “harmony in the neighborhood” (improvements/long-term “use” vs rigid CCP 2077)

One might consider, “what might a judge say?”

And if one breaks with 2077, one better have copious notes and evidence on your Record of Survey to backup your opinion.

That’s Crazy Phil’s two cents . . .

[CBarrett]

I could be wrong, the rules of hierarchy of evidence need to also be evaluated against the entire body of evidence and put in their proper place (I don't have quotes and exact pages ready; I remember when I read that part of the text in Browns' and Clark's books, it was a memorable event.

We always seem to stop at each rule, and don't discuss how they fit into the full picture. I noticed that when judges evaluate cases, they look at how evidence fits into the big picture. I'm not a legal expert yet to be able to describe this thinking process. I am curious about it.

I've been able to successfully argue not holding these record monuments in both situations (with signing LS's and county surveyors and mapcheckers who reviewed the maps). What I am lacking is methodical organized thought process as to why we could have exceptions to 'hold the monument' rules.

I am looking how 'hold the original monument' doctrine came to life. We are talking about original surveys, where a monument was the ONLY evidence of where a property corner may be, and based on that monument, people took possession of the land. I also understand that correcting those would have created massive nightmares.

Now, I am looking at one of the situations that is not unheard of today, let's say we have a commercial development with 4 parcels, a strip mall, with 4 buildings. One right hand turn pocket which required an extra 12-foot ROW dedication and couple reverse curves. Design based on a specific cross section and traffic queueing patterns.
It was planned by a contracting engineer, architects, contractors etc... the investment company and the bank (AKA the owners) - do they ever even see the property?

Improvements, which were built before the property is monumented fit original monumentation within required tolerances. It is when I get to one of the driveways, that I have two monuments at the center of the driveway which are off, one by a few tenths, the other by few feet. I can believe that maybe one was a somewhat sloppy monumentation, the other one looks like it was meant to be set on an offset, but there is no evidence of it.

In the field, I know these, what some surveyors consider superfluous monuments to start with will let their apprentice tinker with setting them so they can learn. Of course, this is conjecture, not actual evidence.

This is one of the areas where I have a really hard time seeing how 'hold the original monument' represents intent or possession, and clearly not the built improvements. If one looks at the improvement plans (yes, I know quasi-record) the intent is clear. I know a number of people will disagree; I know the arguments against it. If there are arguments for calling the northern most monument off, how would I defend it in court why I am not holding the northern most monument (from the picture).

Capture095.JPG

[Warren Smith]

The legal profession is trained in "FIRAC". That is, Facts, Issue, Rule (of law), Analysis, and Conclusion. This is how Appellate decisions are structured, and how plaintiff and defendant present and defend causes of action at trial.

In developing an opinion of the placement of boundaries on the ground, this method can be used effectively.

You're right, original surveys are, of necessity, controlling insofar as what monuments represent. Retracements - including rights of way and easements - must adhere to proper principles as given down in appellate decisions.

The title of this thread is named after Jeff Lucas' book. It is well worth reading and taking to heart his messasge.

[CBarrett]

Thank you, I was unaware of the FIRAC methodology. That will be of great help for research direction.
Jeff Lucas's book is on my list!

[DWoolley]

Thank you, I was unaware of the FIRAC methodology. That will be of great help for research direction.
Jeff Lucas's book is on my list!

The Orange County chapter has approximately 50 Jeff Lucas books signed by the author for sale.

Please email our chapter secretary to order a copy.

DWoolley

[CBarrett]

Thank you, I was unaware of the FIRAC methodology. That will be of great help for research direction.
Jeff Lucas's book is on my list!

The Orange County chapter has approximately 50 Jeff Lucas books signed by the author for sale.
Please email our chapter secretary to order a copy.
DWoolley

I shall, Thanks!
I don't suppose it is published for kindle or a pdf?

[LS_8750]

Mr. Martin, I picked up on that lesson as well. ...........

"Boundaries once established on the ground and recognized by the landowners are not changeable by a subsequent survey purporting to be more proper and accurate. It does not matter if the original surveys are not recorded, only that they have been relied upon."

[DWoolley]

Mr. Martin, I picked up on that lesson as well. ...........

"Boundaries once established on the ground and recognized by the landowners are not changeable by a subsequent survey purporting to be more proper and accurate. It does not matter if the original surveys are not recorded, only that they have been relied upon."

Truth. The challenge is knowing the original unfiled survey existed, finding and verifying the evidence, and the proper documentation of the boundary.

In the land of a two monument tango the original surveys cannot possibly be considered in the boundary resolution. I have been reviewing maps in which the surveyor finds more than two monuments, holds two monuments anyway, and calls the balance of the monuments out of position. It is the craziest thing. How are these monuments determined to be off? Math on the maps. Whatever happened to the maxim "...monuments hold over the map"? That is straight out of Brown and the case law. I have seen maps in which the surveyor has jumped from monuments in the junior tract to establish boundaries in a senior tract. I cannot imagine why each of these licenses have not been revoked.

Another oddity, the surveyor shows everything as measured and record between monuments on the map. When I inspect the CAD drawing and/or perform a field survey I find the monuments are not measured and record. I have seen this before, rare in our neck of the woods, but apparently more prevalent in other locales. As a map checker, I usually ask for the CAD drawing or coordinates when I see map showing everything as measured and record. Why not show what was measured? How does a surveyor determine when to show measurements? What happens when the crew goes out and uses the monuments - not at the reported locations - to stake something out? Curious minds must know.

The measured and record - when untrue - came to my attention by a surveyor in the Central Valley. As we turned it around in the conversation he put a fine point on it when he asked if I would sign such a map, as a City Surveyor, being technically correct. How could I sign a patently false map?

Measurement is not a crime.

Lastly, can we all agree there is no such thing as a "record boundary" when there has been field measurements? This unholy unicorn is a fabrication made up by the professional community that cannot meet the standard of implied consent with squirrel notes attempting to shirk professional responsibility. I will gladly eat my words if someone, anyone, can produce a guide, textbook, manual or similar that describes the record boundary and procedures that allow a land surveyor to produce it.

DWoolley

[khuerth]

As a map checker, I usually ask for the CAD drawing or coordinates when I see map showing everything as measured and record.

Have any surveyors actually submitted their CAD file? I would have a very hard time being convinced to send my CAD file for map review, plotting lines in GIS, sure, but not for review.

This unholy unicorn is a fabrication made up by the professional community that cannot meet the standard of implied consent with squirrel notes attempting to shirk professional responsibility.

I read this multiple times and my smile grew bigger each time, I may send this to clients when they request "just a record boundary".

[Ian Wilson]

David:

As the City Surveyor, you are checking subdivision maps which you must certify as "technically correct" [SMA §99450(a)(4)]. You may request all additional information necessary for the review of those maps...as I do when review them.

The RS and CR fall under PLS Act §8766(a)(1). Although the CR is held to the level of "sufficient monumentation"...to establish the "precise location" of points and lines. Here, we may only hold to the standard of "mathematical accuracy". However, "two point tangos" abound in both document types. Measured & Record around whole blocks are common, even when dealing with maps from the very early 1900's. Battered old 30" transit and stretched chain vs. brand spanking new Leikkoable WB47000 GPS/TS/Scanner/Lidar...measurements to the 16th decimal place...angles AND distances!

Poor Justice Cooley must be rolling in his grave.

[CBarrett]

Another oddity, the surveyor shows everything as measured and record between monuments on the map. When I inspect the CAD drawing and/or perform a field survey I find the monuments are not measured and record. I have seen this before, rare in our neck of the woods, but apparently more prevalent in other locales. As a map checker, I usually ask for the CAD drawing or coordinates when I see map showing everything as measured and record. Why not show what was measured? How does a surveyor determine when to show measurements? What happens when the crew goes out and uses the monuments - not at the reported locations - to stake something out? Curious minds must know.

Are you talking about people who are attempting to pass a record map for a field surveyed one, or are you talking about people who like to call parts of boundary 'record' if their measured monument locations fall within 95% confidence ellipses? Both?

What do you expect to see in cad files? Found monument coordinates?

[DWoolley]

Are you talking about people who are attempting to pass a record map for a field surveyed one, or are you talking about people who like to call parts of boundary 'record' if their measured monument locations fall within 95% confidence ellipses? Both?

What do you expect to see in cad files? Found monument coordinates?

I am actually referencing a couple scenarios. Before I begin, in my experience, 95% of the professional community do not understand what is meant by 95% confidence ellipses (tongue in cheek). My recent straw poll of professionals estimate that somewhere between 70-85% of the community collect coordinates and perform no adjustments of their measurements (which would yield these black magic ellipses you speak of).

The first scenario is, as Ian referred to above, surveyors retracing a previous survey and showing the measurements between monuments as being record to the hundredth and to the second. Why not show the measurements? One reason is to subvert the Business and Professions code by not documenting a material discrepancy and another, is to avoid having to establish corners by proper survey methods. The most common reason may simply be ignorance and/or incompetence. I have seen maps, not kidding, in which the surveyor will calculate an entire subdivision, hold two monuments, and rotate the subdivision to the two monuments and call off every other found monument and show "encroachments" of long standing evidence of boundary lines. That procedure is not in any textbook or case law and does not hold any water. Frankly, any GIS or general contractor person with a GPS unit could establish boundaries the same way - removing any argument or justification a land surveyor's licenses is required for boundary establishment.

The CAD files have the coordinate nodes for the found monuments - oftentimes, more than one coordinate for a single monument, not kidding. What I expect to see in the CAD files are lines connected to measured coordinate nodes. Generally speaking, boundaries are established by monuments, monuments are measured, lines connecting monuments are mapped. Where is the rub? Missing corner monuments are established using common survey procedures i.e. recognizing and establishing senior lines, intersection, proration to distribute excess or deficiency, etc. You know, surveying.

There is no place in boundary surveying for record calcs in the CAD files after a field survey has been completed. It is a donkey trap to import field measurements into the record calculation map. This can only cause confusion for the mapper and lead to wrong headed establishment - I have seen CAD maps in which no monuments were held. It appeared as though the surveyor tried to "best fit" (without documentation on the map) the record figure to the monuments - must have been the chapter Brown or Clark didn't get around to writing in their respective books (the OC CLSA Ten Minute Surveyor on least square for boundaries notwithstanding). What happened to monuments hold over math or maps? What is sacred about the record measurements? Understandably, the record figures will be xref'd to the measurement file as a guide or vicinity map for the measured locations. The telltale of a wrong procedure is rotating record information to two measured monuments.

Of course, boundary establishment is not a one size fits all and mileage may vary, but the rule of thumb applies.

DWoolley

[LS_8750]

Yes. The Pincushion Effect, the Two Monument Tango, the Deed Stakers. Yes. It seems there is an secret manual of surveying here in the Bay Area, nobody has seen it, except those that have as by some divine intervention, it has no title, perhaps written in Sanskrit, and there is a cult here who seem to meet in secret and study it, follow it, conduct their work according to it.

I've seen a magic corner record near Cal University where one unknown record monument was found and the other was held to be a split of the curbs on a 400 ft. radius road centerline from a 1905 record map. And then another surveyor came in and held this corner record and filed another.

I've seen corner records in San Mateo where every existent monument a lot was called off, and new monuments were set half a foot away based on some non-record iron pipes found 800 feet away. Magic. Maybe Alchemy. I don't know.

[DWoolley]

LS_8750:

Sanskrit and alchemy in the same post! Classic. Great choice of words to describe their land surveying voodoo processes. Appreciate the references.

khuerth:

I do not recall any instances in which I was denied a CAD file. I am sure it has happened. I am equally content with a coordinate file and field notes. Why would anyone not provide these files upon request? There cannot be an NFT black market on the CAD files.

Locally, we have some really good surveyors, darn few two monument tango surveys, certainly less than there were 15 years ago. Pretty high likelihood the local substandard surveys will find their way to BPELSG.

DWoolley