California Surveyors Forums

I am curious to see samples of notes placed upon maps by County Surveyors where there was a disgreement and the private insisted on having the map filed as is.

Thankks in advance for your help

It would be interesting to see how that NW Cor of Sec XX... SBD was established and how the CS presumed it should have been established.

It would also be interesting to know why the rebars and rocks were rejected in the survey Ckleine posted. There may be legitimate reasons, but it may also just be that the rebar didn't fall at this particular surveyors calculated DP positions, and since they were not original mons, he declared the corners lost. Move on to the math.

Too many think that double proportion is THE prescribed method when actually it is the method to use after all the other ones have been considered and prove unworkable or unsupportable. I think that's because so many surveyors are actually engineers at heart but who would rather be outside than stuck in slacks and a tie at a desk. They are comfortable with manipulating numbers, uncomfortable with applying legal principles which are at variance with the numbers, and totally averse to talking to local residents about their possible knowledge of the history of corners and boundaries in the area.

There are times where proportioning is appropriate, but not until all of the other possibilities are thoroughly exhausted, not just briefly considered and dismissed.

Perhaps I need more coffee after getting back from the field, but how did they double proportion that when clearly the distances do not look proportioned? Also the surveyors note indicates holding a 90 degree angle per "intent" which seems to mean a double proportion was not being used.

EDIT - I do not deal with PLSS retracements in my urban/suburban work here in subdivided ranchos, so I assume from my memory that the "correct" procedure is reducing to the cardinal equivalents and going from there. I am confused with the reference to holding the intended 90 degrees however. Wouldn't this be in conflict with the concept of double proportioning? I find the note confusing.

The moves from the temporary stake are descibed as being in terms of cardinal directions nd this has not much to do with an intent of 90 degress.

We are all trained in double portion, but as it is described in the manual, it is the method of last resort.

thanks for the help

Too bad Gary K. Shelton isn't handy, I would like his opinion on this map.

Found one I did in 2005 that I had to put a note on:

"THE UNIFORM WIDTH OF 40' AS SHOWN ON THE RECORD MAPS SHOULD BE HELD"

I did not hold record street width and instead held what I determined to be original monuments on either side, and thus could not make the street a perfect parallel 40'. There is about a minute rotation and perhaps a tenth difference on the street width. The note is an asterisk type that comes after my own note which I state that right of way lines were not parallel due to control of monuments I considered paramount over record map dimensions.

ca_surveyor wrote:Evan,

Atatched are the R/S per your request.

There must be something in the air in that Section 28 that renders surveyors senseless. Neither of those guys appear to have used any methodology found in the BLM Manual or discussed in any other well accepted text on survey procedures. So we have the mysterious floating NW Corner of Section 28. It moves every time a surveyor shows up and picks some random method of resetting it with no supporting documentation or discussion to tell why he chose such an off the wall method.

I suppose one of those might be valid, but without discussion or notes stating how the position is supported by acceptable field evidence, the methods used by each of these surveyors just looks hair brained (or is it hare brained?).

Wonder why the CS didn't make a similar not for the NE Cor of Sec 28 on the 2001 survey.

Thanks for posting, Dave

"Wonder why the CS didn't make a similar not for the NE Cor of Sec 28 on the 2001 survey."

The 2001 RS does have a similar note, although it is stamped sideways on the page over to the right side. A little inconspicuous, but he did catch it.

btaylor wrote:Found one I did in 2005 that I had to put a note on:

"THE UNIFORM WIDTH OF 40' AS SHOWN ON THE RECORD MAPS SHOULD BE HELD"

I did not hold record street width and instead held what I determined to be original monuments on either side, and thus could not make the street a perfect parallel 40'. There is about a minute rotation and perhaps a tenth difference on the street width. The note is an asterisk type that comes after my own note which I state that right of way lines were not parallel due to control of monuments I considered paramount over record map dimensions.

LOL. Had a lot of that in one city I did maps in. The agencies didn't like it, but original mons prevail. I can neither confirm or deny that our crews deliberately found mons on both sides of a street when doing a single lot survey. :)

LB, that one scares me a little because I would consider your example of holding found original over record to be taught under Surveying 101.

Evan I believe it is "hare brained" as in the brain of a rabbit, but it is a funny phrase that makes one think "hair brained" which makes no sense.

fella in May of 2000 just went north record from the found monuments per a CSB map or notes and/or a CS notes. Pretty gutsy. It makes me wonder what was on those notes/map. But not for too long.

The County Surveyor did sign the map. He didn't have to. Could have just put his note on the map and left it as is without signing it I guess.



Anyway, it looks like the survey was a survey of a "Ranch in Paradise". Maybe that's why the surveyor did what he did. I mean, what can go wrong in Paradise? (the garden of eden being the exception)

pls7809 wrote:"Wonder why the CS didn't make a similar not for the NE Cor of Sec 28 on the 2001 survey."

The 2001 RS does have a similar note, although it is stamped sideways on the page over to the right side. A little inconspicuous, but he did catch it.

I saw that note Ryan. It speaks of the NW corner of the section and it's effect on the subsequently determined N and W 1/4 corners and the Center of Section. It does not address the apparently hare brained re-establishment of the NE Section Corner at all. Did I miss a different note?

btaylor wrote:Evan I believe it is "hare brained" as in the brain of a rabbit, but it is a funny phrase that makes one think "hair brained" which makes no sense.

Thanks for the clarification, Bryan. I wasn't certain if the reference was to the brain of a rabbit, similar to referring to someone as squirrelly, or if it meant that the person's hair was growing inward and tangling in the gra mater.

E_Page wrote:I saw that note Ryan. It speaks of the NW corner of the section and it's effect on the subsequently determined N and W 1/4 corners and the Center of Section. It does not address the apparently hare brained re-establishment of the NE Section Corner at all. Did I miss a different note?

I didn't even notice that corner was established. I was spending my time on the NW corner (established by prolongation in the 1999 RS). Where the heck would that corner have gone in two years?