Newsgroup sci.engr.surveying 3673

Directory

In article <19961121021400.VAA29183@ladder01.news.aol.com>, gm1751@aol.com
writes:
(snip)
> Do I understand that in the United States ( in general)
>the dimensions on the face of the registered plan of subdivision overrule
>the ties to house. 
I think that it would be dificult to come up with a typical standard for
any procedure after reading in this newsgroup.
In So. Cal. we would use building ties as the very last resort to est. a
sub. lot line. I could only attribute this to the 
fact that most of our sudivisions are post 1800's and that there are very
little tie's to any buildings on our ROS's , legal
descriptions or sub. maps.
(snip)
>Here in Ontario it is accepted practice to use house ties when retracing
>old subdivision lines.  The mandate of our association is to use the
"best
>available evidence" (from our legislation) and it has been determined
that
>in many instances building ties are the best evidence of running the
>original line.
Again here in So. Cal. most of our maps are more recent and would prevail
( in my opinion) .
>The practice of trying to reset the plan dimension to the
>lot line and then disagreeing with a previous surveyors tie is frowned
>upon since it tends to upset the home owners with no good reason. This
>principle may overrule proportioning through a subdivision since
>proportioning makes the assumption that the error occured systematically.
This would depend on what procedure that you use to retrace the
subdivision.
Proportioning is not the only method to use to retrace a sud. and I would
frown heavily upon 
a home owner telling me that they don't like the corner there, they want
it over there.
>Our older firms have records dating back to the late 1800's when the
>monuments were merely wood stakes or not set at all.  In many cases there
>are still building ties that will relate directly to the lot lines and
>street lines and are considered as effectively irrefutable since they
were
>taken at a time close to the running of the original line.
The NW 1/4 corner of sec. 4 will always be the NW 1/4 of sec 4 to any
surveyor. Ten feet west from the
most westerly corner of Joe Shmoe's red house on lot 4 will could put you
in a different position at any given year
to any different surveyor. I'm not saying that it shouldn't be used, I'm
just saying, for me it would be the last weapon.
(snip)
>I am interested in the different products that you discuss in these
>postings.  It seems that there are different quality of surveys available
>in different states. I read earlier about the property owner in Colordo
>who found that his survey neglected to mention an easement and was in
>reality not done for the owner but for the Title insurance Co.  In that
>instance it seemed that the mortgage survey was of a lower quality than a
>Survey of Record (registered somewhere?). Is this true? 
>In Ontario a survey is a survey and is to meet the same research and
field
>work standards every time, monumentation and plan format may differ if
the
>product is to be registered in our Registry Office.
Any survey that I do for Title Co. are of the minimum standards of the
ALTA/ACSM and
are accompanied with a ROS or Corner Record. Nothing less.
>Building ties are a vital part of our evidence structure because
sidewalks can be ripped out
>and lots regraded but foundations of buildings very rarely move.
I would fundamentally agree with that statement. But, where I live,
unfortunately people do additions to there
homes, permitted or unpermitted. Thirty, forty, fifty years later you can
not tell, no matter how much you research,
that you are measuring from the exact spot that the orig. surveyor stood
to measure to the lot line. Therefore record angles
must be used as a general practice to re-est. sub..  After all if they
built there fence, pool, house, shed, driveway, garden,
wall, dog run ect... over the lot line, then they should have gotten there
lot surveyed BEFORE they built in the first place.
Ignorance is no exuse in property ownership.
((((((((((((The OPINIONS expressed are purely my own and do not intend to
imply finality to the subject.))))))))))))))
**********************************
*        Rick Turner LSIT         *
*     San Diego California      *
*                 USA                   *
*   OU81TUU@AOL.COM     *
**********************************

I am investigating the possibility of using GPS for making maps of 
archaeological sites in Turkey.  I'm looking for some help in choosing 
the appropriate equipment.  Cost is a very significant factor as the 
projects for which I work are definitely "not for profit".  (It usually 
costs me money to work for them.)
From what I've read so far, it seems I can get a basic unit for around 
$200.  This should give me accuracy to about 100 meters.
Q: What is my range of choices of brands & models?
Q: Is there a web site (like a distributor catalog) which would give 
features and prices, etc?
Q: Do these basic units allow recording of data that can be transferred 
to a PC?
Q: How long does it usually take to take a reading?
Q: If I take a number of readings from the same position, shouldn't I be 
able to come up with a more accurate estimate by analyzing the variation 
in the readings?
Q: Is elevation data any more or less accurate than XY data?
For better accuracy,  I understand I would need a "differential receiver" 
which runs about $500.  This option does not seem feasible as I don't 
think I would have access to any real time correction signals in Turkey.
My local Forest Service worker uses "post-processing".  He gets 
correction information from some local agency to correct his field 
readings in the office.
Q: How fancy does my equipment need to be to perform these corrections?
Q: I assume the correction data has to be fairly local to the field 
measurements.  Are there agencies in Turkey that could provide this kind 
of data? (I believe getting the Turkish authorities to supply this kind 
of data would be very difficult.  I was hoping maybe an American or 
British source might be available.  The base at Adana would be ideal, but 
I don't know how to start communication with them.)
Q: Would it be possible to set up some kind of local post-processing 
system by taking data from a fixed position with one instrument while 
collecting data with a mobil instrument and then applying relative 
corrections?
Thanking in advance those who take the trouble to help me out.
Fred Beever

In article <3292B118.2AA9@ix.netcom.com>, Christopher Stevens
 writes
>I recently purchased at auction a transit.  It was identified by the
>auctioneer as a navigational instrument, but my one semester of
>surveying leads me to believe it is a transit.  The only identifying
>marks are the words "Stanley" and "London" stamped into the base.
>
>Is anyone familiar with this company?  Are they still in business?  Do
>they have a web site?  Do you have their address?
>
>Any information you can provide is appreciated.
>
>Thanks, Christopher Stevens
>
>(ctsteve@ix.netcom.com)
        Stanley have been out of business for a LONG time, as far as I
know. This may be incorrect, but I seem to remember there was a
connection withe another, later, British maker, Cooke, Troughton & Simms
(sp?), also now out of business, absorbed into (I think) the UK Topcon
agents.
        I have a circa 1900 Stanley dumpy level, with a long history of
work in colonial East, West and South Africa, (my father used it for
contour ditching on his South African farm up to the late 1980s), which
has a broken telescope level vial, and I'd sure like to track down
somebody who could replace or repair it. Any ideas.
ObOldInstruments:
        I remember reading a paragraph in an old Brit. colonial survey
manual on how to repair theodolite crosshairs. It began: "First, catch a
medium sized-spider".
-- 
|>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Stuart Dawson            Dawson Engineering
sd@dawson-eng.demon.co.uk 
Belfast, Northern Ireland   +44 1232 640669
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<|
Turnpike evaluation. For information, see http://www.turnpike.com/

I have always believed that angles should be "wrapped", as a check in the field, against errors, as well 
as, obtaining a higher degree of accuracy. I also shoot all of my first shots, with the data collector, 
but take hard notes, as well. Then, I "plunge" the scope, and measure another set of angles. I find, that 
many times, the rodman will shift, or not quite be plumb yet, at the time the shot is taken.  I prefer to 
let the EDM read continuous, observing several distances, as a check, before I write the distance down.  
If I solely used the data collector, which takes only one reading per shot, then I would introduce 
distance errors, into my field data. The data collector file, then comes in handy, when a number was 
written down wrong, in the hard notes.  Yes, I am aware that the data collector can record a variety of 
angle turning methods, and take multiple distance shots, if you re-run an entire cycle, but I'm in the 
business to make a living, and I don't have time to spend two or three times as long, waiting for all of 
those shots to be taken. Does anyone else traverse this way?  Does anyone else have any ideas for fast 
and efficient traversing?  Thank you for your input.
--
Sam King
rls2222@iland.net

Michael,
How's this for a title.... "Gravity. It's not just a good idea, it's the
law!!!"

Bravo! Well stated. We, in the U.S. have been taught the same principle, of using the best available 
evidence, in retracing surveyed lines. However, there are a great many surveyors, who ignore this 
principle, because it makes them look bad, if they don't come up with the plat dimensions. You are right, 
about some surveyors of old, setting wood stakes. With out exception, all of them I have run across, were 
engineers, practicing surveying like they were construction staking. But, I have found their ties to 
structures, such as buildings, etc., to be very reliable. The firm I purchased, ten years ago, had alot 
of these type surveys.  Today, we find very few wood stake remnants, but we are grateful for the ties to 
the buildings.  
A few weeks ago, I was reconstructing some tracts of land in an industrial park, that had been sold off 
by metes & bounds descriptions.  It seems that an attorney wrote the descriptions, based on his 
misinterpretation of the old survey provided. He erroneously assumed the highway r-o-w line was the 
section line, which resulted in a sizeable error. At first, I couldn't make anything fit, since the 
original surveyor had used wood stakes.  However, I was able to recover two of them, after reproducing 
the lines, from ties to buildings. The best available evidence.
--
Sam King
rls2222@iland.net

** POSTING FOR SOMEONE ELSE - PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS EMAIL
ADDRESS **
ALIDADE and PLANE TABLE for sale; Keuffel & Esser 81214; used, with 
extension leg tripod and 24"x18" plane table. Excellent condition, 
$2300 (US$). 
CONTACT: Lost World Trading Company, c/o Thomas Banks, P.O. Box 365, 
Oakdale, CA 95361, USA.  Phone: 209-847-5393 or FAX 209-847-6383.
** POSTING FOR SOMEONE ELSE - PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS EMAIL
ADDRESS **

Hi all,
I understand Mr. Turners' opinion. We as licensed
practitioners of land surveying, render just that
Opinions.
EVERY part of ANY survey is evidence evaluation that
points to where the original corner was placed. Every
day we evaluate evidence, some of that evidence is
conflicting evidence. We must evaluate EVERY piece of
that evidence, large or small, and place weight in that
evidence.
House ties granted may be considered a "small" piece of
evidence in the evaluation process of the evidence for
the determination for a corner. I would have to ask; If
the N1/4 corner of Section 4 was obliterated and one
was attempting to re-monument it, and you had a drawing
referencing a house corner, how much weight would you
place in that tie?
Brown states is Boundary Control and Legal Principles,
3rd Ed. 1986, concerning improvements as monuments, "If
the original monuments of an original survey are lost
and a series of old fences, old buildings, or other
aged boundary indicators are in agreement with one
another... that such improvements are considered as
being the best remaining evidence of the original
survey."
Sometimes here in Colorado, the best remaining evidence
is old ties to structures, sometimes a road, sometimes
a boundary wall/fence. Many times this is not the case.
Every survey is different, any and every piece of
evidence must be evaluated. 
Record angles are evidence and pointers to where 
the original corners were placed, just another piece
of evidence. Be it large or small, but another part
of the puzzle of putting corner locations back to their
original location, not necessarily the proper location.
Madson's Rules for Land Surveyors, Printed via
Wisconsin Society of Land Surveyors (date unknown)
stated in Rule Ten; "Never set a corner in disagreement
with improvements without first satisfying yourself
that you are not only right, but that your "right" will
prevail in court if necessary." also stated in Rule
Eight by Madson; "Search and search well! If it is
there, find it. If it isn't, be able to say with
certainty that it isn't there."
Well, for what it's worth.
Ronald Flanagan PLS
Colorado Engineering & Surveying Inc. - Englewood, Colorado
Professional land surveying services since 1972

An object fired from the ground is a projectile.  Add thrust and it becomes
a rocket which then takes you into orbit.  Thus describes a unifying
process of three distinct problems merged into one that can be found in
practically every introductory textbook on Newtonian Physics.   If you
would like to solve from first principles a word problem in all its gory
detail but haven't the inclination to go through the tedious calculations
necessary to understand how the process works, Course Report allows you the
opportunity to do so.  
Course Report (Version 1.0: Classical Dynamics) is a (2 term second year)
course that is dynamically built into a specially designed browser
combining the power of symbolic computation (Maple V, Visual C++ and
ActiveX Controls) with an easy to use simulator interface available on the
World Wide Web (http://www.aposoft.com/CourseReport).  A key feature is the
interface linking the "rule of three" pedagogy (I) graphical, (II)
analytical and (III) numerical together in one streamlined application.  As
you proceed through your problem sets (with illustrative examples), new
problems link up with previous ones (projectile motion in a resistive
medium --> Kepler's orbital motion) in both content as well as
infrastructure and quickly you find the course understandable and feel that
you know where it is going.
As a student you can subscribe online getting updates every week as you
progress through the course.  As an instructor you have access to the
entire course material complete with a set of modules designed to fit
flexibly into your curriculum.  As such, you have full control over what
degree Course Report can be used in assignments, projects, etc.  Whether
you are instructor or student you will find it enlightening, practical and
easy to use.
The above 3 paragraphs are a promotional item that describes a "distance
learning" package which is currently in its development stages (due for
release in January 1997).  A prototype of Course Report is now available at
the address:
			http://www.aposoft.com/CourseReport
If you are interested in the package and want more information or if you
would like to meet with us, contact Adam Mezei at 
			adam@aposoft.com
For technical and content queries contact Scott Allen at
			sallen@aposoft.com