Wisdom Wednesdays for the land surveying profession is a bi-weekly roundtable discussion to go over a chapter at a time from our “Surveying Bibles.” The goal is for everyone to read a chapter of a book and then have a roundtable discussion about that chapter. The current book being discussed is The Pincushion Effect by Jeffrey Lucas.
About the book
American land surveying has a dilemma; it’s called the “pincushion corner.” This is a name used to describe the phenomena of multiple boundary monuments being set by land surveyors when only one boundary corner exists under the law. The pincushion has not gone unnoticed by the legal profession and the general public. It is now common knowledge that no two surveyors can agree on the location of any given property corner. The pincushion is physical proof of that notion. Not only is the pincushion becoming a public relations disaster for the profession, it is causing those who might otherwise consider commissioning a survey to decide otherwise. And herein lies the dilemma; no one wants to hire the surveyor because of the way surveying is practiced, the pincushion being emblematic of that practice. This book explores the effect of the pincushion, how the phenomena started, why it exists, and remedies to end the practices that allow the pincushion corner to not only exist, but to flourish.
| Meeting summary for Wisdom Wednesdays for the Land Surveying Profession – “Book Club” (10/09/2024) | |
| Quick recap | |
| The team discussed their upcoming unavailability and a book on land surveying, with a focus on the importance of understanding the grantor’s intent in land disputes. They also discussed the role of surveyors, the concept of “following in the footsteps” of the original surveyor, and the challenges of property surveying. The conversation ended with plans to continue the discussion in two weeks, emphasizing the importance of practicality in defining property lines and the use of historical methods in land surveying. | |
| Next steps | |
| • Trent Williams to prepare for Chapter 3 discussion in the next meeting. | |
| • Jeff to consider updating the Rivers vs. Lazio case discussion in a potential second edition of the book. | |
| • All participants to review Chapter 3 before the next meeting in two weeks. | |
| • Trent Keenan to share more information about the Dykes vs. Arnold case in Oregon from 2006 at the next meeting. | |
| • Jeff to elaborate further on the “first surveyor” concept and its implications in the next session. | |
| • All participants to consider how to apply the concepts of “original surveyor” and “retracement surveyor” in their current work. | |
| • Trent Keenan to provide an update on the resolution of the mapping error in the commercial center project at a future meeting. | |
| • All participants to reflect on the importance of considering grantor/grantee intent rather than surveyor intent in boundary determinations. | |
| Summary | |
| Book Discussion and Time Management Strategies | |
| Jeffery shared his upcoming unavailability on November 6th due to a conference. The team also discussed a book, with Jeffery expressing surprise at its durability despite some outdated references. They considered creating a second edition, with Jeffery suggesting changes to court cases and adding more case law from different states. Trent Keenan expressed interest in a book on Nevada case law. The team also discussed time management, with a focus on a dance event. Jeffery committed to being more mindful of questions and not dominating the conversation. The conversation ended with Trent Keenan suggesting they start at the beginning of the book, and Trent Williams appreciating its common sense approach and ability to stand the test of time. | |
| Discussing Surveyor Intent and Public Land Survey System | |
| Trent Williams and David discussed the role of a surveyor and the concept of “following in the footsteps” of the original surveyor. Trent Keenan shared an example from a project where they found original corners but realized the original surveyor had miscalculated the section, leading to a discrepancy of 6 feet. The team debated the importance of intent and the original surveyor’s intentions versus the actual location of the corners. Jerry, who joined late, emphasized the importance of understanding the intent of the grantee or grantor in the context of the public Land survey system, rather than focusing on the actions of the surveyor. | |
| Land Surveying Intent, Roles, and Challenges | |
| Jerry, Trent Keenan, Trent Williams, and Jeffery discussed the concept of ‘intent’ in land surveying, emphasizing that it is not the surveyor’s role but rather the grantor and grantees’ instructions. They also discussed the importance of evaluating historical records and section breakdowns in surveying. Trent Keenan shared an example of a surveying error that was being rectified, highlighting the potential for costly fixes. The team also discussed the roles of original and following surveyors in land surveying, with Jeffery clarifying that the original surveyor is responsible for breaking down and creating new parcels within a section, while the following surveyor’s role is to locate and trace the boundary lines established by the original surveyor. Jeffery also discussed the challenges of property surveying, the discrepancies that can arise between the actual property size and the requirements set by the building department, and the importance of accurate field measurements and considering the property’s established occupation and neighborhood knowledge. | |
| Addressing Monumentation Discrepancies and Property Lines | |
| Trent Keenan discussed discrepancies between the original 1955 monumentation and the current state, which could impact property lines and encroachments. Jeffery shared a similar experience in Birmingham where original corners were obscured by adjacent buildings. The group emphasized accurately retracing deeds and surveys using historical methods, rather than relying solely on modern technologies like RTK. They discussed challenges like erroneously placed monuments affecting property lines. Jeffery distinguished between precise measurements and accurate boundary locations, stressing the importance of the doctrine of monuments over strict measurements for title companies and state standards. | |
| Surveying Practices and Monument Recognition | |
| Trent Keenan and Jeffery discussed the differences in surveying practices between the East and West coasts, with the East adhering to traditional methods and the West breaking down sections. Jeffery shared his experiences surveying across the country, highlighting the challenges in the original 13 colonies where landowners hold onto stone walls. The team emphasized the importance of original monuments set by the original surveyor, as recognized by the Federal Government. James discussed the potential complications when different landowners use the same monument to define their properties, as one set of landowners’ use of a monument does not necessarily mean it should be used for others. | |
| Land Surveying, Local Nuances, and Validation | |
| James and Trent discussed the importance of understanding local nuances and the role of surveyors in land surveying. They emphasized the need to gather all evidence and compare it to the original survey pattern to determine the validity of corners and monuments. James suggested that a mathematical model of the original subdivision should be created and compared to the physical evidence found on the ground. Trent shared his process of locating all known corners and witness corners in a section, drafting the plat, and then shooting points to establish the center line of a subdivision. They agreed that the key is to identify the original surveyor and understand the intent of the grantor. The conversation ended with the importance of validating monuments before using them and the use of computers to create mathematical models for comparison. | |
| Court Case Discussion: Property Lines and Intent | |
| Trent Keenan and Trent Williams discussed a court case involving center quarter sections. James emphasized the importance of practicality in defining property lines, using an analogy to gas measurements. The group agreed to move on due to time constraints. Trent Williams stressed the importance of understanding the grantor’s intent rather than the surveyor’s intent in land disputes. The team agreed that the primary focus should be on the grantor’s intent, as it is the most relevant factor in interpreting deeds. | |
| First Surveyor Concept and Land Ownership Disputes | |
| Trent Williams and Jeffery discussed the concept of the ‘first surveyor’ and its implications. Jeffery explained a case involving a section in Florida that was originally surveyed in the 18th century and later further broken down by local surveyors, leading to a dispute over land ownership. He emphasized that the Bureau of Land Management’s actions were contrary to the principles of a dependent resurvey. The discussion ended with the implication that the section might have been originally broken down based on the original monuments. Jeffery also discussed a legal case involving a surveyor’s map and the concept of “good faith location,” emphasizing the importance of intent over actions. Trent Keenan joined the discussion, expressing his enjoyment of the book due to the numerous court cases cited. Plans were made to continue the discussion in two weeks. | |
| AI-generated content may be inaccurate or misleading. Always check for accuracy. | |
