All my boundary lines have width

Typically mine have gaps too. Now my easements also have thickness but they have many gaps.

All boundary lines have enough width to chop a line down them and walk along them without trespassing. At least that what I tell people.

I do not have a problem in explaining to the layman that a boundary line may have more "width" in certain areas which have some inherent monumented discrepancies. Some people get that concept, instead of trying to explain things in surveying vernacular.

Your in luck, Mr. Stahl is headed your way. He is going to explain surveying theory to you, he agrees with Lucas that even the CLSA does not have a clue when it comes to professional surveying.Here are some great quotes from him about the CLSA and their brief from the most recent Lucas article/trashfest."Deward...Posted By JB Stahl on 9/9/2007 at 5:56 PMYou stated in your 2:01 post, "The fact is the brief spells out solid survey theory that if one does not follow creates the chaos that is this case.""You're the one who claims that the brief "spells out solid survey theory." You cut/paste the "solid survey theory" that you think the brief spells out.I will wait while you find it.JBS"Here is another couple of good ones for you about this unpublished case and the brief."Deward...Posted By JB Stahl on 9/9/2007 at 5:12 PMThe questions you are asking are rhetorical questions. They aren't meant to be answered. The answers are obvious. They are designed to make the reader think. Rhetorical questions aren't grounds for "libel." Deward asked, "Did the CLSA brief support the Knerr surveyor and survey or the South Bay survey or surveyor?" Yes. Go back to the cover page of the CLSA brief. They filed the brief on behalf of the Appellant, Knerr. Read the title, "Application to the Presiding Justice and Proposed Amicus Curiae Brief of the California Land Surveyors Association [In Support of the Appellant]."In the CLSA response letter, they state that the option wasn't available to file an unaffiliated brief. CLSA also understands, according to the letter, that Lucas was asking rhetorical questions.Since when does an Appellate Court brief become law? Should we apply equal status to the Appellant's brief or the Respondent's brief? Are they law as well? Or, should we accept the CLSA brief as "solid survey theory" even when the court's findings were contrary? It really doesn't make much sense to simply ignore the court's ruling just because it contradicts our definition of "solid survey theory." The chaos was created by failing to accept and utilize the established interior monuments, a direct contradiction to so-called "solid survey theory."JBSModified By JB Stahl on 9/9/2007 at 5:15 PM""Re: Knerr vs Mauldin (again)Posted By JB Stahl on 9/9/2007 at 12:09 PMThe CLSA letter and brief represent the majority view of most surveyors and is in line with the past two decades of traveling seminars and survey treatises. Unfortunately, the courts (as Lucas properly represents) are expressing their long-standing and opposing view.The CLSA letter (which was posted on this site within 10 minutes of its public release) expresses "THE CORE ISSUE - The premise that CLSA felt was important to have the courts understand was that recovered, verified, original monuments that control the exterior boundary of a protracted subdivision of land (that is, no original interior monuments were ever set), should supersede non-original monuments set at the corners of the interior lots by later surveys."That is precisely the issue that the court addressed. They clearly stated a long-held position that, "Where, as here, there is an established interior monument near the lots being surveyed, it is that monument that should be used. (See, e.g., State of California v. Thompson ( Cal.App.3d 368, 379 ['Although respondent contends that [appellant's surveyor] ought to have commenced his survey from the east in order to literally ‘follow in the footsteps' of [the original surveyor], this argument is without merit. A survey from the nearest established corner is least liable to error' ].)"When one studies the Thompson case it is immediately apparent that it involves a PLSS boundary line. Surveyors seem to immediately perceive that PLSS boundaries are different from protracted subdivision boundaries, therefore the application of any principles from Thompson would be inapplicable to Knerr. Pay close attention to the particular principle stated. It is not a PLSS principle, it is a common law principle which applies to all boundary lines as well as simple logic. The Knerr court said, "there is an established interior monument near the lots being surveyed, it is that monument that should be used." The principle quoted in Thompson was recited in Gordon v. Booker, an 1893 California case, where it was stated that "A survey by courses and distances from the nearest established corner is least liable to error." The principle was again repeated in the 1958 California case of Chandler v. Hibberd stating, "Were this a mere surveying problem, the fixing of the obliterated corner by following courses and distances from the nearest established corner ... would be proper.".Notice that this progeny of cases recounts a centuries old principle applied with specific key words by the courts. Surveyors have done their best to distance themselves from determining boundary lines in accordance with the direction of the courts and have traded their direction for "surveying principles" which have denigrated our profession to one of locating physical evidence and stopping short of actually applying the legal principles of establishment to determine corner positions. We would rather select only those principles which we are comfortable with and let the landowners pay the court to resolve the "others."The Lucas article points out the diametrically opposed viewpoints between the position of the courts and the position of the majority of surveyors as expressed in the CLSA brief. The issue regards interior monuments set after the original survey and protracted subdivision lines were made. Lucas' statement, which seems to be taken by some surveyors with such exasperation, was simply this."No matter how hard we try to make the world conform to our calculated representations, our 'rules of surveying' and our own notions of the way things ought to be, there is one tiny little problem: if those calculations, rules and notions don’t conform with the law and equity, they are simply wrong."Certainly, there is nothing libelous about a statement such as that. Surveyors must pay close attention to the rulings of the court. They provide us with excellent examples of the application of well-founded and long-held principles which are to be used by surveyors to determine boundary locations. The court is speaking; surveyors should be listening.JBSModified By JB Stahl on 9/9/2007 at 12:18 PM"Here is a preview of what he is going to tell you about this case. Which by the way has turned out to be completely false."Re: 1st Impression -CLSAPosted By JB Stahl on 9/1/2007 at 10:08 PMOh, I'm sorry. Deward said "confused," not "wrong." So, why is it that the surveyor clearly understands the issues and the court is "confused?" Could it be that surveyors need to re-think their understanding of the definition of the terms "original" or "first" surveyor?Correct me if I'm wrong, here, but the brief by the CLSA... isn't that the one that the court disagreed with? It hardly seems appropriate to be basing our practice on principles that the court has so clearly disagreed with.JBS"I truly envy you California surveyors. I would fly out there but I might get trampled under the rush to go see Mr. Stahl and hear him expound on what idiots all of you are out there.

You are 3 enemas short of happy.N

I am sure I am as happy as Mr. Stahl.

If JBS actually said this...he agrees with Lucas that even the CLSA does not have a clue when it comes to professional surveying. Thats a pretty arrogant and ignorant thing to say. Lucas I can understand saying that, but I give JBS a lot more credit. BTW..Nice derail.

Just my opinion above.If Mr. Stahl wants to continue to play the cutdown game, I can play too.I have put up with this for sometime now from him without responding, he is just reaping what he sows.

I thought they were 0.04' wide so that is why the 0.04' always shows up unexpectedly.

"I have put up with this for sometime now from him without responding, he is just reaping what he sows."Dan "Ya'll smell that" McCabe

Muddy has just solved the mystery of the 0.04'!!!!Can y'all not give a minute of silence for this awesome occasion!

So, what you are saying is, that you made that up?

Those are quotes from Mr. Stahl.Entire posts, I have done nothing to alter them.Go back and look them up yourself.

It was not meant as mean spirited. But, there is no life in winning or loosing this one.Let it fizz down like a dud firecracker, with a wet fuse. N

Oh my, gaps in boundary lines! No wonder illegals are getting across our southerly borders, their slipping through the gaps!

0.10' + 1/10,000 length of line would solve a lot of everyone's problems. If a called for rod is out 0.12' on a 200 foot line, ACCEPT IT! If it's out 14 feet, well...............go to court I guess.

A few points of clarification are apparently in order... Where to start...I guess, in keeping with the topic of this thread, I have never said that a boundary line is 1/8" wide. What I have said can be found The short version of my comments were:

Deward is correct in reciting the legal principle that a boundary line, once established, does not move in a legal sense. I do, however, disagree that a title line and a line of occupation cannot coincide.Coincidence between the occupation and title is not a mathematical issue, it is a legal one. Width of the fence and the width of the finest monofilament made has nothing to do with it. Both Alan and Matt have recited instances where the fence line could be called for in the description as the boundary, just as any physical object can.

Let me now address the mis characterizations and misquotations posted in my absence.I graciously accepted an invitation from CLSA to present two two-day seminars, one in southern California and one in northern California. The presentations are being made at the invitation of the surveyors and I am grateful for their interest in what I would have to say. It is rather humbling to realize that others may have an interest in the knowledge and experiences I have gained from legal research, court appearances and mediations. I hope that I can impart to them even a small portion of my experiences.A statement was made which I must address. It was stated that I "agree with Lucas that even the CLSA does not have a clue when it comes to professional surveying." I must emphatically deny making any such statement or implication. I don't recall reading anywhere that Lucas made any such statement either. The statement made is not one of my own and is a complete mis characterization and fabrication designed to disparage my character. I have clearly expressed with regard to CLSA's actions in the recent case of Knerr v. Mauldin. Following is a synopsis of my statements:

I commend CLSA for their efforts. I do disagree with certain statements made in their brief, and it is unfortunate that they sided with the losing party by the mis-application of some principles. The CLSA voice was, however, heard by the court ... I am glad, however, that CLSA had the fortitude to take a position and to ask the question. If they hadn't, we likely wouldn't have gotten such a clear answer. My only hope now is that the surveying profession will heed the answer even when many of us would like to disagree. ... Thank you, CLSA.

I can only hope that the California surveyors and other professional surveyors who frequent this forum can see through the ruse being presented here which is nothing more than a childish vendetta triggered by a difference of opinion which I have expressed. Apparently a difference of opinion is not acceptable by some in our profession. I have no intention of "explaining surveying theory" to anyone or "expounding upon what idiots" anyone is. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I have no such agenda. The invitation to speak at CLSA was offered and accepted long before the Knerr ruling was ever heard of and long before September of this year. The course material which I will be presenting was prepared several years ago at the request of the Colorado land surveyors and has been since requested at the last three ACSM conventions with a recent invitation to present them again next year in Spokane. I am also excited to make similar presentations at next years' Idaho state convention and the Land Surveyors Workshops Continuing Education Cruise. I can only hope that these recent disparaging remarks will not deter surveyors from attending the presentations which have been scheduled. I can also only hope that those currently considering future invitations will also not let these remarks impact their decision negatively.Despite these remarks I will continue to present my views in this open forum and expect others to continue to do so as well. I am aware that others have gotten fed up with similar attacks upon their professional opinions and have stopped posting on this forum. It is unacceptable that anyone should be subjected to public ridicule to the point of fearing to freely and openly express their views.Thank you all for your support and your time. I am sorry you all have been subjected to this errant and unprofessional public display.JBSP.S. If anyone is interested in fully studying the totality of my comments regarding the Knerr case in their original context, the following links are provided:

This boundary line width topic is the strangest concept ever to me. What in the world does it have to do with anything related to surveying? I could care less if it's zero or a mile wide. It's as wide as the monument that marks it. A pin, a fence or a wall or a river. Dang, we make this stuff harder than it needs to be. After a while you lose all sense of reality as we have seen recently.

When I hear someone say that their boundary lines have width, it tells me the survey was so poorly retraced, that the error is also wide.

I don't get why width equates to error.

(Sarcasm turned on) If you express an error as a +- number 0.05'+-, the line becomes 0.10' wide.Sarcasm on the point that property/boundary lines have width: they don't. If there was such a rule, who would be the owner of the line? What purpose would it serve? Buffer between owners? What would the owner beable to do within this width? Set toothpicks? The idea a line has a width is ridiculous, and shouldn't even be discussed. But for those that get caught up in the moment, here is another tale ...(sarcasm turned off)

Like I've said before and will say again for the sake of clarifying my position on the "width" issue. Width of a boundary line is IRRELEVANT. Boundaries don't have dimension, they have PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS. Otherwise, they would never be seen or made known. There are times when one of those characteristics is width.JBS

I'm glad I don't practice in the same area Deward does. Any questioning on my part of his survey would result in me being accused of questioning his practice, his professionalism, his ethics and his manhood.ExampleME: I don't understand how you calculated this pin position.Deward: How dare you question my methods. I'll have you know that I know what I'm doing and because I pasted the 16 hour NCEES test on the first try, I will not tolerate you questioning my methods! I also resent your implying that I lied about where I set that pin and that I am unprofessional. You have no evidence of this and until you provide such, you are nothing short of a bald face liar. I will await your response.(waiting for response) Your lack of response speaks volumes. You have proven yourself to be a liar.