My new neighbour, with whom we have cultivated good relations by lending
him tools etc. etc. has renewed his side of the ?joint? tarmac drive.
The boundary was marked by the remains of the lone gone fence. Which is
now covered by tarmac to a few of inches on my side, which is a great
improvement so I am not complaining, but I have apparently lost a few
inches of land. I had previously marked the boundary at both ends by
chisel marks in concrete, so a bit of string will tell me where it is.

Has any one any good ideas as to how I could re-mark the boundary?
I was thinking of whacking thin line with a bolster.
--
Dave Fawthrop dave hyphenologist co uk Google Groups is IME the *worst*
method of accessing usenet. GG subscribers would be well advised get a
newsreader, say Agent, and a newsserver, say news.individual.net. These
will allow them: to see only *new* posts, a killfile, and other goodies.

in 579003 20061014 092005 Dave Fawthrop wrote:
My new neighbour, with whom we have cultivated good relations by lending
him tools etc. etc. has renewed his side of the ?joint? tarmac drive.
The boundary was marked by the remains of the lone gone fence. Which is
now covered by tarmac to a few of inches on my side, which is a great
improvement so I am not complaining, but I have apparently lost a few
inches of land. I had previously marked the boundary at both ends by
chisel marks in concrete, so a bit of string will tell me where it is.

Has any one any good ideas as to how I could re-mark the boundary?
I was thinking of whacking thin line with a bolster.

A line of kerb-stones?

"Dave Fawthrop" wrote in message
...
My new neighbour, with whom we have cultivated good relations by lending
him tools etc. etc. has renewed his side of the ?joint? tarmac drive.
The boundary was marked by the remains of the lone gone fence. Which is
now covered by tarmac to a few of inches on my side, which is a great
improvement so I am not complaining, but I have apparently lost a few
inches of land. I had previously marked the boundary at both ends by
chisel marks in concrete, so a bit of string will tell me where it is.

Has any one any good ideas as to how I could re-mark the boundary?
I was thinking of whacking thin line with a bolster.
--
Dave Fawthrop

============================
Buy a can of marker paint, either spray or brush. The brushed type can be
applied to a damp surface if necessary and you can use masking tape to outline.
Most builders' merchants will stock one or both.

I would suggest that you consider re-instating a fence in the long term since
you appear to have a neighbour who could become too demanding.

Cic.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 1291 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try SPAMfighter for free now!

Dave Fawthrop wrote:

My new neighbour, with whom we have cultivated good relations by lending
him tools etc. etc. has renewed his side of the ?joint? tarmac drive.
The boundary was marked by the remains of the lone gone fence. Which is
now covered by tarmac to a few of inches on my side, which is a great
improvement so I am not complaining, but I have apparently lost a few
inches of land. I had previously marked the boundary at both ends by
chisel marks in concrete, so a bit of string will tell me where it is.

Has any one any good ideas as to how I could re-mark the boundary?
I was thinking of whacking thin line with a bolster.

If all you want is to be able to identify the line, how about a
few clout head nails? Easily visible if you need to find them,
without being over obvious.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Have dancing shoes, will ceilidh.

Chris J Dixon wrote:
Dave Fawthrop wrote:

My new neighbour, with whom we have cultivated good relations by lending
him tools etc. etc. has renewed his side of the ?joint? tarmac drive.
The boundary was marked by the remains of the lone gone fence. Which is
now covered by tarmac to a few of inches on my side, which is a great
improvement so I am not complaining, but I have apparently lost a few
inches of land. I had previously marked the boundary at both ends by
chisel marks in concrete, so a bit of string will tell me where it is.

Has any one any good ideas as to how I could re-mark the boundary?
I was thinking of whacking thin line with a bolster.

If all you want is to be able to identify the line, how about a
few clout head nails? Easily visible if you need to find them,
without being over obvious.

If it's straight line, starting from an identifiable point on/between
the two houses, then all you need is a single masonry nail at the point
where the dividing line meets your joint front boundary line.

It can be safely hammered right in, and doesn't even need to be visible,
so long as there's a written record that the nail exists, and of the
point it is intended to mark. Then anyone with a nail/pipe/wire finder
can go straight to it.

But do have your neighbour right there when you do it, so he can agree
exactly where the nail should go. Without becoming overly legalistic,
if an independent third party happened to be standing around at the same
time, then better still.


--
Ian White

Dave Fawthrop wrote:
My new neighbour, with whom we have cultivated good relations by lending
him tools etc. etc. has renewed his side of the ?joint? tarmac drive.
The boundary was marked by the remains of the lone gone fence. Which is
now covered by tarmac to a few of inches on my side, which is a great
improvement so I am not complaining, but I have apparently lost a few
inches of land. I had previously marked the boundary at both ends by
chisel marks in concrete, so a bit of string will tell me where it is.

Has any one any good ideas as to how I could re-mark the boundary?
I was thinking of whacking thin line with a bolster.
--
Dave Fawthrop dave hyphenologist co uk Google Groups is IME the *worst*
method of accessing usenet. GG subscribers would be well advised get a
newsreader, say Agent, and a newsserver, say news.individual.net. These
will allow them: to see only *new* posts, a killfile, and other goodies.

I'd cut the tarmac back with a diamond disc now and put a small curb or
edging in it, or in 5 or 10 years time your current neighbour might not
be you neighbour and a dispute could ensue, whether you are in the
right or wrong it could end up costing you! get it done now and let
your neighbour know you are doing it incase he moves at some point and
he might not get arsy about it.

In message , Dave Fawthrop
writes
My new neighbour, with whom we have cultivated good relations by lending
him tools etc. etc. has renewed his side of the ?joint? tarmac drive.
The boundary was marked by the remains of the lone gone fence. Which is
now covered by tarmac to a few of inches on my side, which is a great
improvement so I am not complaining, but I have apparently lost a few
inches of land. I had previously marked the boundary at both ends by
chisel marks in concrete, so a bit of string will tell me where it is.

Has any one any good ideas as to how I could re-mark the boundary?
I was thinking of whacking thin line with a bolster.

Nails 30cm apart?

Even if the heads rust away, you could find them with cable sensor

--
geoff

In article , Dave
Fawthrop writes
My new neighbour, with whom we have cultivated good relations by lending
him tools etc. etc. has renewed his side of the ?joint? tarmac drive.
The boundary was marked by the remains of the lone gone fence. Which is
now covered by tarmac to a few of inches on my side, which is a great
improvement so I am not complaining, but I have apparently lost a few
inches of land. I had previously marked the boundary at both ends by
chisel marks in concrete, so a bit of string will tell me where it is.

Has any one any good ideas as to how I could re-mark the boundary?
I was thinking of whacking thin line with a bolster.

I've heard it suggested here to mark a boundary with steel rod (16mm?)
whacked deep into the ground with a little (50mm?) left poking up as a
visible indication. Whacking the rod in deep (600mm?) means nobody can
move them in a hurry so the boundary is safe.

For yours, how about 16mm x 400mm stainless rod whacked in flush every
300-600mm along the line. Ok, stainless rod is expensive so how about
some long stainless coach bolts instead, 6-9quid for 10 at screwfix and the
domed looks the biz.
http://www.screwfix.com/app/sfd/cat/pro.jsp?id=12962 (M10x130) or
http://www.screwfix.com/app/sfd/cat/pro.jsp?id=16746 (M8x150)
Maybe resined in too to stop them moving, either accidentally or on
purpose.
--
fred
Plusnet - I hope you like vanilla

On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 09:20:05 +0100, Dave Fawthrop
wrote:

My new neighbour, with whom we have cultivated good relations by lending
him tools etc. etc. has renewed his side of the ?joint? tarmac drive.
The boundary was marked by the remains of the lone gone fence. Which is
now covered by tarmac to a few of inches on my side, which is a great
improvement so I am not complaining, but I have apparently lost a few
inches of land. I had previously marked the boundary at both ends by
chisel marks in concrete, so a bit of string will tell me where it is.

Has any one any good ideas as to how I could re-mark the boundary?
I was thinking of whacking thin line with a bolster.


Could you not get your half tarmac'd as well..?


On this particular point I have often wondered exactly how boundaries are
marked.

What I mean is if this is a drive between two houses ,somewhere ..Land Registry
perhaps ?...there must be a drawing to show exactly where the land of one
neighbour ends and the land of the next door neighbour begins . How is this
delineated (sp) .Do they show a distance from one house to the boundary .

What would happen if ,for example,the house was destroyed in an explosion and
had to be pulled down .What would they use as a marker then ?




Stuart .

On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 13:24:22 +0100, Stuart
wrote:

|On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 09:20:05 +0100, Dave Fawthrop
wrote:
|
|My new neighbour, with whom we have cultivated good relations by lending
|him tools etc. etc. has renewed his side of the ?joint? tarmac drive.
|The boundary was marked by the remains of the lone gone fence. Which is
|now covered by tarmac to a few of inches on my side, which is a great
|improvement so I am not complaining, but I have apparently lost a few
|inches of land. I had previously marked the boundary at both ends by
|chisel marks in concrete, so a bit of string will tell me where it is.
|
|Has any one any good ideas as to how I could re-mark the boundary?
|I was thinking of whacking thin line with a bolster.
|
|
|Could you not get your half tarmac'd as well..?
|
|
|On this particular point I have often wondered exactly how boundaries are
|marked.
|
|What I mean is if this is a drive between two houses ,somewhere ..Land Registry
|perhaps ?...there must be a drawing to show exactly where the land of one
|neighbour ends and the land of the next door neighbour begins . How is this
|delineated (sp) .Do they show a distance from one house to the boundary .
|
|What would happen if ,for example,the house was destroyed in an explosion and
|had to be pulled down .What would they use as a marker then ?

I looked at the plans and they are not accurate enough to be useful.
--
Dave Fawthrop dave hyphenologist co uk Google Groups is IME the *worst*
method of accessing usenet. GG subscribers would be well advised get a
newsreader, say Agent, and a newsserver, say news.individual.net. These
will allow them: to see only *new* posts, a killfile, and other goodies.

The message
from Dave Fawthrop contains these words:

I looked at the plans and they are not accurate enough to be useful.

I can almost hear the lawyers rubbing they hands togther with glee.
Boundary disputes can be a big money winner for them not least because
there are not sufficently accurate measurements to be had and once the
original boundary markers go not a hope in hell of fixing boundaries to
the nearest inch, or even in most cases the nearest foot.

Leaving aside the inherent lack of precision in subdividing a field into
building plots it is impossible to scale off even as large a scale as
1:1250 to the required accuracy when the thickness of a line may amount
to a couple of feet.

--
Roger Chapman

On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 14:44:27 +0100, Roger
wrote:

|The message
|from Dave Fawthrop contains these words:
|
| I looked at the plans and they are not accurate enough to be useful.
|
|I can almost hear the lawyers rubbing they hands togther with glee.
|Boundary disputes can be a big money winner for them not least because
|there are not sufficently accurate measurements to be had and once the
|original boundary markers go not a hope in hell of fixing boundaries to
|the nearest inch, or even in most cases the nearest foot.
|
|Leaving aside the inherent lack of precision in subdividing a field into
|building plots it is impossible to scale off even as large a scale as
|1:1250 to the required accuracy when the thickness of a line may amount
|to a couple of feet.

Agreed which is why I intend to replace the markers when I can say "you can
remember what they were like.
--
Dave Fawthrop dave hyphenologist co uk Google Groups is IME the *worst*
method of accessing usenet. GG subscribers would be well advised get a
newsreader, say Agent, and a newsserver, say news.individual.net. These
will allow them: to see only *new* posts, a killfile, and other goodies.

On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 15:43:43 +0100, Dave Fawthrop
wrote:

On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 14:44:27 +0100, Roger
wrote:

|The message
|from Dave Fawthrop contains these words:
|
| I looked at the plans and they are not accurate enough to be useful.
|
|I can almost hear the lawyers rubbing they hands togther with glee.
|Boundary disputes can be a big money winner for them not least because
|there are not sufficently accurate measurements to be had and once the
|original boundary markers go not a hope in hell of fixing boundaries to
|the nearest inch, or even in most cases the nearest foot.
|
|Leaving aside the inherent lack of precision in subdividing a field into
|building plots it is impossible to scale off even as large a scale as
|1:1250 to the required accuracy when the thickness of a line may amount
|to a couple of feet.

Agreed which is why I intend to replace the markers when I can say "you can
remember what they were like.

I am still no wiser as to how the boundaries are noted "legally" .Chisel marks
in concrete doesn't sound very legal to me ..lol


Stuart

The message . com
from "Staffbull" contains these words:

and let your neighbour know you are doing it

And /why/ you're doing it. If you explain that though you trust him
you'd rather mark it out for any future neighbours it'll sound much
nicer.

Both my neighbours have had a slice of either side of my garden over the
years (before we moved in) and both have agreed that when we next redo
the fence we'll sort it out. Trouble is, one side unintentionally
followed the line of the old fence when it was replaced a couple of
years ago (we were both out and left his brother in law to get on with
it) and isn't likely to need replacing for another twenty years or so.
Still - he's moving to France soon and has said he doesn't mind if I
take 18" off the top as it turned out rather higher than we both planned
too.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

The message
from Roger contains these words:

Leaving aside the inherent lack of precision in subdividing a field into
building plots it is impossible to scale off even as large a scale as
1:1250 to the required accuracy when the thickness of a line may amount
to a couple of feet.

We're lucky - ours is a terrace, so the midpoint of the dividing wall
extended to the midpoint of the back of the garage would be simple.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 11:43:11 GMT, raden wrote:

|In message , Dave Fawthrop
writes
|My new neighbour, with whom we have cultivated good relations by lending
|him tools etc. etc. has renewed his side of the ?joint? tarmac drive.
|The boundary was marked by the remains of the lone gone fence. Which is
|now covered by tarmac to a few of inches on my side, which is a great
|improvement so I am not complaining, but I have apparently lost a few
|inches of land. I had previously marked the boundary at both ends by
|chisel marks in concrete, so a bit of string will tell me where it is.
|
|Has any one any good ideas as to how I could re-mark the boundary?
|I was thinking of whacking thin line with a bolster.
|
|Nails 30cm apart?
|
|Even if the heads rust away, you could find them with cable sensor

Thanks! Just done it :-)
Galvanised clout nails, which I had in stock, at 30 cm.
--
Dave Fawthrop dave hyphenologist co uk Google Groups is IME the *worst*
method of accessing usenet. GG subscribers would be well advised get a
newsreader, say Agent, and a newsserver, say news.individual.net. These
will allow them: to see only *new* posts, a killfile, and other goodies.

Stuart wrote:

I am still no wiser as to how the boundaries are noted "legally" .Chisel marks
in concrete doesn't sound very legal to me ..lol


They arent, its as simple as that. Deeds have property outlines but
they are not intended to be accurate.


NT

wrote in message
ups.com...
Stuart wrote:

I am still no wiser as to how the boundaries are noted "legally" .Chisel
marks
in concrete doesn't sound very legal to me ..lol


They arent, its as simple as that. Deeds have property outlines but
they are not intended to be accurate.


NT

Apparently there's no obligation to mark a property boundary. If one is
keeping animals that may wander and eat other peoples' fodder than it's
advisable to have some type of enclosure (ditch, fence, hedge) and there may
be covenants attached to the title deeds requiring a fence and/or wall be
maintained ... but otherwise ... ?
BTW; further to the ' ... they are not intended to be accurate ... ' ; my
Deeds describe the boundaries as being ; - " $dimension_feet a little more a
little less" , so there definitely 'not intended to be accurate'!

--

Brian

Stuart typed

What I mean is if this is a drive between two houses ,somewhere ..Land
Registry
perhaps ?...there must be a drawing to show exactly where the land of one
neighbour ends and the land of the next door neighbour begins . How is this
delineated (sp) .Do they show a distance from one house to the boundary .

The detail on the Land Registry plans of my abode are vague,
disappointingly vague...

--
Helen D. Vecht:
Edgware.

The message
from Helen Deborah Vecht contains these words:

The detail on the Land Registry plans of my abode are vague,
disappointingly vague...

"The freehold land edged with red on the plan ..."?

--
Roger Chapman

The message
from Helen Deborah Vecht contains these words:

The detail on the Land Registry plans of my abode are vague,
disappointingly vague...

Gives you plenty of opportunity to declare anschluss.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

Roger typed


The message
from Helen Deborah Vecht contains these words:

The detail on the Land Registry plans of my abode are vague,
disappointingly vague...

"The freehold land edged with red on the plan ..."?

That be the one, where the red bit is about half a millimetre wide and
the scale not that great...

--
Helen D. Vecht:
Edgware.

The message
from Roger contains these words:

The detail on the Land Registry plans of my abode are vague,
disappointingly vague...

"The freehold land edged with red on the plan ..."?

Yeah, but the thickness of the line on the plan is often about a foot
wide on the ground.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:
Stuart typed

What I mean is if this is a drive between two houses ,somewhere ..Land
Registry
perhaps ?...there must be a drawing to show exactly where the land of one
neighbour ends and the land of the next door neighbour begins . How is this
delineated (sp) .Do they show a distance from one house to the boundary .

The detail on the Land Registry plans of my abode are vague,
disappointingly vague...

--
Helen D. Vecht:
Edgware.

Mine were vague too, but to my advantage, I managed the "change" the
front entrance enough to get a car in, well four actually !!

The message
from Guy King contains these words:

The detail on the Land Registry plans of my abode are vague,
disappointingly vague...

"The freehold land edged with red on the plan ..."?

Yeah, but the thickness of the line on the plan is often about a foot
wide on the ground.

In my case the line is the best part of a mm thick and at 1:1250 scale
that is more than 3 feet on the ground. The red ink complete obscures
the real boundary lines on the plan which are probably no more than
0.1mm thick and thus actually thinner than the walls they represent.

--
Roger Chapman

Staffbull wrote:
Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:
Stuart typed

What I mean is if this is a drive between two houses ,somewhere ..Land
Registry
perhaps ?...there must be a drawing to show exactly where the land of one
neighbour ends and the land of the next door neighbour begins . How is this
delineated (sp) .Do they show a distance from one house to the boundary .

The detail on the Land Registry plans of my abode are vague,
disappointingly vague...

--
Helen D. Vecht:
Edgware.

Mine were vague too, but to my advantage, I managed the "change" the
front entrance enough to get a car in, well four actually !!

Heck!

They must have been wide!