Q&As on Ground Marking & the Rules for Cadastral Survey 2010

These questions and answers relate to ground marking and the new Rules for Cadastral Survey 2010. They were formed during a series of education seminars on the new Rules held around the country in September 2009.

Other questions and answers on the new Rules are also available.

If you have a question, please email newcadastralrules@linz.govt.nz.

Permanent reference marks

Will the Surveyor-General provide more information on what a PRM should be made of and where it should be placed?

No. The surveyor in the field is better placed to make a judgement as to whether a mark can be expected to survive 50 years (rule 7.4.3).

Can an old iron spike that has already survived 50 years, or a new iron spike, be a PRM?

Yes, provided it meets the criteria in rule 7.4.3(b), which requires that it can be reasonably expected to survive another 50 years.

Can we assume that order 5 or higher control marks will last 50 years?

No. Although LINZ does monitor control marks, at the time of the survey the surveyor is better placed to make this judgement.

Some local authorities have indicated that their kerbs and channels are to last 70 years. Are they suitable positions for PRMs?

In each case the surveyor must judge whether the mark and its placement meet the criteria in rule 7.4.3.

Is the identification of a PRM specific to a particular survey?

Yes. A mark might be considered a PRM on one survey, but not on another, eg if more recent developments threaten the mark. The surveyor must be able to judge the adequacy of the mark at the time of the survey (rule 7.4.2).

Will a surveyor be held responsible if a PRM is disturbed or removed within the 50 year criteria?

The Rules only hold the surveyor to account where the mark’s loss or disturbance could have been reasonably foreseen at the time it was placed or used in the survey (rule 7.4.3(b)). This applies in a similar manner to witness marks (rule 7.3.3(b)).

Will the PRM criteria be audited by LINZ?

Yes. In the same manner as with all the Rules, LINZ has an obligation to audit compliance by cadastral surveyors (sec 7(1)(j) Cadastral Survey Act 2002).

Witness Marks

In rural areas, it is not uncommon for a trig mark to be on a boundary line or at a boundary angle. Under the Rules, it would appear that it cannot be a witness mark to the boundary position.

Yes. Strictly speaking this interpretation of rule 7.3.3(b) is correct. Either a dispensation can be sought or another suitable mark placed. 

Boundary marks

Are Class A parcels under 0.4ha required to have all existing boundary points ground marked (either old mark found or placement of new mark)? Figure 47 Pg 110 of the Interpretation Guide appears to show the four peripheral corners coloured red can be adopted as long as they are "defined by survey" under rule 6.1 and comply with 7.3.1 witnessing standards. Please advise whether these types of boundary points could be adopted. * NEW

For a Class A parcel under 0.4ha, all primary parcel boundary points are required to be defined by survey (rule 6.2(a)(iv)). See note below for exemptions.

This does not necessarily mean that these existing boundary points are required to be marked. Only those points that fit the criteria in rule 7.1(b) and (c) are required to be marked.

In defining a boundary point by survey, in some cases the most appropriate evidence of that boundary position will be the adopted information from a prior survey. In this case, the boundary point may be adopted. Note that adopting the position can only occur after all relevance evidence has been considered (rule 6.1).

In all cases irrespective of whether the existing boundary position has been adopted or marked, the witness mark to boundary position accuracy tolerance specified in rule 3.6 must be met.

Note: SG Ruling LINZR65306 Exemption of definition by survey for certain parcels provides an exemption for some parcels. One of the criteria in the ruling is that all the boundary lines of the new parcel are to be existing primary parcel boundaries that are defined in an approved CSD. Examples of this occur where two or more existing parcels are amalgamated into a single new parcel or where the existing parcel and the new parcel have the same boundaries

In many situations a new boundary is fenced but the fence post is not exactly at the intersection with the existing boundary. Is the boundary angle required to be marked, or is it considered sufficiently “identifiable by occupation”, or can the post be treated as an offset (line) mark?

Unless it is impractical to monument and the offset exceeds the accuracy standards, then the new position is to be marked (rule 7.1).

Can spikes in asphalt be used as boundary marks where an aluminium disc with nail is not suitable?

The requirement is for the mark to be clearly labelled as a boundary mark unless it is impractical to do so (rule 7.2(a)(iv)).

Can an old, undisturbed peg that is connected to, but determined as being incorrectly placed and has no record in the cadastre, be ignored for the purposes of survey definition?

Yes. The peg could be shown as an occupation feature (rule 9.5(a)(iv)). This enables its presence to be noted without assigning any evidential value to it. The survey report could also include information as to the relevance of the mark.

Is a dumpy peg or stake a boundary mark?

Dumpy pegs would generally fall into the criteria specified in rule 7.2(a)(iii) and therefore would be considered a boundary mark that must be clearly labelled. A stake would not generally be considered a boundary peg or mark.