Activity Feed › Discussion Forums › Strictly Surveying › Virtual Pin Cushions
-
Virtual Pin Cushions
Posted by kscott on September 16, 2016 at 5:58 pmIn another thread a comment was made regarding the practice of noting a found monument as being so far from the “true” point in cardinal directions. Is this common and/or acceptable practice in areas of the country?
I have seen an industrial building located at the setback line by reference to a brand new 6′ chain link fence that was anchored at the north end by a 3″ brass cap. The survey plat noted “found brass cap 3′ west of true corner”. The landowner did not understand the significance of that note apparently.
Our State Board has found this practice unacceptable. If the found monument cannot be accepted as the corner then a new monument must be set and in Colorado the surveyor must explain by a plat note why the found monument was not accepted.dmyhill replied 3 years, 12 months ago 43 Members · 209 Replies -
209 Replies
-
This opinion by your state board begs the question; if a monument is found and called off that is outside of your subject parcel being surveyed, must this too be re-monumented?
Giving reference with a note by either direct tie or cardinal directions is standard in this area. If a landowner can’t understand the note, or more clarity is needed, a detail can always be shown. A very similar situation exists when the true corner physically cannot be set and a line point is set nearby.
-
So, it is still a pin cushion right? The found monument is not accepted but no monument is set at the “true” position. Why is this any better than setting a new monument at the position you think is correct?
We all rant about the pin cushion but the real issue is the failure to accept the efforts of those preceding us without good cause. The virtual pin cushion is usually just obscuring the fact that a surveyor has let the measurements over ride the footsteps of the prior surveyors. -
KScott – you are correct (I don’t think roger _LS understood your question.) Reporting that the property corner is 0.11′ west and 0.03′ south of a found monument is stupid and misleading to say the least. Are they accepting or rejecting the monument!
-
Virtual monument is a term I first heard when someone was promoting the idea that monuments be described by only latitude and longitude.
That was around 1970 long before I ever heard of GPS.
It always reminded me of the stories I kept hearing from the PLSS states where monuments were supposedly never being set marking property corners. :scream: -
Context is everything. An example: on a recent project, research gathered in the vicinity yielded a surveyorÛªs map with notes such as you describe. However in the context of the map the surveyor describes the many monuments were held for position, held for alignment and those that were visibly out of position relative to the record information available.
I do not see this as a ÛÏpincushionÛ or a virtual pincushion, nor do I see it as a statement of rejection of any particular monument over another. It is purely how the survey measurements, results and conclusions were reported. If I am rejecting a monument then I will state plainly on the map that the monument was rejected. I do not believe that oneÛªs statements, results and conclusions should be open to interpretation.
In your interpretation of ÛÏpin cushionÛ wouldnÛªt showing the measured and recorded course and distance by comparison on a survey map be virtually the same ÛÏvirtual pin cushionÛ thing? Would you then not report measured distances in order to avoid this situation?
I think the ÛÏvirtual pin cushionÛ thing may be a little out of perspective with what is really happening. If the surveyor sets a monument one tenth of a foot away from another to show measurement superiority then yes, I believe there is a disservice to the surveying profession and the public served. You may call it a pin cushion if you like.
I do not think that you can clearly interpret what was intended by dissecting a small part of the information that represents a surveyorÛªs map and the surveyorÛªs work. In the case of my example it was extremely helpful to me to relate to the survey map by the notes left by the other surveyor. It never occurred to me that he or she was setting a ÛÏvirtual pin cushionÛ. It never occurred to me that the surveyor was accepting or rejecting any particular monument.
Historic Boundaries and Conservation Efforts -
A good friend of mine reviews contracted surveys for a federal agency. Apparently in Ohio, this is common practice and he’s told more than one person that he wasn’t going to accept it, he didn’t care what they claimed the state law allowed.
My opinion is anyone engaging in such nonsense should be sanctioned by the licensing board.
-
What service are we truly providing or what problems are we laying out for those to follow to sort thru? Personally I find it funny that someone would disagree with a monuments location as to set a pin to the point its true position can not be set with out destroying said monument in disagreement.i can under stand if you disagree by ft or a few tenths. But to split hairs over .03 in my personal opinion is pompus. As i recall the discussion was over two pins from the same LS so close as the second pin was driven thrun the edge of the previous cap!
-
Jim in AZ, post: 391396, member: 249 wrote: KScott – you are correct (I don’t think roger _LS understood your question.) Reporting that the property corner is 0.11′ west and 0.03′ south of a found monument is stupid and misleading to say the least. Are they accepting or rejecting the monument!
I can’t speak for that particular instance, but I know some surveyors do this to maintain the record, and report their measurements. They’re drawing the 50’x100′ lot with those exact dimensions, while showing the monument at one corner, probably held, and with the others, showing how they measured them based on their rotation/translation of their field to record. So the other 3 would have similar offsets as above.
I’m not saying it’s right, and it’s not what I do, but they’re still showing the monument at each corner, and the offset amounts are so small that they probably fit on the cap.
-
If this is happening on the lot being surveyed, I’d consider it a true pincushion, if it’s outside of the immediate area being surveyed, it’s just reporting a relationship between the monuments found and record information, which is a good thing. The are other ways to depict this data, for example if you are in a subdivision, you could show station and offset data down the centerline, I prefer this method. It allows you to report the exact positions of all monuments found without making calls on whether they are at the true corners, and allows someone else surveying in the block to come in and make their own determinations without having a conflict in the record.
-
My response was regarding what Jim in AZ wrote: “Reporting that the property corner is 0.11′ west and 0.03′ south of a found monument is stupid and misleading to say the least.” I would not agree with that statement because it is taken out of context.
If you are the surveyor, then, do you report your measurements or not? If the record measurement is 100.00′ and your measurement is 100.25′ wouldn’t it be unethical to report the measurement as being the record only?
In the example I gave several monuments were held in their position, several were held by alignment and several were reported as being north and east of the record position by certain amounts. I don’t see this practice as being particularly offensive.
Historic Boundaries and Conservation Efforts -
Context is everything. As nmrm says, what does the map say about it? Should the monument be deemed an original (& controlling) monument? What are your positional uncertainties? Is the boundary of large rural acreage, or of million dollar city lots? Is the offending IP in a location where it might have been disturbed? Is the IP (say) 25 feet from a stable, well protected controlling monument (meaning there is little reason for it’s location to not match the calc’d location)?
For example, you’d think that when a DOT monuments 4 miles of their rural, forested right of way, one might be inclined to accept their 15 year old monuments (even though no map was filed then with the county) when you see calc vs found residuals like these (never mind how the calc’d location was derived). Think again. Behold a portion of 4 miles of virtual pin cushion mastery:
: -
not my real name, post: 391643, member: 8199 wrote: If you are the surveyor, then, do you report your measurements or not? If the record measurement is 100.00′ and your measurement is 100.25′ wouldn’t it be unethical to report the measurement as being the record only?
In the example I gave several monuments were held in their position, several were held by alignment and several were reported as being north and east of the record position by certain amounts. I don’t see this practice as being particularly offensive.
Are we slapping math on the ground, or are we producing a professional product based on the conditions we find in the field? I have never retraced a survey and matched my field data exactly with the record data on all the monuments. In your example, if I had a good reason to reject one of the monuments, and it would have to be a good one, I’d drive another monument. Everyone that does not have a surveyor’s license is going to look at the monument in the ground and think, “that’s my corner”. This bull excrement of calling for fictitious point a few gnats buttocks away from a monument needs to come to an end. It makes us look ridiculous. Either accept what’s there or put your big boy britches on and drive your own.
-
I think your attitude is preventing you from seeing the meaning of my example. If you do not call out your measurement as being different than the record and you set another monument instead then you “slapping math on the ground”, but, I made no such inference. You did.
Historic Boundaries and Conservation Efforts -
To Baja OR
That is quite an extreme example. So I do not see how that relates to my example. All the points are being reported as being out of their calculated position. Yet there is no explanation for what control was used to make the determination.
Historic Boundaries and Conservation Efforts -
not my real name, post: 391669, member: 8199 wrote: I think your attitude is preventing you from seeing the meaning of my example. If you do not call out your measurement as being different than the record and you set another monument instead then you “slapping math on the ground”, but, I made no such inference. You did.
The first sentence I wrote was, “Are we slapping math on the ground, or are we producing a professional product based on the conditions we find in the field?”
Your example of holding the record distance between found monuments is slapping math on the ground.
There are only 2 resolutions to the scenario.
1)Hold the record distance and set a new monument.
2)Hold the two monuments and show the distance you shot between them.
-
I’m more on Tommy’s side of things. But from time to time, I do wonder which makes us look less professional in the eyes of the public:
Some cryptic N:E notation with small numbers or seeing their frontage distances change from plan to plan, (surveyor to surveyor), and never matching their deed call.
-
Except in Texas where that would be the normal write-up, better known as Field Notes. Only liars could get the name numbers every time.
-
Tommy Young, post: 391680, member: 703 wrote: The first sentence I wrote was, “Are we slapping math on the ground, or are we producing a professional product based on the conditions we find in the field?”
Your example of holding the record distance between found monuments is slapping math on the ground.
There are only 2 resolutions to the scenario.
1)Hold the record distance and set a new monument.
2)Hold the two monuments and show the distance you shot between them.
I usually do what you have described, but what if you’re talking about a filed map subdivision where all the lots are 50×100 (or at least the contiguous lots that affect your survey). Are you going to find pins that are 100.15′ apart and say that the property line is now 100.15 and the one behind you in that block is 99.85? I doubt it. It’s contradictory to the intent of the map.
Are you going to set a new one 0.15′ away? What if it’s 0.08′ or 0.33′? In those situations I’ve shown the corners that are on the calculated position and then show ties to the ones that are slightly off. It’s different on a large acreage survey with called for monuments being found. In those cases your two options are absolutely the way to go.
-
Dan Patterson, post: 391688, member: 1179 wrote: I usually do what you have described, but what if you’re talking about a filed map subdivision where all the lots are 50×100 (or at least the contiguous lots that affect your survey). Are you going to find pins that are 100.15′ apart and say that the property line is now 100.15 and the one behind you in that block is 99.85? I doubt it. It’s contradictory to the intent of the map.
Are you going to set a new one 0.15′ away? What if it’s 0.08′ or 0.33′? In those situations I’ve shown the corners that are on the calculated position and then show ties to the ones that are slightly off. It’s different on a large acreage survey with called for monuments being found. In those cases your two options are absolutely the way to go.
Is the plat holding sway over the monuments? Unless I can find a REALLY good reason to reject the monument, THAT is the corner. 100.03 or 100.50, or 99.50 if that is the “original, undisturbed monument” then the measurements are to be used to find the monument and corner.
Andy -
Dan Patterson, post: 391688, member: 1179 wrote: I usually do what you have described, but what if you’re talking about a filed map subdivision where all the lots are 50×100 (or at least the contiguous lots that affect your survey). Are you going to find pins that are 100.15′ apart and say that the property line is now 100.15 and the one behind you in that block is 99.85? I doubt it. It’s contradictory to the intent of the map.
The intent of the map is shown by the markers on the ground. If I feel those markers are original, I most certainly show the distance I shot between them. If I think those monuments are the result of a resurvey, the answer to what I do is “it depends”.
Log in to reply.