Activity Feed › Discussion Forums › Strictly Surveying › Uncertainty Due to Condition of Existing Monuments
Uncertainty Due to Condition of Existing Monuments
dmyhill replied 2 years ago 15 Members · 35 Replies
- Posted by: @scott-bordenet
Care to add anything?
Just that monuments are evidence – not proof. Other evidence may be found. But in the scenario presented that is how I roll.
- Posted by: @scott-bordenet
It is strange to me to see the error some report in this section (how did you come up with that?)…and yet I can’t bring myself to say there is no error in a monument. Lately, I just describe the condition of the monument (found at surface in good condition) and simply state that the error is assumed to be limited to measurement tolerances (see Section D, Relative Positional Accuracy).
I think you’ve hit the nail on the head.
A monument has no inherent error. It is where it is. No one can look at a monument and say, “That monument looks like it has about 0.21 feet of error in it.” It’s a nonsensical statement.
We can’t decide to kinda-sorta hold a monument. We either accept it or not.
Only measurements (and data computed from the measurements) we make to that monument can have quantifiable error.
“…people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think.” -Neil Postman - Posted by: @norman-oklahomaPosted by: @scott-bordenet
So you STILL won’t offer an opinion as to the amount?!?!?
I thought I did. The error is zero. The replacement monument occupies the exact position of the original.
Winner winner, chicken dinner.
(I would add, “Prove me wrong.”
-All thoughts my own, except my typos and when I am wrong. Is this post a troll?
Seriously.
???? ???? ???ý
But I took the deed and massaged the 2′ closure error to 0′ using Starnet and then rotated and translated that to a pipe and rebar I found. The monument is off by 0.5′ +/- UGH ! ! ! ??? ???
These types of rules/regulations are written to use as a cudgel. There isn’t a way to meet the requirement, so why bother with the rule. Either it was in-artfully written with some good intentions or it’s a total slam against surveyors to be used as an instrument hyper regulate boundary work.
Much like requests by title companies that have little to do with boundaries during an ALTA, surveyors should stand up against these rules/regulations. My all-time favorite one of those requests/demands was an out of state title company wanted me to state that a 100 year old building didn’t have any code violations or if it did I was to list them.
They even told me that other surveyors had no issue with that.
Transferring liability.
Avoid doing that always.
This thread has some in common, with one I started, about entering a deed, with 30 courses, and rounding had been applied, nearest minute, nearest tenth. It resulted in a deed misclosure of 0.75′ or a foot….
The total idea is that monuments may not be perfectly set, variations may occur. This does not invalidate the monument. It allows slack in the rope, so things don’t bind. However, there are useful functions for adjusting first. Like a BLM dependant Resurvey. Run the courses around a section, (all independent geodetic bearings, rounded to the minute), and they sometimes dont close by 3′ or 4′ or 5′. Piling all that error into one place is not the goal, but, to allow some slack is only being honest.
Great discussion.
Nate
- Posted by: @mightymoe
Transferring liability.
Avoid doing that always.
**Fixed**
Transferring liability without adequate financial compensation
Avoid doing that always.
- Posted by: @gary_g
But I took the deed and massaged the 2′ closure error to 0′ using Starnet …. ….. ….. …..
All comments I’ve made regarding massaging out a closure assumed that all calls, post massaging, would round to exact call at the quoted degree of precision. Never to distribute any actual misclosure at all.
This is the standard argument against adjusting any data – that it might be used to distribute blunders.
Asking me to quantify how much positional error is in a disturbed monument is like seeing a bird poop in my beer and then asking, well how much poop was it? Who cares, I’m not drinking it either way.
The Indiana Administrative Code that directs competent practice indicates that we must address it. I am in the process of teaching a new crew/tech guy and was reviewing the code and a series of surveyor’s reports from both me and others with him. I was a little shocked to see that others did address this issue by quantifying the error (and not in cases of disturbance).
What I was really hoping to see in posting the question is who/how many would try to quantify their opinion of the uncertainty of a monument based on its availability/condition in terms of some sort of dimension.
I consider this issue closed. Thanks all for your opinions.
PS. @tfdoubleyou, now when it comes to your beer, I have to ask: Is it your last one? Tall boy or regular? How full was it when the bird pooped in it? ????
@scott-bordenet
Please don’t take this wrong. I’ve worked with many PE’s in my career and I understand the urge to quantify. I would go with more uncertain or less uncertain because….. and leave it there. As for relative positional uncertainty I would state it as less than …. as prescribed by law. But actually that’s said in the certification I’ll bet.
@tfdoubleyou I once ate lunch in a cafeteria where the sandwich meat had spoiled. I complained, and told the manager I had lost my appetite, and got a refund for the whole meal.
The point being that if a monument is disturbed, it may be possible to use other evidence to rehabilitate the monument, or a more extensive correction may be needed, or it may be impossible to offer an opinion of the boundary location, so the surveyor’s plat or report would need to address how far the effects of the disturbed monument spread.
We placed six bars around a tract in a small town last Summer. At that time the area was overgrown from many years of neglect. The owner then came in a few days later with a dozer to clear a few big trees and many small ones. After burning all of that debris, the owner tilled the soil to end up with a bare tract.
Two weeks ago we surveyed an adjacent tract. Of the six bars, the most likely to be completely undisturbed was one we set about three inches from a telephone cable underground “tub” that had nothing but grass for at least 15 feet in all directions. It was left up about eight inches as we pushed it in by hand, hoping to avoid damaging the cable, if present. The other five were set slightly below ground level and had a great potential for being disturbed. We found one bar lying on the surface, shaped much like the letter S. Guess which one that was. The others were undisturbed.
- Posted by: @scott-bordenet
PS. @tfdoubleyou, now when it comes to your beer, I have to ask: Is it your last one? Tall boy or regular? How full was it when the bird pooped in it? ????
The real question is how many have you had previously…if it doesn’t taste good you aren’t drinking it fast enough.
-All thoughts my own, except my typos and when I am wrong.
Log in to reply.