Reading the article about the Missouri River Commission Survey in 1885 written by Jerry Penry, PS in Vol. 10, Issue 6 of The American Surveyor. Seems that the triangulation monuments they used were 18" square and 4" thick pre-cut stones with a small drill hole for a center point set about 4 feet deep. Then they placed a 4" X 3 foot iron pipe over the center of the drill hole and placed a 5 3/4" diameter heavy cast cap on top of that pipe centered over the hole drilled in the stone set deep. The iron cap had a raised triangle with a hole in the center of a triangle at the center of the cap. Made me think about the long post about dimples a few days ago, seems that surveyors have went to a lot of trouble for a long time to get the measured point marked with a small indicator, be it a hole, punch mark or cross on the tops of the larger monuments that they set. Following in the footsteps and what was good enough for them, good enough for me, I'll keep using punch marks on my monuments unless the center point is marked in some other acceptable way, if that causes some panties to get worked up into a wad, so be it, I'll make a great effort in refraining from finding fault of others who may choose not to do it my way, don't think my ego will suffer by making that effort.
jud
The issue we seem to be overlooking that makes all the difference is that, on one hand you have survey control points which rely heavily upon precision and repeatability, while on the other hand, you have boundary monuments intended to accurately mark the location of land boundaries.
Boundary monuments are intended for accuracy for use by landowners to establish their boundaries. Survey control monuments are intended for precision for use by land surveyors.
Two different animals for two different reasons. And, yes, we often use boundary monuments to serve also as control points for survey control...
JBS
I didn't overlook that issue, maybe others did.
For, example, I find a concrete monument with brass cap up 2' set in 1965 with a dimple or + or L or line on it. I put a target on it and observe it with sets of angles, a Sideshot but sometimes I'm using it for a traverse point. If I Sideshot it from another point or traverse through it I want to reduce my own centering errors, therefore I establish or use an existing precise point on the cap. I only have one point number for each monument so if my centering error on a network point (the monument) is a tenth that will get propagated through my whole network.
I find the 1960s Surveys have precisions of about 2' in a mile (sometimes better) in rough, very thick, coastal timberland. Sometimes there is 2' of loose soil on steep hillsides. I'm not calling their monuments off, just getting a precise measurement on each line. If I get within 1 or 2 feet in a mile long line compared to the 1965 Record of Survey I think they did pretty good.
Along the lines of what JB stated, different procedures for different purposes.
However, the "to always dimple or always not dimple" topic is quite indicative a major problem within our "profession". A few (or many) people get riled up when they discover other surveyors do not follow the exact same procedures or practices that work for them and what they "think" are correct. The charges of "unprofessional", "irresponsible", and "substandard" start flying in all directions. The direct result of this is what we have seen in most every state; a bunch of baby-sitting, nanny-state, ridiculous state statutes that try to legislate every conceivable situation and solution we may encounter. I doubt anyone can find a similar situation in any other profession.
How can we ever be considered true professionals if we are not allowed to use any professional judgment in solving the problems we encounter on a daily basis? The ultimate result of such over-regulation is the relegation of a once proud and respected profession to mere trade status. Sadly, I think we are pretty much there now. My state is definitely no exception to this tragic trend.
It shouldn't be necessary to state this, but with so many egocentric surveyors out there just waiting to find fault I will. No, I don't believe in or advocate anarchy or a complete lack of rules and regulations, but when professional judgment is removed, you no longer have a profession, it is merely a trade in which any monkey can be trained to follow the laundry list of do's, don'ts and shalls and shall nots.
Professionalism, like morality, cannot be legislated. Isn't it about time we had enough pride, not only in our work, but in our profession to start acting like professionals and demanding that we be treated as such, not only by each other, but by our licensing boards and legislatures?
> Professionalism, like morality, cannot be legislated.
:beer: :good: :good: :good: :beer:
JBS
Triangulation is pure measurement, different and distinct from boundary retracement. Monuments dedicated to one use or the other need not be the same.
INRE boundaries: Punch all the holes you want, if your monument comes pretty close to your corner, I can usually use it as some sort of evidence of something. B-)
> Professionalism, like morality, cannot be legislated.
That view seems to want to believe that "professionalism" is something that exists in the abstract, detached from the actual work that land surveyors perform. Naturally, this isn't true. So it is fairly easy to identify which practices are well below standard and a fit subject for the rules of licensing boards.
Paragraphs, please, or some other method of breaking up that solid block of text that you seem to favor.
It's really hard for me to read. I don't know ranch traditions, though, so maybe that's just the cowboy way of writin.'
Also, what have panties got to do with anything?
Just curious,
Don
At the end of the day, it's all about panties.
>Made me think about the long post about dimples a few days ago, seems that surveyors have went to a lot of trouble for a long time to get the measured point marked with a small indicator, be it a hole, punch mark or cross on the tops of the larger monuments that they set. Following in the footsteps and what was good enough for them, good enough for me [...]
Yes, the ironic thing is that most city surveyors 100 years ago actually used a fair amount of craft in setting boundary monuments. They left 1/4-inch copper pins in concrete monuments in iron castings. Today, there would apparently be folks arguing that the 6-inch dia. hole in the iron casting is plenty good. :>
Despite all the beers and thumbs up, professionalism and morality are both legislated.
Sorry.
Welcome to the U. S. of A.
Don
Ah, yes, the end of the day.
Good point, Dave.
😉
Don
Despite all the beers and thumbs up, professionalism and morality are both legislated.
Sorry.
Welcome to the U. S. of A.
Don
"...or some other method of breaking up that solid block of text that you seem to favor."
hmmmmmmm.....maybe some form of punctuation would work in these instances.
You forgot the beers...
:beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer:
A six pack.
>Today, there would apparently be folks arguing that the 6-inch dia. hole in the iron casting is plenty good. :>
That's fine. Just don't expect me to take it as some sort of crude representation of another's error ellipses. Close to center, and within reasonable distance to others, and I'll probably get the point that it's a surveyor's mark.
If someone wants to pay me to fill it with concrete and plant a tack or copperweld to RP some baseline, that's fine too. I'm good at that, having controlled and staked radio telescopes and rocket launch facilities and big curved precast bridges and big steel buildings and lots and lots of oil processing apparatus to silly tight millwright tolerances, but I'm not going to go there unless I'm both paid for it, and it serves my client to do so.
> [...] but I'm not going to go there unless I'm both paid for it, and it serves my client to do so.
And that is why professional standards are given some formal statement: to attempt to guarantee performance regardless of whether a surveyor feels that he or she is collecting a good enough fee to pay for doing the work well. Substandard surveying nearly always costs too much in the long run.
> Triangulation is pure measurement, different and distinct from boundary retracement. Monuments dedicated to one use or the other need not be the same.
Except that both have the common element of defining a definite position. Geodetic survey monuments tend to be better than ordinary boundary monuments in terms of construction simply because there are relatively few of them, they were expensive to locate by survey, and they were expected to have a long useful life.
The object in boundary marking consists of the same goals of permanence and giving a definite position. The economics of the associated survey effort to locate them just tends in many cases not to produce quite as substantial a monument as the geodetic surveys justified.
>... The object in boundary marking consists of the same goals of permanence and giving a definite position. The economics of the associated survey effort to locate them tends in many cases not to produce quite as substantial a monument as the geodetic surveys justified.
Thanks Kent.
There's a certain amount of overlap of requirements between a 1st Order tri-station and a lot corner in a trendy equestrian subdivision, but not only are their uses quite different, their creation methodology, basis, and raison d'être are as well. Sub-monuments anyone?
Does a punch mark represent certain facts about a survey or make a surveyor liable for discrepancies found by followers which exceed the bounds of a punch mark? Does a punch mark make a survey a magnitude better than another legal lot survey because a dimple is a magnitude more precise than a monument cap?
The question becomes one of significant figures when the available evidence of a lot corner's location points to regions much larger than the point of a center punch. Should we then use big alcaps?
