So, how many times have you had a client tell you that he knew where a boundary marker was and then proceeded to point out out a ... benchmark? I guess they just look so official that they have to have something to do with land boundaries, right?
This one was almost the exception to the rule.
It's a USC&GS benchmark alright, but it was tied by the 1953 surveyor whose footsteps I was following when he passed it on a connecting traverse as described in his record of his work. He also tied another benchmark about two miles Southwest of this one and that turned out to be very useful to prove up the location of a corner about 3500 ft. away.
The 1953 surveyor did a pretty good job of choosing because both benchmarks ended up plotted on a quad sheet and both were permanent and identifiable. It enabled a surveyor to sit in an office more than 400 miles away and calculate search coordinates for the 1953 surveyor's corners that basically take you right to them, mas o menos.
Oh, for the record? The benchmark on that leveling line that my client wanted me to see? That was the one that the 1953 surveyor didn't tie.
I've seen plenty of old Tri stations tied in but never a bench mark that I recall.
> I've seen plenty of old Tri stations tied in but never a bench mark that I recall.
It was somewhat more common in West Texas because the benchmarks either were plotted on a quad sheet or it was expected that they were going to be. They also fell along roads, generally, so were much easier to get to than triangulation stations, which tended to be on mountaintops and tough to access.
Imagine if you worked in a PLSS state... many of your surveys could be comped out like this ahead of time...
Kent, that experience would stand U well in SOZ.
Must have been a good feeling to locate such permanent marks.
RADU
Or the reverse, when you are looking for benchmarks, traverse stations, or triangulation stations and they tell you they know where it is, and take you to a property corner!
or they tell you that there is a marker up yonder, marking the "highest point in the county"
> Imagine if you worked in a PLSS state... many of your surveys could be comped out like this ahead of time...
Yes, and you have the survey lines already plotted on the quad sheets for you, too. The metes and bounds land grants of Texas are much more complicated because they all stand on their own. That is, they are where the surveyor who located each one originally placed it, and there can be conflicts and gaps between them. The significant additional complication in this locality is that few of the grants were originally completely monumented.
Kent, that experience would stand U well in SOZ.
> Must have been a good feeling to locate such permanent marks.
Actually, those were the first points that I checked since they fell close to a road. I drove out to the site in the late afternoon when I arrived and did that to make sure that the next day's work would have reasonably good search coordinates to work with.
What is particularly nice about those marks is that they still exist. The concrete posts are 12" x 12" and stick up about that much. In an urban area, they'd have been destroyed long ago.
Why oh why
mas o menos mas o menos, I just wish one time it could be MENOS O MAS!
Why oh why
> I just wish one time it could be MENOS O MAS!
Well, Dane, if you believe Mies Van der Rohe, less IS more, so less OR more wouldn't make sense. :>
Why oh why
> Well, Dane, if you believe Mies Van der Rohe, less IS more, so less OR more wouldn't make sense. :>
I hate Mies's to pieces.
Apropos of nothing, Philip Johnson spoke to the incoming freshman architecture students at the University of Houston in the Fall of 1981 and basically told us that the chances of any of us being a genius was pretty slim, so the world would be a better place, aesthetically speaking, if we would just copy the works of our betters instead of relying on our own creativity.
Why oh why
> Apropos of nothing, Philip Johnson spoke to the incoming freshman architecture students at the University of Houston in the Fall of 1981 and basically told us that the chances of any of us being a genius was pretty slim, so the world would be a better place, aesthetically speaking, if we would just copy the works of our betters instead of relying on our own creativity.
Did he indicate that to be his own model of practice? I do think that is good advice for surveyors, though. :>
Why oh why
I remember meeting an Architect 20 years ago who started in the early 20th century. He said generally they went to Art School and called themselves "Draftsmen," not Architects. He said, "I am an old codger!"
The famous one here, Julia Morgan, oh my gosh some of the stuff she "designed" if you see the bones of it you wonder how it stays up.
Why oh why
> Did he indicate that to be his own model of practice? I do think that is good advice for surveyors, though. :>
Well, the first 2/3 of his career's portfolio does have a striking resemblance to the Cliff Notes version of Mies van der Rohe.
Why oh why
> Well, the first 2/3 of his career's portfolio does have a striking resemblance to the Cliff Notes version of Mies van der Rohe.
Keep in mind that Johnson was probably designing the AT&T Building in New York when he so freely gave his advice. What a pathetic effort that was. I think that if he had really wanted to impart the secret of his success to the aspiring architects, he should have said "be certain to be born into a wealthy family so that you won't have to work for a living and will have more free time to share idiotic opinions with the impressionable young."
Why oh why
He must be the speaker's cousin or somehow related to the republicans in congress cuz they are making the same claim
