If the topo survey shows the boundary lines and corner monuments along with the calls then any body worth more than a pinch of shit should be able to do what is needed so long as a site BM is provided.
That's exactly?ÿwhat I said the topo must have. Around here I see surveyors leaving that information out.
If there is enough information to calculate the layout from the monuments, then that is sufficient, no baseline needed. If you're contracted to topo only 10 acres in the middle of a 600-acre?ÿboundary, then setting a?ÿbaseline is preferred. The baseline I refer?ÿto does not?ÿhave to be your traverse.?ÿ Today with GPS, many surveyors?ÿdon't leave any point for others to follow?ÿin their footsteps. Some jackwagon assumes the CAD is on SPC, then does the entire layout with no checks.?ÿ Not me, I need points?ÿto check into. Can't tell you how many jobs I have found that is?ÿ3ft to 10 ft from aactualSPC.
A topo without a BM is virtually useless. A topo without boundary?ÿmonuments or baseline is next to useless for layout.?ÿ
Metadata, control points,?ÿN, E, elevation, all need to be given for a design topo. Why else would you do it. It's useless otherwise. I assume most topos are requested for design/build. I do some for a check off for regulators so we don't care about it then, but everyone else gets control, it's always been part of the job.
Of course boundaries get control, they are called set property corners, shown on the plat. They don't need some grid coordinate, they are their own control.
leegreen, A topographic survey does not require X&Y control to be a proper topographic survey and if it meets the state board requirements and satisfies the original contract then there is no problem. For you to say that it is "extortion" is ludicrous.
I mean that truly is an ignorant comment.
Where do you draw the line? Do you show control for your boundary surveys? If not.......why don't you? Lets say you go and do a boundary survey for someone who later wants to build a house. I can only assume that you don't have any control shown on your boundary surveys, so then are you guilty of extortion if the homeowners builder asks for it?
If the topo survey shows the boundary lines and corner monuments along with the calls then any body worth more than a pinch of shit should be able to do what is needed so long as a site BM is provided.
What do you mean by "control?" If your boundary survey does not show control, its not a boundary survey. The control is the boundary monumentation, and to be legally defensible and meet many states standards it needs to show any other "control" you used to establish those positions.?ÿ
For a topo survey aren't the BMs the control? I don't know what value any other vertical control would be to clients.
The overwhelming majority of my work is design surveys.?ÿ I have made it a point to set at least two (2) (and before I get flamed, I said at least 2) semi-permanent control points adjacent to the site for which I provide XYZ values.?ÿ These are primary points in my control network from which everything is derived.?ÿ I better be dam well sure that they fit and I should be confident in supplying them along with the deliverables.?ÿ I do make it a point to remove any secondary control from our electronic deliverables.?ÿ
This being said, I do not supply every control point just enough to get onto our system.?ÿ Neither will I provide it or any additional data to a third party.?ÿ The data should have been transmitted with the design plans.?ÿ I will refresh or set additional control as requested for an additional fee.
What do you mean by "control?" If your boundary survey does not show control, its not a boundary survey. The control is the boundary monumentation, ......
?ÿ
Posted by: Just A. Surveyor
I always associate "control" with traverse points. Hell I thought every surveyor associated "control" with traverse points.
Boundary lines have corner monuments and other property evidence.?ÿ
I'm with Just A. this time.?ÿ To me "control" is the traverse points. Boundary monuments can be a sort of fall back control if they have to be but they come in such a variety of forms, degrees of stability, and accessibility that I wouldn't want to rely on them for that purpose.?ÿ ?ÿ
It depends what you're contracted for.?ÿ If it's to survey and hand off to a contractor, then no problem, they get everything.?ÿ
If it's a call about a topo and boundary survey I did for a particular client, and this is someone else asking, then that's a different story.
My survey/plan will have boundary monuments and benchmarks on it, so any competent surveyor can use those to quickly establish his own site control using this.?ÿ If it's a contractor that needs my hand-holding and direction in the form of specific X,Y,& Z, then I have little sympathy or feelings of obligation.?ÿ Especially since some of my projects aren't even on SPC.?ÿ What're they going to do with coordinates at 5000,10000, 100, when they're using GPS to do everything?
It depends what you're contracted for.?ÿ If it's to survey and hand off to a contractor, then no problem, they get everything.?ÿ
If it's a call about a topo and boundary survey I did for a particular client, and this is someone else asking, then that's a different story.
My survey/plan will have boundary monuments and benchmarks on it, so any competent surveyor can use those to quickly establish his own site control using this.?ÿ If it's a contractor that needs my hand-holding and direction in the form of specific X,Y,& Z, then I have little sympathy or feelings of obligation.?ÿ Especially since some of my projects aren't even on SPC.?ÿ What're they going to do with coordinates at 5000,10000, 100, when they're using GPS to do everything?
Why would it be a problem for GPS if the site is 5000,10000,100?
The control issue will crop up more when the design is finished. Hopefully there is an electronic file associated with that topo which can be sent to the designers. After it's finished then control becomes vital. Often we have to show topo to comply with a regulator, even though the topo isn't used for any design, it's just a way of showing we meet some slope regulations and are out of flood plains. Sometimes those are imputed from city or county topo data.
I did have the CAD file for that topo, but there were no control points, no baseline, no traverse, and no BM's in it.
I called the surveyor and he provided PK's with coordinates, along with a few rebars across the street. This was was sufficient for me to tie into his work.
Showing only one found monument, with no BenchMark, and Sanitary Manhole rims to the nearest tenth are my points of contention. This topo requires a phone call back to the original?ÿsurveyor.?ÿ Which I feel is exactly?ÿwhat they want.
Just meant that since it's not on SPC, you can't just automatically be on the system.?ÿ And I wouldn't be giving them the coordinates, they'd have to hit the monuments themselves to tie into the boundary, topo, etc, (unless it was part of the scope to provide the control).
I did have the CAD file for that topo, but there were no control points, no baseline, no traverse, and no BM's in it.
I called the surveyor and he provided PK's with coordinates, along with a few rebars across the street. This was was sufficient for me to tie into his work.
Showing only one found monument, with no BenchMark, and Sanitary Manhole rims to the nearest tenth are my points of contention. This topo requires a phone call back to the original?ÿsurveyor.?ÿ Which I feel is exactly?ÿwhat they want.
Only one monument bothers me.?ÿ Rims to the tenth doesn't.?ÿ For this site which is mostly just roads and raw land, agreement between two rims within a tenth seems good enough.
I did have the CAD file for that topo, but there were no control points, no baseline, no traverse, and no BM's in it.
I called the surveyor and he provided PK's with coordinates, along with a few rebars across the street. This was was sufficient for me to tie into his work.
Showing only one found monument, with no BenchMark, and Sanitary Manhole rims to the nearest tenth are my points of contention. This topo requires a phone call back to the original?ÿsurveyor.?ÿ Which I feel is exactly?ÿwhat they want.
I see, yep once a topo morphs into design, then you need the metadata, control, coordinates, all that stuff. Actually I don't really care about the topo at that point, it's basically irrelevant, it's all the associated stuff with the design that's important.
You are staking out all the curb, manholes, buildings, ect. Without the control that is impossible unless you redo the whole mess yourself. Topo it again, send it back to the engineers to rework the design, then send it back to you. You can thank the first surveyor later.
Of course if the design is tied to the boundary corners, and there are elevations given, that would work, but then the boundary corners are control. They would show up in the electronic file, I would think.
