Upon researching recorded plats at the county, I came upon a plat right near the property I'm surveying.
The plat shows a lot control for the area and a lot of distance and bearings between the found monuments, each B&D has a * that says "see table"
- here is the table
I would suggest....
What appears on the map is not even close to what would pass for metadata. What is topographic quality anyway? Is it a single one second RTK shot? What is the basis for the establishment of the cooridnates? Where is the data to allow one to go back and forth between grid and ground?
But is should not be overlooked that an attempt was to provide useful data.
RTK Topo Quality is simple ... round all values to the foot unless there is some accuracy statement elsewhere on the plat
What kind of plat is it?
Is there no map checking in Colorado?
PS: maybe all those "caps" should be attached to something so a cow does not kick them around as they walk by 😉
Does everyone actually remove the cap or dig a big hole to determine the diameter, material and depth of the monument?
Yes.
I don't actually remove the cap but I do note what it is affixed to.
Caps come off, it is important to know what the actual monument is (or was).
If I find a bare 3/4" rebar where someone they set a "3/4" rebar with a 2" Brass Cap marked PLS5116" then I would expect I found the monument called for.
On the other hand, if some one said they set a "2" Brass Cap marked PLS5116" and I find a 3/4" rebar I would not be sure if I found the original or just a goat stake in the same general location... maybe the original was a caped 2" pipe that was removed or it is buried another foot down and over a foot from what I found.
Not being a wise guy but that has always been "Survey 101" in my world.
Why all the whining? If you needed one of the points and the coordinate got you there for your own measurement then it's valuable info. They are not making some super duper geodetic control quality claim. It's useful info that they are probably not even required to put on the plat, just helpful retracement info.
I don't know how many plats I've seen that relied upon section monuments where the location of the section corner was not even shown.
Whining is more fun.
But I agree. Nice to be provided with that so you can recover things easier. In some areas I imagine that can save you some head scratching time in the field.
Since coordinates are shown, the accuracy would be expected to be within what is given, in this case to 3 decimal places plus local/state tolerance.
Well since he says they are RTK from a single base then I would expect the measurements to be on the centimeter level relative to the base except that there are no redundancies so there is no way to know if any of the given coordinates contain a blunder.
The information is useful for quickly finding the monuments but I wouldn't rely on them without independent verification.
no one is whining
I think I pointed out that I thought the data provided was useful. I would like to see sometype of standard for "topographic accuracy", though. Can this be found in NSSDA or some other standard? Perhaps it is a state standard, that I am unfamiliar with.
No one ,at least not me, is holding anyone to some high order geodetic mapping standard.
I thought the original poster was asking for comments.
no one is whining
> I think I pointed out that I thought the data provided was useful. I would like to see sometype of standard for "topographic accuracy", though. Can this be found in NSSDA or some other standard? Perhaps it is a state standard, that I am unfamiliar with.
>
> No one ,at least not me, is holding anyone to some high order geodetic mapping standard.
>
> I thought the original poster was asking for comments.
The Plat that this information came from was not a topographic survey or some other type of mapping project. The plat was a Land Survey Plat that established property lines and Right-of-Way lines for a State Highway.
The "Control Table" was/is intended to show the horizontal control the surveyor utilized for the establishment of the property lines he marked.
6th
I see no problem with the table you noted. It's better than most, and definitely aids in retracement of the footsteps.
eh?
"I see no problem with the table you noted. It's better than most, and definitely aids in retracement of the footsteps."
It aids in the retracement of the footsteps! It does? How? Its a table of data - it bears no relation to the "footsteps" whatsoever...
I don't think your concept of "footsteps" is the same as mine.
Jim
Well, I suppose, that if I really wanted to figure out a survey problem, I'd want to have all of the controlling data that the other guy used. Then, I should be able to get on his base and find his corners, thereby making me find his footsteps.
In the ever changing world of surveying, footsteps can be more than just a marked line or corner in the ground. The points in the ground that were constrained to are also his footsteps.
Think outside the box.
Jim
"Well, I suppose, that if I really wanted to figure out a survey problem, I'd want to have all of the controlling data that the other guy used. Then, I should be able to get on his base and find his corners, thereby making me find his footsteps."
As I said, your concept of "footsteps" is not the same as mine.
"Think outside the box."
'Well, no your honor, I didn't exactly follow in his footsteps. I was thinking outside the box.' LOL
Jim
Whatever.