Today’s topic title ‘Order of Importance of Conflicting Elements’ got me thinking about the following questions. One of the reasons for getting a detailed description of found monuments is to provide proof that we have found an original monument by the characteristics of the found monument. Or to establish the characteristics of a found monument so the next surveyor is sure that he has found the same monument. Since I have been using RTK for surveying I have found the ability to carry elevations+-.2’ but many times .02’ with RTK while surveying a very useful part of the tool. Especially when returning to a site and having to re-recover control points and found monuments. My question is: do any of you now use elevation as part of your characteristics of found monuments when applicable? If no, why not? Of course a detailed description of the bench mark/datum held would be on the face of the plat. What says you all? Jp
Probably all do when it is applicable, I have never found it applicable.
jud
A lot of property won't have enough vertical variation to make it useful, but I can see some value on big slopes.
Rather than the absolute elevation, probably more useful to say xxx.xx ft N xx xx' E and 47.3 ft higher to a monument set. That makes it a distance rather than a coordinate and thus better in the hierarchy, is probably repeatable to a better precision, and avoids all the issues of datum.
I've seen surveys that describe the monuments relation to the ground.
Such as: Found CM flush with ground.
Fnd. IR/C .6' deep
Fnd. IP no ID sticking up 1.5'
that always helps
> I've seen surveys that describe the monuments relation to the ground.
>
> Such as: Found CM flush with ground.
>
> Fnd. IR/C .6' deep
>
> Fnd. IP no ID sticking up 1.5'
>
>
> that always helps
Same here, only height of monument above ground level. We rarely carry elevations on boundary surveys unless there is some engineering to follow.