Having taught a standards/code of conduct course several times for my state surveying society, this one always generates both some surprise as well as some good discussion. Some people just rehabilitate because they believe it is the appropriate thing to do while others do not disturb the original evidence because they believe that is the appropriate thing to do.
Excerpt from Kentucky standards 201 KAR 18:150 Section 9.(8)
"All existing record monuments discovered during the performance of the survey shall be preserved and shall not be altered or destroyed."
During similar discussions on Surveyor Connect, I've posted it before. While it is easy to just guffaw and say that makes no sense if it contradicts one's world view - it is in the law. I don't know if any other states have similar language, but I know there are states that have language about disturbing corners and steps needed to be taken before or after to officially note any changes made as well as some language that does not differentiate between a surveyor or anyone else disturbing an existing monument.
There is usually about a 50/50 divide in the position taken by CPD attendees.
So the question becomes can I rationalize "shall be preserved" with "shall not be altered"?
Because rehabilitating a monument in danger of being lost seems to be both preserving and altering.
A great example of how "rules" can be so darned frustrating. Yes. No. Maybe. Only if.
You find a stone clearly laying on its side that has been reported many years previously to have some lettering on one side. You roll the stone back up to it's original vertical position and see the lettering. The stone fits the remnant of stone left below it. One argument says to lay it back down where someone someday will decide that it is either not a survey stone or that the center of the horizontal side is the historic corner. Another argument says to rehabilitate the stone so as to perpetuate well into the future.
Just out of curiosity I was throwing out some hypotheticals just for the sake of discussion and to get other ppls thoughts. I apologize if I offended anyone as it was not my intent to come across in an antagonistic way.
I would think you’d be further ahead to locate the bent pin where it is and set a new one with cap where you determined the corner should be then let the landowners decide.
Because as a surveyor were still doing our job of researching, locating evidence, and marking said evidence for the client and adjoining landowners. Ultimately it’s up to the landowners and the courts to decide what is the boundary based on the evidence available by a surveyor or surveyors depending on the dispute and if the adjoining landowner hired their own surveyor. I recall one property line dispute where there were 3 different surveyors hired to mark the disputed line and all three came up with a different line.
I see this far more often though which, in my opinion, makes the original location much less clear.
Must be an area of loose soil or sand to get dragged sideways like that. Even the softish volcanic ash/loams around here don't do that if something just catches the top. In a road bed or hard ground it would be very rarely see them like above, typically just the tip bent.
Level up a tribrach on legs over the vertical centre, grab small vice grips and clip on the side turning until the ribs are full of dirt, then slide out with gentle pulling. Then renew with the next sized up bar so it's not loose in the hole.
Especially when I'm a couple thousand feet in the woods
This is relevant also, rehabing a monument in the back of beyond where small changes when you whack it back in don't matter is quite different to doing it in a high value suburban area (going to assume here that in high rise areas the closest to rehab you might get is gluing a disk/plaque down that has come a little loose). I'm coming from a recording jurisdiction perspective.
@jon-payne To muddy the waters, the u.s. supreme court says "shall" does not always mean "must" but can sometimes mean "may", if "shall" not defined in the statute and if context of the statement might indicate it means "may".
I was actually thinking that I could have done better. Those 8" deep in the pavement ones. Maybe I should have pulled them out, straightened, and put them back in. 2 of them, still had the original ypc on them. And were not bent over. I just hammered a 3/4" pipe over them. It took the big sledge hammer to do this. And hard swings. Just guessing here, but I think most surveyors, finding or seeing my rehabed markers, will just shoot and use these, the same as any other shot. They will be out of there in one minute, instead of digging. I feel that some of the time, some surveyors who don't rehab, are just in a hurry. The idea above, of using a piece of 1/2" pipe, as a sleeve, and keeping the original monument type.... I'm thinking about that. With a pipe, water can get down there. That's not good, especially in frozen places like Wisconsin, etc.
The tools to rehab are many, and varied. Here is a partial list:
A tire tool, made of super hard steel is a must have. They cost $50 or so. But, they can open very hard ground. Some 3/4 pipe, and 1/2" pipe, a hacksaw, knee pads, and fresh cool mix are pretty well necessary. Good sharp vise grips, a trowel, tuna can.
A dewalt battery Vacuume would be nice. I bought a slammer tool. It's not really heavy enough. But that tire tool is very handy.
Hammer it in, and pry. Then scoop out.
I'm wanting to learn more, and always do a better job.
@nate-the-surveyor a decent geology hammer is irreplaceable. It can chew through six inches of asphalt faster than we can get the hammer drill set up..
