Dagnabit Kris!
N-->
Monuments hold, not dimples!
:good: :good:
Sometimes the bars are supposed to be leaning
AGAIN, I'm not the one that said "it really doesn't matter where on the cap the location was taken" That is from the original poster. It just caught my eye, that's all. I agree, the "center" of the monument we could all shoot to, marked or not, within a few hundreths of a foot for sure. But that's not what the jist of the OP said in the initial retelling of the story... at least to my reading.
Sometimes the bars are supposed to be leaning
I have no argument with you, Andy. I guess my first post about how some bars are intended to lean got stuck onto your comment rather than where it should have gone. My bad.
Sometimes the bars are supposed to be leaning
the problem with leaning bars is that I can't just measure the top and leave it alone.. I have to dig to find out if it really is referencing something real under there. I follow a guy here that would dig out the base of a concrete marker, then set a little stubby 6inch piece of rebar with his cap on it over the top. Nice idea, I suppose, but in digging, I invariably dig up this "stub" marker that was supposed to help!! and like a typical surveyor, I'd have to get down to the real marker and feel it before I'd accept some goofy thing like that or a bent rod anyway.
Can't help myself!!! no worries here!
Monuments hold, not dimples!
> > WOW! Why can I imagine you disregarding an original that is bent over, because your proportion is more mathematically pleasing, or, matches record better?!
>
> Umm, could it be because you didn't understand the obvious points I posted? I'm thinking: "May be, could be". :>
I would optimistically hope that the "why" for him would be because he has not read enough of your very interesting re-tracement posts to know how well you hold to original monuments.
Unfortunately, because you actually expect accurate and highly precise work in your own measurements, there are many on this board who, incorrectly, think you would disregard original monuments.
They blatantly gloss over the posted pictures and data wherein you have many times shown finding the original corner not matching record values and honor it. It makes it easier to make snide comments if they disregard those posted surveys.
Of course with the various ideas expressed of what an original monument is that should be no surprise. It appears that some think an original monument is absolutely anything found in the neighborhood of a corner before this very instance in time (even if it was only a part off of a plane that fell from the sky).
Those dimples on NFS tri station caps don't look like drill holes to me and there is a stem under there.
I need to look at one closer.
Monuments hold, not dimples!
> Unfortunately, because you actually expect accurate and highly precise work in your own measurements, there are many on this board who, incorrectly, think you would disregard original monuments.
>
> They blatantly gloss over the posted pictures and data wherein you have many times shown finding the original corner not matching record values and honor it. It makes it easier to make snide comments if they disregard those posted surveys.
>
> Of course with the various ideas expressed of what an original monument is that should be no surprise. It appears that some think an original monument is absolutely anything found in the neighborhood of a corner before this very instance in time (even if it was only a part off of a plane that fell from the sky).
Yeah, there are some weird practices out there that just don't map onto the reality of land surveying in Texas for sure. The promiscuous use of the term "original monument" is an excellent case in point. Apparently in some parts of the US the term is confused with the idea of an "established monument", as if the two were somehow indistinguishable. The internet continues to entertain.
Monuments hold, not dimples!
> Yeah, there are some weird practices out there that just don't map onto the reality of land surveying in Texas for sure. The promiscuous use of the term "original monument" is an excellent case in point. Apparently in some parts of the US the term is confused with the idea of an "established monument", as if the two were somehow indistinguishable. The internet continues to entertain.
I prefer to use the best available evidence in my corner determinations where I "establish monuments"!
Your ignorance to reality is troublesome, and somewhat OCD! Every survey involves different equipment with different crews and different procedures at different times.
Way too many factors to coincide millimeterectly, so every surveyor introduces his own error, interpretation, and bias to the situation on every level and every corner of every survey.
To question my determination of the corner with my equipment, my preferences based on experience, and my knowledge of the research involved, is offensive, as I have been towards you in discussing the personal practices of many surveyors all over the country!
We can all learn from each other's pride and short-comings based on personal interpretation!
I appreciate your dedication and passion of the sport, NO QUESTION!
Best of luck IDENTIFYING BOUNDARIES! But I think we are bound by the ones before us, hence the name "SURVEYOR"! I respect your procedures greatly, and aspire toward them, including permanent reference marks! I can't argue with repeatability and consistency!
I love you Kent!
GOOD DAY SIR!
Monuments hold, not dimples!
> Of course with the various ideas expressed of what an original monument is that should be no surprise. It appears that some think an original monument is absolutely anything found in the neighborhood of a corner before this very instance in time (even if it was only a part off of a plane that fell from the sky).
Sorry! but it is still better than a proportion which lands dozens of feet away, which is physically impossible, based upon inspection!
Don't forget to dot the cap, as followers will have trouble with your numbers and/or position!
Dagnabit Kris!
LOL!!!!
Monuments hold, not dimples!
> Your ignorance to reality is troublesome, and somewhat OCD! Every survey involves different equipment with different crews and different procedures at different times.
>
> Way too many factors to coincide millimeterectly, so every surveyor introduces his own error, interpretation, and bias to the situation on every level and every corner of every survey.
So, why do I and various other competent surveyors I know basically get the same answers using our different equipment, personnel, and procedures? I'm thinking there is one thing that we all have in common. We're actually just reasonably competent. :>
You didn't scan the tree trunk and then run a center of mass routine to locate the exact center?
Or would you cut the tree off square, locate the ring for the year of the parcel creation, scan in the ring and then locate the centroid with a AutoCad routine? Add a brass tack, punch the tack.
This is all spec'd out in your state licensing reg's isn't it?