Kent McMillan, post: 365227, member: 3 wrote: Yes, the ESL fence builders typically are not that familiar with the concept of boundary markers.
Seriously, though, it has created a lot of angst for me to carefully run a traverse, balance it, maybe rerun it, come back and carefully set the corners in a new subdivision...and come back to find the corner 0.2' off, right next to the post, in concrete, immovable, true position inside of the post...and plat already recorded...so I dont want to set an offset. And the builder has asked me to recover the corners pre-sale. I may have thrown my hat a time or two.
And...if I remove the corner, what then? I have to destroy the footing of the fence.
Once had a foundation crew building a footing for a house in the wrong place, they pointed to a corner that the fence guy had put back...next the wrong post.
I feel a real rant coming on...
Kent,
How come the trees and driveways in your photos of the CLF post corner location are completely different from each other? are you sure you've got the same street corner pictured in each?
That aside, I get your point, which was similar to mine. Those posts are good only so long as no one decides to move them to construct a different fence or otherwise disturb them.
As to fence contractors, I was once setting irons at the corners of new lots in a subdivision that was about to record. All of the utility and street construction was done. Most of the tract homes were complete or nearly so, but the stucco and fence crews were still busy. Very rocky soil. Couldn't drive a rebar, or even a nail without hitting a cobble every few inches. Took an average of about 15 minutes per iron to get them in straight, flush, and with the cap at the proper location.
One day, we're starting where we had left off a couple days prior. Fence crew had been busy. New privacy fence pretty much everywhere we had already set corner irons. Went to take a check shot on one of the last we had set and found it lying on the ground a few tenths from a brand new fence corner set in concrete. Found a different point to check and got started. Working up a sweat on the first iron at the next lot corner over from the one I had first tried to check when one of the fence crew guys walks up to that fence corner looking for some tool he had dropped. He sees the iron lying on the ground and sees us working nearby. He then picks up the iron and jabs it into the soil alongside the edge of the new concrete, gives it a couple raps with his claw hammer, smiles as he gives us the thumbs up, then walks away feeling good about himself for having helped out the surveyors by cleaning up after his crew. What a helpful fella!
eapls2708, post: 365244, member: 589 wrote:
That aside, I get your point, which was similar to mine. Those posts are good only so long as no one decides to move them to construct a different fence or otherwise disturb them.
Not to get too into a flame war here, but perhaps what we really demonstrated, and even Kent demonstrated, is that iron pins have no greater long term stability than a fence post, but have a greater danger of being relied upon erroneously when reset by the fence guy
Judging by the photo, it appears Kent's monuments have some aura or force field that prevented the fence guy from digging it up. Maybe we could learn how to do that...is that something offered by the dark side, or something from Yoda?
Nate The Surveyor, post: 365202, member: 291 wrote: Um, that is NOT the whole story.
The fact is, that in some circumstances, within a few tenths is fine. And, others not.
I think we just said the same thing...look, Javadites, I am not attacking your product.
This is the law for our state. Yours may vary:
The surveyor shall confirm the prior establishment of control
monuments at each controlling corner on the boundaries of the parcel
or tract of land being surveyed. If no control monuments exist, the
surveyor shall place the monuments. Control monuments shall be
constructed of reasonably permanent material solidly embedded in the
ground and capable of being detected by commonly used magnetic or
electronic equipment. The surveyor shall affix a cap of reasonably
inert material bearing an embossed or stencil cut marking of the Iowa
registration number of the surveyor to the top of each monument which
the surveyor places.
As I interpret it the prior establishment of a post as may be confirmed as a controlling corner
eapls2708, post: 365244, member: 589 wrote: How come the trees and driveways in your photos of the CLF post corner location are completely different from each other? are you sure you've got the same street corner pictured in each?
The difference is that the Google Street View scene was taken before the house was razed, the chain link fence was removed with a loader, and a new structure and driveway were built. The rest is the magic of a long lens compared to the wide-angle google lens. It's the same corner.
dmyhill, post: 365262, member: 1137 wrote: Not to get too into a flame war here, but perhaps what we really demonstrated is that iron pins have no greater long term stability than a fence post, but have a greater danger of being relied upon erroneously when reset by the fence guy.
Judging by the photo, it appears Kent's monuments have some aura or force field that prevented the fence guy from digging it up. Maybe we could learn how to do that...
If you mean the rod and cap in concrete that appears in the photo of the rural fenceline, the secret is just setting the marker in concrete. That is a reliable way to keep the fence builders from resetting the marker. If you mean the low-rent urban corner, long monuments in concrete work well. It's always a good idea to to set reference points that won't get destroyed, though, in an urban area. I prefer spikes and washers in drill holes in concrete curbs and sidewalks. On the prolongation of the property line is an obvious choice. Generally, they last well.
dmyhill, post: 365239, member: 1137 wrote: Seriously, though, it has created a lot of angst for me to carefully run a traverse, balance it, maybe rerun it, come back and carefully set the corners in a new subdivision...and come back to find the corner 0.2' off, right next to the post, in concrete, immovable, true position inside of the post...and plat already recorded...so I dont want to set an offset.
And...if I remove the corner, what then? I have to destroy the footing of the fence.
That's exactly what I'd do: just drill out the concrete around the marker and remove it, particularly if it has my cap on it. That way, there isn't anything resembling a survey marker left in place, just a fence post that nobody with a clue would rely on. Second best is to remove the cap and beat on the rod so that it is obviously disturbed. If what is left is a marker set flush in concrete, then concrete needs to be broken.
Kent McMillan, post: 365122, member: 3 wrote: W The non-surveyor landowners won't appreciate the nature of the problem that fence posts leaning out of plumb present if used as monuments, which is why a surveyor has to address it instead of just nodding his or her head and saying: "Okay, the customer is always right!"
Of course, a more precise monument would be better. The point in this case is that the owners are agreeing on the fence corner. Unless one of the owners is willing to have a Kent approved survey monument slightly on their side of the the fence corner, their may be no agreement. If the fence corner is what they are willing to accept, the client's preference trumps mine. I am in total agreement that reference monuments should be set just as in the case of a tree or other irregular monument. I recently was involved in a 20,000 acre survey where we were very happy to find corner monument trees. They were more recoverable than lighter stakes at other comers. We set reference monuments at the trees for future generation. The point of using a better monument when possible is not lost. I would rather follow your survey than someone who is less anal.
Kent McMillan, post: 365271, member: 3 wrote: I prefer spikes and washers in drill holes in concrete curbs and sidewalks. On the prolongation of the property line is an obvious choice. Generally, they last well.
This is best for everyone. Old lead and tacks in the walk have helped us understand how different blocks were broken down. Following in the footsteps is easier if the footsteps are in concrete.
lmbrls, post: 365285, member: 6823 wrote: Of course, a more precise monument would be better. The point in this case is that the owners are agreeing on the fence corner.
Yes, but WHAT point in the vicinity of the fence corner post is to be established as the agreed corner? Is it to be the center of the finial cap on top of the post, the center of the post where it enters the concrete, or just wherever on the post anyone wants to pick in the future? If the object is to actually fix a boundary in a specific position, using a fence post that is two inches or more out of plumb at the time of the agreement without getting specific won't get the adjoining owners what they think they're getting.
The second problem that has been touched upon is how to mark the post so that it is identifiable in the future. By the time that a tag suitable for a post is fabricated, stamped, and screwed to the post with self-tapping screws, I'm thinking that it would have been less expensive and better performing to have set reference monuments.
The post is the monument..................there is no point and never will be.
Holy Cow, post: 365306, member: 50 wrote: The post is the monument..................there is no point and never will be.
If the monument doesn't mark any specific point, exactly what do you imagine it to mark? What is the purpose of a call such as "thence to a concrete yard gnome known as 'Ralph' at the North common corner as hereby agreed?
The reality is that the public records are full of boundary agreements and decrees in boundary suits that purport to settle land boundaries but in fact do not for the simple reason of lack of adequate description. I remind my clients that the language of the decree is where the money is. "It says to the yard gnome known as 'Ralph', dammit. What are you trying to do, actually determine where the boundary really is?"
Take this as an example of what I believe by the Karoly defintion would be considered to be a "monument". The description as agreed runs to this yard gnome.
It's visible and recognizable as a gnome. Case closed, right? The only problem, of course, is where the corner supposedly marked by the gnome really is on the ground. Minor detail, I realize, but it's exactly the same deal with irregular fence posts, including those set out of plumb.
Kent McMillan, post: 365323, member: 3 wrote: Take this as an example of what I believe by the Karoly defintion would be considered to be a "monument". The description as agreed runs to this yard gnome.
It's visible and recognizable as a gnome. Case closed, right? The only problem, of course, is where the corner supposedly marked by the gnome really is on the ground. Minor detail, I realize, but it's exactly the same deal with irregular fence posts, including those set out of plumb.
LOL
The call is to a monument, not to any specific point within said monument. The entire monument is the corner. The bearings and distances are to get you to the monument. If you go that bearing and distance and bang head-on into a tree or a stone or a bar or a fence corner or a building corner or a stone wall or any other called for monument, the goal has been achieved.
Holy Cow, post: 365327, member: 50 wrote: The call is to a monument, not to any specific point within said monument.
Yes, but weren't the parties to the agreement wanting to actually establish the boundary in a *specific* location, not leave it as the subject for future boundary agreements, as you seem to want to do?
I envision a 6' deep concrete footing with a 4"x4" stainless steel monument up about 0.75'. The monument would be designed to accept a stainless steel fence post with a removable cap on top so a prism pole could be dropped down inside to the monument cap below. There would be a door on the side of the post so the cap could be seen and the pole point could be put in the dimple.
Lamon Miller, post: 364802, member: 553 wrote: ...several corners in the rear will occupied by chain link fence post.
Is it acceptable to use an existing fence post as a corner monument?
Yes. It is very acceptable. Your clients will get Exactly what they want.
Measure to the middle of the post at ground level.. Just drill a hole in the post about 1/2 a foot above grade, use pop rivet to affix your tag, done. Describe the monument in your descriptions and on your map.
I did exactly that about 30 years ago for an existing cooling tower... 20 years later they were still obvious, and in use... and used by other surveyors on subsequent surveys. Crystal Clear. Simple, durable.
For those that are challenged on how to measure: turn angles to each side, split the angle... measure to the face with your pocket tape and add the radius of the post.
Peter Ehlert, post: 365333, member: 60 wrote: For those that are challenged on how to measure: turn angles to each side, split the angle... measure to the face with your pocket tape and add the radius of the post.
Okay, so that would be TWO angles, some arithmetic, and the person on the rod would have to measure the o.d. of the post? I suppose that they'd have to clear away the pile of stuff stacked up against the fence, huh?
The reason I find this all so amusing is that I know perfectly well that *I* can locate the center of a chain link fence post at ground level, but it seems to be a lost art among the employees of the surveyors who specialize in residential surveys.
