@gene-kooper It seems clear that your opinion is they are moving, or have moved. But that the movement is not consequential, or is too cumbersome to acknowledge. I get it, not sure I wouldn't handle it the same way. But the JD in me says the note might reflect it better. Maybe something like "there is some evidence this original stone has or is migrating downslope, but due to measurement error of the time it is impossible to determine with certainty that the stone is not in its original location. However, due to the modern precision of the measurements taken in the course of this survey, future locations differing than those shown on this map should be considered to have occurred by natural downslope creep rather than measurement error of this survey."
Fascinating and complicated, thanks for sharing.
Thanks for your input, Duane.?ÿ One of the big reasons I posted this plat is to get input about my conclusions regarding moving monuments.?ÿ I don't think my solution is based on the alternatives being too cumbersome; at least I hope not.
I am trying to balance my knowledge and understanding of geologic processes and their possible impact on where I found the stones with my responsibilities as a land surveyor.?ÿ While I am a professional geologist in Colorado, I am not signing the plat as a PG; nor would the statutes allow me to do that.?ÿ
To me, the crux lies with what should the burden of proof be. As a professional land surveyor I determined that the burden of proof should be clear and convincing evidence of movement.?ÿ In other words, have I measured movement similar to Cor. No. 4, Enterprise Lode, Sur. No. 8413 (see Detail 8, Sheet 12) and to Cor. No. 2, Blue Bird Lode, Sur. No. 20507-A (see Detail 4, Sheet 7), but not for these stones.?ÿ All I have are discrepancies with the record positions.?ÿ Once I made that burden of proof determination, the solution could only be to hold the monuments (for now).?ÿ If later work quantitatively shows "continued" down slope movement then it will be time to wrestle with a cumbersome alternative.
I'll sum it up by saying that my geology training and experience tell me that the stones have moved.?ÿ However, that is a qualitative assessment, not a quantitative assessment.?ÿ Since I am certifying the plat as a licensed land surveyor, my qualitative geologic conclusions must yield to the sanctity of holding monuments over course and distance.
?ÿ
Wow, looks like quite a nightmare at first glance.?ÿ I'm surprised so many of the monuments were still around.?ÿ The nice scenery makes projects like this worth it.
Beautiful plat/plats, since you are requesting comments:
Although I'm not a Colorado surveyor, I do believe it's been mandated to refer to the Colorado State Plane System as the Colorado Coordinate System of 1983, insert zone.
Minor thing that I've been red-lined for a few times in a different state.
Also I'm assuming that bearings and distances are based on the Colorado Coordinate System of 1983, I may have missed that note, I didn't see it, but I have not delved deep into the plat.
?ÿ
Nice plat Gene. A++++
You are correct whenever using SPCs in a land description (C.R.S. Title 38, Article 52 Colorado Coordinate System).?ÿ The SPCs on the three control stations were a county requirement for lot consolidations plats.?ÿ It would have been better practice for me to use, "Colorado coordinate system of 1983, central zone" regardless of why SPCs were on the plat.
My client specifically requested that I not include SPCs for any of the boundary corners.?ÿ I'll explain that reasoning along with some photos in a follow-up post.
?ÿ
The basis of bearing is per the Board's suggested form for a geodetic north basis of bearing statement because the Board asked this nitwit to submit an example and they accepted it. ????
@gene-kooper I'm not sure it's a good idea to try and separate your expertise.?ÿ Again, I have no problem with your determination, just with the note explaining it.?ÿ I think you open yourself up to unnecessary collateral attack with the current note.?ÿ Surveying is about evidence, geologic or otherwise.?ÿ Because you are a geologist, you have a better opinion than most surveyors regarding evidence of that nature.?ÿ You can't take that back.?ÿ And, communication usually wins over "correct" in evidentiary matters.
I penned a report for federal court a few years ago that mostly dealt with the elements of erosion.?ÿ Judge agreed with me against those that should have known better.?ÿ Even though I'm not an erosion expert, hydrologist, etc.?ÿ But I had the knowledge, used it, shared it as part of my professional opinion of the evidence as a land surveyor.?ÿ
Being a geologist is not a disqualification for providing a better opinion than others on that type of evidence.?ÿ
?ÿ
Now for the reason I didn't place geodetic-based coordinates on my plat per the landowner's request. He did not want someone to take my plat and load coordinates in their handheld GPS unit and navigate to any of HIS stone corners!?ÿ I don't know if others have this problem, but this area is a very popular destination for hikers and mountaineers.?ÿ Youngsters can stand on top of four 14teeners in one day, Mt. Bross being one of them.?ÿ For whatever reason a likely probiotic-yogurt burper/tree-hugger type decided to protest evil mining activities in the area by pulling GLO stones. Rotten bastid!!
Stones that are moving over time is one thing, but moved stones is an entirely different situation.?ÿ I've had six stones pulled out of the ground on Mt. Bross.?ÿ Fortunately, I had surveyed the stones earlier and set two steel "T" fence posts, 2 feet long and driven flush to the ground as accessories for my monument records.?ÿ I came across these two disturbed stones in one day.
Cor. No. 3, Privateer Lode, Sur. No. 2541
Well, drat there used to be a stone in that hole.
?ÿ
Oh, here it is and the chiseling is buttered-side down.
?ÿ
Rehabbed stone after using swing ties from the accessories and doing some RTK checks.
?ÿ
At least the view of Mt. Silverheels was gneiss that day.
?ÿ
Cor. No. 3, Social Fund Lode, Sur. No. 20504
SIGH....another hole.?ÿ At least the stone is neaby, but I'd still like to put a few holes in that hiker's fancy Patagonia outerwear with my g-pick.
?ÿ
Rehabbed stone after using swing ties from the accessories and doing some RTK checks.
?ÿ
After rehabbing the stones and anointing each with a few drops from my water bottle I was able to become serene again and enjoy the beautiful September afternoon.?ÿ Alma is at the bottom of the hill and Pikes Peak is the high point on the horizon.
?ÿ
Edits for readability.
Thank you for the detailed response.?ÿ That level of detail requires a degree of care, and discipline, to be quite thorough in one's analysis, as well as exacting in the plat and documentation of what was located and is being described so others can, with similar care, decipher the claims being documented.
Please accept my humble respects for sharing.
