> My rule is to search to the extent that no one else will ever find anything I might have missed.
Yes, that's a very good statement of principle.
I think there are three main things that go through my head when it comes to original monuments:
1. One should almost have a irrational fear of missing them before setting your own at a calculated location (irrational because we know a lot of times you are not going to cause havoc - just make yourself look bad to others in the future)
2. One should be a little obsessive by nature and keep digging around until you feel you have done what would be considered more than adequate. Often one has to return later when the light (and your mind) is different - especially when it comes to locating old chiseled crosses in concrete.
3. One should respect the old surveyors work enough to show him the courtesy that you can spend a mere 30 minutes or more digging around to preserve his hard work.
Yes I can be serious, and I am. There is nothing in the standards that says that you CAN'T reset the original monument found destroyed.
You have to satisfy yourself, and you don't have to answer to anyone for it, but I would reset the pipe and note that I reset the pipe and why.
Ding! Ding! We have a winner!!
> Yes I can be serious, and I am. There is nothing in the standards that says that you CAN'T reset the original monument found destroyed.
>
> You have to satisfy yourself, and you don't have to answer to anyone for it, but I would reset the pipe and note that I reset the pipe and why.
That's a patently deceptive practice where your actions aren't documented in a public record, as would be the case in a typical lot survey in Texas. There's a HUGE difference between replumbing a leaning pipe that maintains its original position and resetting an original marker in a position 1.25 ft. away from the nearest part of the leaning pipe.
What is to prevent the next surveyor from concluding that the pipe you're reset is an original, undisturbed monument of the 1940 survey? Nothing? Case closed. Manufacturing survey evidence is definitely contrary to the standards of practice.
> > Yes I can be serious, and I am. There is nothing in the standards that says that you CAN'T reset the original monument found destroyed.
> >
> > You have to satisfy yourself, and you don't have to answer to anyone for it, but I would reset the pipe and note that I reset the pipe and why.
>
> That's a patently deceptive practice where your actions aren't documented in a public record, as would be the case in a typical lot survey in Texas. There's a HUGE difference between replumbing a leaning pipe that maintains its original position and resetting an original marker in a position 1.25 ft. away from the nearest part of the leaning pipe.
>
> What is to prevent the next surveyor from concluding that the pipe you're reset is an original, undisturbed monument of the 1940 survey? Nothing? Case closed. Manufacturing survey evidence is definitely contrary to the standards of practice.
Sorry, but that dog won't hunt. If you feel that strongly about it, go file an affidavit to that effect in the deed records. Your plat will tell the tale. Saying you found it with no other qualifiers will not fly, but saying you found it disturbed and reset is not only within our purview, but should be done in my opinion.
Set a new corner or don't, it's of little consequence to me, but that's what I'd do.
> > > Yes I can be serious, and I am. There is nothing in the standards that says that you CAN'T reset the original monument found destroyed.
> > >
> > > You have to satisfy yourself, and you don't have to answer to anyone for it, but I would reset the pipe and note that I reset the pipe and why.
> >
> > That's a patently deceptive practice where your actions aren't documented in a public record, as would be the case in a typical lot survey in Texas. There's a HUGE difference between replumbing a leaning pipe that maintains its original position and resetting an original marker in a position 1.25 ft. away from the nearest part of the leaning pipe.
> >
> > What is to prevent the next surveyor from concluding that the pipe you're reset is an original, undisturbed monument of the 1940 survey? Nothing? Case closed. Manufacturing survey evidence is definitely contrary to the standards of practice.
>
> Sorry, but that dog won't hunt. If you feel that strongly about it, go file an affidavit to that effect in the deed records. Your plat will tell the tale. Saying you found it with no other qualifiers will not fly, but saying you found it disturbed and reset is not only within our purview, but should be done in my opinion.
I don't think you're really engaging the problem here. You're perfectly willing to set an old pipe in a way that has every likelihood of deceiving future surveyors into believing that it is an original, undisturbed monument. That is wrong in so many ways that it isn't funny.
Sure, I suppose you could bury a note in the public records saying that you'd reset the pipe in a position 1.25 ft. away from where you found it, but you aren't going to do that for a residential lot survey.
The case is different when there is a record of the survey, including a record of the mark resetting, that will be in the chain of title to the property, such as when metes and bounds tracts are resurveyed and new descriptions prepared for a transaction. For lot surveys in Texas, where the original subdivision plat remains the primary description, no. Not even in East Texas.
> > > > Yes I can be serious, and I am. There is nothing in the standards that says that you CAN'T reset the original monument found destroyed.
> > > >
> > > > You have to satisfy yourself, and you don't have to answer to anyone for it, but I would reset the pipe and note that I reset the pipe and why.
> > >
> > > That's a patently deceptive practice where your actions aren't documented in a public record, as would be the case in a typical lot survey in Texas. There's a HUGE difference between replumbing a leaning pipe that maintains its original position and resetting an original marker in a position 1.25 ft. away from the nearest part of the leaning pipe.
> > >
> > > What is to prevent the next surveyor from concluding that the pipe you're reset is an original, undisturbed monument of the 1940 survey? Nothing? Case closed. Manufacturing survey evidence is definitely contrary to the standards of practice.
> >
> > Sorry, but that dog won't hunt. If you feel that strongly about it, go file an affidavit to that effect in the deed records. Your plat will tell the tale. Saying you found it with no other qualifiers will not fly, but saying you found it disturbed and reset is not only within our purview, but should be done in my opinion.
>
>
> I don't think you're really engaging the problem here. You're perfectly willing to set an old pipe in a way that has every likelihood of deceiving future surveyors into believing that it is an original, undisturbed monument. That is wrong in so many ways that it isn't funny.
>
> Sure, I suppose you could bury a note in the public records saying that you'd reset the pipe in a position 1.25 ft. away from where you found it, but you aren't going to do that for a residential lot survey.
>
> The case is different when there is a record of the survey, including a record of the mark resetting, that will be in the chain of title to the property, such as when metes and bounds tracts are resurveyed and new descriptions prepared for a transaction. For lot surveys in Texas, where the original subdivision plat remains the primary description, no. Not even in East Texas.
I might if I'm having as much problems as you appear to be. If it's that big of a deal, then just use the damn iron rod you found. That's what 90% of the rest of the surveyors are going to do. Why make a calculus problem out of 2+2?
It's hilarious to me that you will pull a persons rod and cap and move it 0.1' to YOUR line and not think anything of it, pull what you consider to be "junk corners" that mean nothing and pitch them, but resetting what would appear from your posts to be the original corner, nah, we're not going to do that.
It depends on how much you want to milk a job.
Once a survey is finished at any time in the past, it is the owner who is responsible for preserving the 'original' boundary and it is the owner's right also to establish a new boundary location if they wish.
If you remember Judon Fambrough's explanation of the legal rights of the owners, (remember, the 'aggie trash' you tried to blow off after you posted it), which are legalised by sect 16 of the Texas Civil Procedures and Remedies Act you will remember that the only obligation of the surveyor is to be sure that the legal boundary location is accurately described.
Therefore, if an established boundary has met the requirements of your state law, you have no authority to deny the existence of the legal boundary that has replaced the 'original'.
Surveyor's only responsibility is to report what exists now, not what 'should have been' if the owners did not exercise their rights as property owners.
Deed staking is not the practice of land surveying.
Richard Schaut
Does Kent wear a tie out in the field?
> It's hilarious to me that you will pull a persons rod and cap and move it 0.1' to YOUR line and not think anything of it, pull what you consider to be "junk corners" that mean nothing and pitch them, but resetting what would appear from your posts to be the original corner, nah, we're not going to do that.
This whole subject of manufacturing survey evidence is worth a thread of its own. I don't think you've really thought through the obvious downsides to doing it. There are more than a few. Shifting some surveyor's erroneously set markers onto the true line that they were trying to mark, a line that is defined by its original, undisturbed monuments called for in the deeds of both adjoining landowners is a different deal than, as you propose, finding one of the terminal monuments laid over with no recoverable position and deciding just to reset it to make it look as if it's the original, undisturbed monument.
Experience
> Hmmm. Well, finding old evidence in my view is pretty much basic competence - and basic competence isn't exactly showboating. What experience brings is a constant alertness to what has yet to be found or disclosed, the small clues that unravel the mystery.
I'm sorry Kent, I got the impression, from your posts, that 90% of the surveyors in Texas lacked that basic competence and you were just here to help. I was just giving you a pat on the back for doing such a great job.
You set the bar fairly high and invoke a second look in the mirror, for most of the Beer Leg readers, I like that about you.
My first boss was better than everyone at everything and he managed the best 7 crews in the State of Nebraska. Health competition was encouraged, you didn't have to be the best, you just had to try.
Douglas Casement
Justice Cooley
> Deed staking is not the practice of land surveying.
Well, Justice Cooley (remember him, the Michigan judge you used to be so fond of quoting before you latched onto that Aggie real estate teacher?) wasn't in any doubt at to the importance of original monuments.
Experience
> I'm sorry Kent, I got the impression, from your posts, that 90% of the surveyors in Texas lacked that basic competence and you were just here to help.
No, in Austin the problem surveyors are mostly those serving the residential lot survey market. In my experience, the odds are unfortunately excellent that you could go into just about any older residential district of the city and find that most of the recent surveys have some serious problem, typically the result of failure to do an adequate investigation on the ground. It's a rational result of the marketplace finding the cheapest and fastest.
The fundamental difference that I have with your argument is that all of the original corners you've found, you must make the assumption that they are undisturbed. We all do this. Not always are there accessories to the corner to prove it's undisturbed position. We use our professional judgment that it is or is not disturbed.
I'm not discounting that my way isn't without some peril and requires that extra step to ensure that everyone is put on notice about the actions that I've done. If the surveyor doesn't do that, well it may APPEAR that it's manufacturing evidence. However, if I find an original pipe disturbed, but can replace it based on witness trees or some other accessory to the corner, then I've not manufactured anything, when in fact, I've perpetuated the original corner, using the original material for the corner.
You just have to say what you do. However, like I said, it's a lot job in Travis County, Texas. That's hell and gone from my service area, so it doesn't bother me in the least how you handle it.
I'm not sure. One of his mentors, he is fond of saying, wore khaki pants with nearly knee high boots laced up and I think with a tie. However, I think Kent is a bit more relaxed with his dress, but I'm sure it's as professional as can be for the terrain at the time.
> The fundamental difference that I have with your argument is that all of the original corners you've found, you must make the assumption that they are undisturbed.
We can't have the same thread in mind. Those original monuments that defined the senior line onto which I shifted the mistakenly placed newer markers were ones that I had myself set about fourteen years earlier when the boundary was created. One rod and cap marker was drilled into rock and both had my spike and washer control points nearby. In other words, there was no assumption involved whatsover.
> We all do this. Not always are there accessories to the corner to prove it's undisturbed position. We use our professional judgment that it is or is not disturbed.
Yes, and it would be simple enough for the next surveyor to demonstrate that the "original iron pipe" you reset wasn't actually an undisturbed original monument. So, it would actually confuse the picture and cast doubt on the other pipes that actually are undisturbed original monuments. This is one very good reason why cooking up survey evidence as you suggest is such a bad idea.
> I'm not discounting that my way isn't without some peril and requires that extra step to ensure that everyone is put on notice about the actions that I've done.
Which isn't ever going to happen on a residential lot survey unless you are filing an amended subdivision plat in the real property records.
> If the surveyor doesn't do that, well it may APPEAR that it's manufacturing evidence.
No, it definitely is manufacturing evidence. You found the corner without the mark called for in place and no definite evidence that would identify the exact position in which the mark called for was. The pipe was over 1.25 ft. away from where in the case I described you want to drive it based upon a reconstruction of the original survey.
>However, if I find an original pipe disturbed, but can replace it based on witness trees or some other accessory to the corner, then I've not manufactured anything, when in fact, I've perpetuated the original corner, using the original material for the corner.
No, you're still manufacturing evidence by misleading future surveyors into thinking that the corner is other than your reconstruction.
> You just have to say what you do.
No, the key element is informing future surveyors what has been done so that their is no room for misunderstanding. A new rod and cap monument fits the bill completely in ways that resetting some old pipe absolutely does not.
> However, like I said, it's a lot job in Travis County, Texas.
Actually, there is a house being built that may have to be torn down. This is why someone wanted to actually know the answer instead of settling for quickie magic.
> That's hell and gone from my service area, so it doesn't bother me in the least how you handle it.
I think you probably haven't considered the full ethical implications of manufacturing survey evidence.
However, if I find an original pipe disturbed, but can replace it based on witness trees or some other accessory to the corner, then I've not manufactured anything, when in fact, I've perpetuated the original corner, using the original material for the corner.
No, you're still manufacturing evidence by misleading future surveyors into thinking that the corner is other than your reconstruction.
I fully disagree with this. I can use whatever material I want to monument a corner. If I set it based on witness trees because a dozer hit it and moved it 10 feet, I'm still right in what I'm doing by replacing it. Your senario would require people who set pipes for corners to not set a pipe in this instance and vice versa for rods.
I don't think it's manufacturing evidence, but if you do, that's okay. I think it's perpetuating the original position of the original corner. I don't always put the same destroyed corner back in. In fact, most of the time I don't. If there is no really easy and bullet-proof way to ensure I've stuck it back in the same hole, I won't do it. But to say never and it's manufacturing evidence, well that's just silly.
FWIW, the original corners I was talking about was in a general sense with no particular thread in mind with regard to that very statement. When you find a corner, that is original, you have NO way, save witness trees or some very close accessory, to prove that it is undisturbed. That was my point. We all make the judgment call that YES, it is the original undisturbed marker or NO, it isn't the original undisturbed marker. We didn't have a video camera on it with which we can run back the decades or centuries to prove whether it has or has not been bumped/moved/disturbed or not.
I'm done with this thread. Neither one of us thinks we're wrong and neither one of us is going to give in on it.
> However, if I find an original pipe disturbed, but can replace it based on witness trees or some other accessory to the corner, then I've not manufactured anything, when in fact, I've perpetuated the original corner, using the original material for the corner.
>
> No, you're still manufacturing evidence by misleading future surveyors into thinking that the corner is other than your reconstruction.
>
> I fully disagree with this. I can use whatever material I want to monument a corner. If I set it based on witness trees because a dozer hit it and moved it 10 feet, I'm still right in what I'm doing by replacing it. Your senario would require people who set pipes for corners to not set a pipe in this instance and vice versa for rods.
Actually, in Texas you're supposed to put your professional identification on the monument. So a person setting pipes should have them marked in some visible location with his or her identity. That in itself should prevent some future surveyor from confusing it for other than a reset monument.
You should know that restoring corners from bearing trees can be an inexact exercise. The ties can be wrong or doubtful and even in some best case scenarios, it's often unlikely that the restored corner will be exactly where the original mark was, just somewhere reasonably close. Blurring the evidence by trying to create the illusion that the replaced corner is identical in every way with the original is simply unhelpful and has the appearance of deceitful intent. There just isn't any good purpose served.
