Good Answer
I apologize to Mr. Blameuser if a simple statement of facts is snippy to him.
However the response to my second sentence is much more critical to good surveying.
Paul in PA
I hope this helps
It definitely helps, thanks for the nice list like that. When I took my very first surveying class in college I thought issues would be a lot more black and white. Then the next semester I took a legal principles of surveying class and had my perception flipped on its ear when I realized just how grey of a profession it really is, which I'm really enjoying. It's neat how there isn't really a right or wrong answer necessarily to a question like this, just a 'good, better, best' scenario depending on the surrounding circumstances like you pointed out.
Thanks for such a thorough response, you sure develop your reasoning well and make it easy to see why you feel the way you do. It was this type of thought process that was bouncing around in my head when I asked the question, but I wasn't really sure if it was the right way to be thinking about the problem at hand. I'm glad to see from your post along with others that considering leaving the fence post as-is without setting a WC(s) wouldn't be considered poor practice necessarily.
> I'm glad to see from your post along with others that considering leaving the fence post as-is without setting a WC(s) wouldn't be considered poor practice necessarily.
As a general rule, if you're an LSIT the problem that you'll confront as you approach licensure is whether to do things correctly or to try to take shortcuts such as that J.B. describes. I can it "looking for the EASY button". As you progress, I think you'll discover that whenever you find yourself making a long and tortured explanation of something that was done or some non-standard practice that seemed quick and easy at the time, something probably should have been done differently.
Good Answer
No, no, MY apologies to you.
I thought using "snippy" was being kind.
It wasn't the first description that came to mind.
🙂
Don
David and Joshua's Conversation is
an excellent example of the combination of Standards of Practice and interpretation.
I see both of their positions in the case of a fence corner post. There are many times when a fence post has been placed directly where the corner is located. In that case, a point within the fence post is the actual corner.
So it becomes a question of is that particular post adequate to also be a monument to the corner? Monument and corner being two different items.
A couple of years ago there were changes to the standards of practice in Kentucky and there is now a section for "alternate" forms of monumentation as a third tier of what can be used as a monument, as pointed out by David. My opinion would be that David is correct in that the fence post can be used as a "alternate" form of monumentation from the current standards - when looking only at the requirements of what items constitute a monument.
However, the standards also have a section stating that the boundary corner requires a reference monument set for the corner if the corner is likely to be disturbed.
Now the licensee must use his professional judgement to determine if the fence corner post is likely to be disturbed. Usually, a wooden fence corner will need to be periodically replaced. Having replaced sections of fence and while surveying having come to a fence corner and found new posts set a foot away from an old post hole, my personal opinion would be that when a fence post occupies the corner location, it should be reference monumented.
> A foot away is entirely too close for a witness corner.
I agree, but for the reason that, at least around my area, the fence is likely to be replaced or completely removed at some point. During that process, anything within a foot of the post is likely to be disturbed as well.
Wow, that is a much different
method of building a fence corner than usually happens around here. In my area, there will be a 6 to 10" diameter post, but it will be about 3-4 feet in the ground and the base is usually about half rotten.
Of course the fence run may be a 300-700 feet before a change in direction.
HELLO ? 3 Out Of 6 Corners Does Not A Survey Make
3 out of 6 corners might be OK for deed staking but definitely not for surveying.
Those 3 corners that are fence posts and not the called for monument need much more evidence to support them as anything but fence posts. They may have displaced corner monuments on 1 or 2 adjacent lots. Well those adjacent lots should have other corners. If those other corners are also fence post and not called for monuments, then the survey has to be expanded to adajacent lots to the adjacent lots.
Before anything is set, one must first have sufficient evidence to support it. It appears that to many of you the only requirement to set a monument is that one was not found.
Paul in PA
Frog Story
When I was very young, five or six, I spent a lot of time fishing for brook trout with my grandfather in the U.P.
I recall one time when nothing was biting, probably because we were too late after the planting truck left and the creek was fished out by other locals that had seen the tracks before we did.
Anyway, my grandpa, for entertainment, pulled a piece of red thread from somewhere on his clothes and tied it to his hook. He sailed it expertly across the creek in front of a big bullfrog that immediately snatched it in his mouth.
My grandpa pulled him over to us, de-hooked him and tossed him back in the water. The frog swam back to where he had been.
My grandpa flipped the thread across the creek again and the frog bit again.
“Why’d he do that again, Grampa?” I asked.
“Cause he’s a frog.”
My point?
I’m not a frog and, as attractive as this bait is, I’m going to let it go. 🙂
Don
It absolutely amazes me that there are this many replies that vary so differently over such a simple subject... And we wonder why sometimes title companies or realtors don't want to spend time and money for a survey.
Seriously guys, if the fence corner is in the position of the property/survey corner, then it is the corner,setting a witness corner is purely a preference, I wouldn't do it, cause when the lettering wears off of the cap or the next guy doesn't do the research, he'll use the WC as the corner and who knows how long or how many transactions this may carry thru.
I also wonder, WHY do you attach the post you are replying too to your post, gawd we just read it on the post above, why do we need to read it again on your post?
I'd call for the fence corner as the corner. If you feel that the post will rot or the fence sux, then you can set reference corners on the lines leading into them, basically, giving you two iron rods on each line for a bearing bearing intersection at a later date by a later surveyor.
Typically, if the fence corner is a good-un, then I won't set the reference corners. 4" Iron pipe fence corner in concrete, no, I'm using the fence corner. 3" cedar post in tamped dirt on the side of the hill, well, I'll probably set something a little more substantial.
Good question, but I hope you have your flack jacket on bro!
> As a general rule, if you're an LSIT the problem that you'll confront as you approach licensure is whether to do things correctly or to try to take shortcuts such as that J.B. describes. I can it "looking for the EASY button". As you progress, I think you'll discover that whenever you find yourself making a long and tortured explanation of something that was done or some non-standard practice that seemed quick and easy at the time, something probably should have been done differently.
Most LSIT's are able to sort out the difference between "certainty" of a corner monument and "precision" required for a control survey while some struggle with the concept for their entire career. A monument found marking a corner location, when not set by a surveyor, simply can't be tolerated by some.
Document your findings, record your survey, and roll on.
JBS
While admittedly I have not read every single response, I agree with the setting of witness corners as a suitable method.
With that said, it really comes down to your the laws of your state and what they allow or don't allow. For example, here in Idaho if you find a 1/2 inch rebar with cap along the exterior boundary of your plat you are required by law to remove that rebar and set a 5/8" rebar or larger. Yes, it is a very dumb law but it's the law nonetheless.
JB
Well said amigo!
I did This at a Fence Corner
This image is a portion of a Record of Survey I did a few years ago with almost the exact situation you describe (sorry for the poor quality of the scan, but that's what the County had their scanner set for back then):
This is how I marked the caps:
As to whether it's better to set a witness monument (or two, as I did) or simply accept the post and report it at the corner, I agree that with posts that are relatively new and in good condition, that it comes down to a preference. In the case of the survey I posted, a previous surveyor did accept the post, nailing his tag to the top of the post. Over the course of several years, 2 or 3 other surveyors found the tag at the top of the post, also accepting it.
By the time I got there, the post was in pretty bad shape, leaning way over and weathered to the point that the tag was gone and the nail hole could not be identified (not that the nail hole would have mattered with the post leaning so far).
Had the post been new and set well, I probably would not have set witness monuments. But thinking on it, had a previous surveyor set a witness monument or two, it almost certainly would have been undisturbed and in good shape and I could have re-established the corner per that WC rather than on measurements from points 1000+' & 500+' away. The fence post, leaning and loose, might have been pulled over by the tension from the fence wires and a lack of proper bracing, or it might have been pushed over by a truck or equipment used by a utility crew working on a nearby underground line or by the crew that built the new fence just to the East. Just straightening up the post left at least as much uncertainty of the original position as re-establishing the position per various record data from more distant points.
Since that survey, I would look at the surrounding circumstances and if an IP & cap is likely to significantly outlast the fence post, I'll set a WC. If the WC would be likely to be disturbed by whatever disturbs the post, and the post is relatively new and set well, I probably would not set a WC, but just tag the post instead.
Yup, it is just a tiny little difference if by all other evidence you would place the corner where that piece of wood, regardless of who set it, happens to be.
If you found a boulder at the location you would have set a corner monument, would you move or blast the rock out in order to set your pipe, or would you simply mark the rock by chiseling an "X", or perhaps by driloing and then cementing your nail & tag to it. Do one of the latter and the rock is still the monument. The mark is the accessory you place indicating acceptance and precise location.
A well set fence post on a rural property is plenty precise to indicate a property corner location. Place your tag as an identifier/indication of acceptance.
> > Most LSIT's are able to sort out the difference between "certainty" of a corner monument and "precision" required for a control survey while some struggle with the concept for their entire career.
That succintly puts some earlier posts in this thread in clear context.
Your preconcieved notion of recording would be correct in many parts of the country, might be in other parts, and may not even be possible in yet other parts.
What you're not anticipating is that the confusion won't be among surveyors, because they will (had better) have all pertinent record maps in hand. the confusion will be among landowners, either current or subsequent. The monuments of a survey are primarily for the landowners, and only secondarily for other surveyors. The maps are primarily for other surveyors as most landowners have no idea how those bearings and distances actually relate to the ground they call theirs.
In a case like this, where considering WCs (more accurately, Reference Monuments) due to a fence corner, 1' away from the corner is way too close because when the post rots and starts tipping, the likelihood of it disturbing the WC is too great. If something else takes out the post, it is pretty likely to take out or significantly disturb the WC as well. I would generally go to 3' or 5'.
Further, if setting a WC, you should use a type of cap that allows you to mark it as a WC (or RM). That doesn't eliminate the possibility of confusion, but it helps to minimize it.
The decision to set a WC or not isn't just about the effort involved, there should be several factors that go into the decision: 1) How stable and durable is the object which is already at the corner? Is a WC likely to significantly outlast that object? 2) Would placing a WC monument be likely to cause undue confusion among the landowners? Can I minimize the likelihood of confusion by the placement of the monument(s) or by the marking of the cap(s)? 3) Will the setting of a WC be helpful to either the landowners or a later surveyor to find the corner as I've identified it? 4) Is this extra effort and material going to be of any value to others or am I doing it just to convince myself and others that I do so much better work than the other surveyors in the area?
Practice to high standards, but don't kid yourself that placing objects in the ground when they're not adding any benefit to those who would rely on your survey equates to better practice.
I also wonder, WHY do you attach the post you are replying too to your post, gawd we just read it on the post above, why do we need to read it again on your post?
It's a virtual witness corner to the parent post silly!
