A fellow local surveyor sent me a photo a couple of weeks ago of a pin cushion he had found.?ÿ There was a bare 1/2" iron bar that had been set by a now-deceased surveyor who was very good and worked in that general area regularly.?ÿ Then there was a capped bar with a morasse style cap a few inches away, set by a fairly recent arrival in the area, who works for a firm with more than one office.?ÿ Then there was another capped bar with a morasse style cap close enough that the two morasse caps touched that was set by longtime surveyor from the same firm but a different office.?ÿ All of these stood up about four inches above ground level for all to see.?ÿ This was a city lot corner.
shame!
Precision is important. Probably you had a flat earther a spherical surveyor and one who wanted the 2nd guys. job. I see no problem here.
Or else two and three both flunked out of law school.
Should have been two photos, one showing the bar and two morasse caps, and another showing the bar by itself. Just saying. No need for accessories so close on a lot corner.
How do we get that into surveyor SOP. "Any accessories closer than 3 feet shall be removed immediately."
Here’s your picture or one like it.
Found one like that recently. Old iron pipe that agreed as well with the plat as anything in the subdivision that I could find, with two newer 1/2" rebar set within 6" of the old pipe.
SHAME!
In regard to the Surveyors who came in after the original Surveyor- I hope to achieve such revered status as an "expert measurer" at some point in my career. I'm only 34 years into my Surveying career so hopefully will get to this point some time soon 😉
Think of it as the result of the measurement revolution. I'm getting sick of reading about how precisely someone can measure especially when doing a retracement survey. The purpose of the measurement is to assist you in finding the corner. What don't they understand????? It's guys like that who are giving us a bad reputation with the public.
Don't get me started on the subject of surveyors that show gores and overlaps when retracing a metes and bounds description. Obviously once they met the minimum qualifications they forgot what they knew.
(1) I've ran into a similar issue a couple of times recently in some subdivisions where I had either set the original or had previously measured the original as part of a nearby survey. I spoke with the surveyor and the problem was explained as a crew that was not looking close enough. Both instances the new pin was within a couple of inches of the original and nearly the same elevation at top.
(2) Another surveyor I spoke with recently set a new pin within half a foot of an existing in a drainage swale. The top of both pins were about 4 inches exposed above ground, so I don't know how the new one was set without busting his knuckles on the old one. I sent him a photo to pick at him and ask how he managed to not see that (he is the colleague in the next story, which occurred before this one chronologically). He was the one in the field and was more than a little disappointed in himself for missing it.
(3) I once found five of six corners and I managed to not find the last one. I set a new pin at the calculated point and had a colleague find both the original (just a couple of inches down) and mine many years later. They were touching. I am pretty certain that at that time, I was in the habit of probing with the shovel before setting something new (even if the detector gave no signal) due to a suggestion by Nate or TM on the older version of the forum. So I just missed the original. That one can't be blamed on an anonymous field crew member, it is all on me.
The first two surveyors above I know to be good at their profession. The third one I have concerns about. But, they all missed something at some time. All three of the people discussed above have also found monuments/evidence/deeds/old maps that could easily have been missed (one being a 1/2 rebar at the depth of a post hole digger handle).
In the instances I've seen the phenomenon, it hasn't been based on 'better' measuring capabilities, it has been a lack of supervision or training for the crew members, sometimes it might be a momentary lack of observation, or it might be as simple as missing a point.
Just need to learn from the mistake and try to not repeat it, with the understanding that over time something is going to be missed. No one (despite their thoughts or claims otherwise) bats 1.000 over a long career. I had to add over a long career because apparently one guy did bat a 1.000, but with just a handful of at bats.
One original marker with two reference markers.
Read a book way back about the Eighth Grade called, "The kid who batted 1.000". His special talent was that he could hit any pitch but make sure it was an uncatchable foul ball. Eventually, he would get a walk. Plus, he would wear out the other team's best pitchers.
Enter that title and you will find it can still be purchased.
From Wikipedia:
The Kid Who Batted 1.000 (1951)
The Kid Who Batted 1.000 is a 1951 book by Bob Allison and Frank Ernest Hill with illustrations by Paul Galdone.
The conceit is that the Chicks, a (fictional) last place team in the American League, discover Dave King, a teenage hick and aspiring chicken farmer in backcountry Oklahoma who is found to have the ability to hit any ball delivered by any major-league pitcher in the strike zone – but always foul. Eventually he receives four pitches out of the strike zone and draws a walk, every time at bat, thus leading the Chicks to the league championship (an on-base percentage of 1.000 would be the highest in major league history by a very large margin). In his final at bat, in the seventh game of the World Series, he hits a home run to win the game and series (thus achieving a lifetime batting average of 1/1, or 1.000, albeit in postseason play only). After the season, having earned enough money to set up a chicken farm, King does so and retires from baseball.
