Loyal, post: 435977, member: 228 wrote: No kidding...I'd buy the beer to see that!
[SARCASM]What? No one owns a sledge hammer ? [/SARCASM]
FL/GA PLS., post: 435976, member: 379 wrote: In my world thats called "cutting corners" to "save time", thus subsequently misleading to future Surveyors.
Well, you're in Florida where everything is sand, right?
Kent McMillan, post: 435969, member: 3 wrote: As for trying to bend a 1.25" dia. heat-treated car or truck axle of high-strength alloy steel, I'm willing to hold anyone's beer while I watch.
I don't set axles for three reasons:
1) they're a PITA to come by in quantity (See #2)
2) rebar is much handier
3) One cannot easily bang them around to fine-tune the final location of that cute little dimple.
Sergeant Schultz, post: 435992, member: 315 wrote: I don't set axles for three reasons:
1) they're a PITA to come by in quantity (See #2)
2) rebar is much handier
3) One cannot easily bang them around to fine-tune the final location of that cute little dimple.
[SARCASM]IT'S NOT A MONUMENT WITHOUT THE DIMPLE!!![/SARCASM]
Loyal, post: 435977, member: 228 wrote: No kidding...I'd buy the beer to see that!
Loyal
If it's one of my fine California IPAs I'm not letting Kent hold it, he'd probably dump it out while simultaneously sticking his snooty snout up in the air, while holding it with thumb and index finger saying in a nasal drawl, "I'm pouring this swill upon ground!"
Kent McMillan, post: 435982, member: 3 wrote: Well, you're in Florida where everything is sand, right?
As a Surveyor I don??t think subsurface terrain enters into this discussion. Again, in my World monuments are set vertical. Not some leaning axle supposedly set so future surveyors can guess where the location of the corner actually is.
FL/GA PLS., post: 436003, member: 379 wrote: As a Surveyor I don??t think subsurface terrain enters into this discussion. Again, in my World monuments are set vertical. Not some leaning axle supposedly set so future surveyors can guess where the location of the corner actually is.
I guess if you've never tried to set a 1.25" axle in hard limestone, it would make sense that you would think that the soil condition doesn't matter, but it actually makes a huge difference. Once the axle was wedged in the fissure, it would take a major effort to extract it and if the only downside is that some surveyor unfamiliar with Central Texas might think it was disturbed because wasn't plumb, even through it was solidly anchored in the rock and clearly unbent, that wouldn't have been a problem in 1965 since all of the surveyors in practice in Austin were familiar with Central Texas.
Sergeant Schultz, post: 435992, member: 315 wrote: I don't set axles for three reasons:
1) they're a PITA to come by in quantity (See #2)
2) rebar is much handier
3) One cannot easily bang them around to fine-tune the final location of that cute little dimple.
The interesting feature of those axles is that they were most likely torch-cut pieces of axles, about 16" in length. Setting a full-length axle in the locations where I found them on that project would have been beyond merely difficult.
My theory is that one end of the axle may have been pointed a bit, likely with the torch, but I don't know if heating the steel changes the properties of the piece so much as to defeat the benefits of a point.
Kent McMillan, post: 435902, member: 3 wrote: I went over to the office of a friend and colleague who worked on the survey party that drove the axle that appears in the photo below. That was in 1965 when he was 23. He laughed when I told him that at least a couple of surveyors who had seen the photo had wondered why I didn't "straighten up" the axle before locating it. My friend knew perfectly well that it had probably been driven into a fissure in the limestone and still remained most likely in the identical position as it had been left in 1965 when he last saw it.
Kent McMillan, post: 435908, member: 3 wrote: The Point on Line was definitely at the top of the axle and the machined center was the reference point. The nature of the problem was that the axle was driven into a rock outcrop to mark the center of an old rock mound that was probably at least 33 inches in diameter. Where exactly that center was is no longer subject to review, but wherever the axle ended up was the declared center of the mound.
So, George confirmed that he traversed through the top of the axle set earlier by his cousin Orin.
Why state that the mound "was probably at least 33 inches in diameter? Instead, why not say that in your experience Texas mounds of stone were nominally 1 vara in diameter?
Kent McMillan, post: 435921, member: 3 wrote: No, what he told me was that his late cousin (who I'll call "Orin" and who also was a friend of mine) had set the axles before they traversed through them in 1965. What evidently happened was that the corners were located in 1950 and a cedar hub was set in the rock mound to mark the corner and those hubs were later replaced by the axles.
What is your experience with old cedar hubs in mounds? Were they merely pushed into the mound at the center? Or were they driven in the ground at the spot the retracement surveyor took to be the center of the mound?
Kent McMillan, post: 435951, member: 3 wrote: Well, I suppose it is possible that future "surveyors" won't have any conception of how axles were driven to mark the centers of rock mounds in the rocky ground of the Texas Hill Country in 1965, how strong and relatively unbendable axles are, or how plumb bobs were used to center transits over boundary markers, but I think that the odds are very much in favor of the machined center at the top of the axle being used as the reference point by whomever visits the thing in another 52 years.
Well, if the center of the mound was monumented in 1950 with a cedar hub, it was likely still there in 1965. The hub was either placed on top of the rock outcrop and the mound rebuilt around it to hold it in place, or driven in a convenient fracture/fissure. If the later is the case then the base of the axle marks the corner.
Kent McMillan, post: 435959, member: 3 wrote: In this particular case, the axle merely provides a reference point for the rock mound that was found in place and that still exists, somewhat scattered, around the axle. So the question would be the practical one of whether the machined center on the top of the axle as driven or the center of the axle at some point approximately where it disappears into the rock fissure will be the more definite and permanent.
In my work, I often find monuments that are leaning. I always carry my Brunton with me and for those situations, I measure the "lean" and direction of "lean" of the monument. I shoot the top of the monument and back at the office I can compute the virtual position of the monument. Your leaning axle is no different. It very well may have been driven into the fissure where Orin likely found the cedar hub.
Kent McMillan, post: 435962, member: 3 wrote: No reason for confusion. The axle was set in an existing rock mound that probably was built in the 1880s to mark a corner of a particular land grant. I've posted a photo above showing the remains of the mound. As you can see from the size of the rocks in the mound, the nature of the thing resists an exact determination of its center. So the practice is to leave a reference point in the mound to represent the center.
The axle was set in the age of transit and tape and my guess is that my late friend Orin was thrilled to be able to find a spot to drive the axle where it wouldn't take an hour's worth of work with a hammer and star drill beforehand. I very much doubt that it would have ever occurred to him that some future generation with optical plummets would arrive to try to find the center of some lower cross-section of the axle when the machined center on top was looking right at them.
You state above that the axle was set prior to traversing, so it doesn't matter what survey equipment was used. I presume that Orin followed the old survey principle that the cedar hub, or center of the mound as he determined in 1965 (if the hub was not found), was the best available evidence for the corner position. If the hub was found in the fissure, he probably drove the axle through the hub. Otherwise, he found the nearest crack in the rock outcrop and called that good, despite the crack not having a vertical dip, the resultant leaning axle was close enough in 1965.
Kent McMillan, post: 435972, member: 3 wrote: That's probably true in California, but in Texas a call for a rock mound is understood to be a call for the center of the mound and the object of the exercise is to determine its center. Where some prior survey did exactly that when the mound was presumably in lesser disarray, that is ordinarily as good as it is ever going to get.
And from your string of posts above that was first determined in 1950 with the setting of a cedar hub, that may have been remonumented with an axle driven to refusal in 1965.
The one thing that I'm pretty sure did not happen in 1965, is that Orin determined that the center of the mound fell on the rock outcrop and then he scrutinized the nearby cracks until he found the one with the right dip and orientation so that after cutting the axle to the appropriate length and driving the axle to the appropriate depth, the center of the machined top would be directly above the point he determined to be the center of the mound.
Gene Kooper, post: 436010, member: 9850 wrote: Why state that the mound "was probably at least 33 inches in diameter? Instead, why not say that in your experience Texas mounds of stone were nominally 1 vara in diameter?
Rock mounds were built in different sizes. This one was probably at least 33 inches in diameter. I'm afraid I can't state it more plainly.
What is your experience with old cedar hubs in mounds? Were they merely pushed into the mound at the center? Or were they driven in the ground at the spot the retracement surveyor took to be the center of the mound?
Cedar hubs came in different sizes approaching stake length. They were used as 60d nails were later, but were cheaper since they could be cut from available material and all that needed to be carried were tacks. The cedar hub that the field book of a survey made in 1950 appears to indicate by a symbol represented where the 1950 surveyor thought the center of the mound to be and may have been wedged in place between rocks in the mound. It was more of a temporary mark.
Well, if the center of the mound was monumented in 1950 with a cedar hub, it was likely still there in 1965. The hub was either placed on top of the rock outcrop and the mound rebuilt around it to hold it in place, or driven in a convenient fracture/fissure. If the later is the case then the base of the axle marks the corner.
That's a pretty thought, but is contrary to the fact that the top of the axle obviously marks the center of the mound and there is no means to show otherwise.
In my work, I often find monuments that are leaning. I always carry my Brunton with me and for those situations, I measure the "lean" and direction of "lean" of the monument. I shoot the top of the monument and back at the office I can compute the virtual position of the monument. Your leaning axle is no different. It very well may have been driven into the fissure where Orin likely found the cedar hub.
That would be a complete waste of time in this case, considering that the axle obviously hasn't been disturbed and certainly remains in the position set. As for some hypothesis about where the hub might have been: There is no way to know, so the axle as set is the center of the mound, the machined top representing the reference point instead of some theoretical point somewhere on the cross-section of the axle at some arbitrarily chosen lower level.
You state above that the axle was set prior to traversing, so it doesn't matter what survey equipment was used. I presume that Orin followed the old survey principle that the cedar hub, or center of the mound as he determined in 1965 (if the hub was not found), was the best available evidence for the corner position. If the hub was found in the fissure, he probably drove the axle through the hub.
No, the practice of that office was to remove a cedar hub and drive a permanent marker to represent the position in which it was found. In this case, the hub had no particular status other than an earlier attempt to reference the center of a large rock mound that was probably built in the 1880s and that most likely was already in disarray in 1950 when the hub would have been placed. So the axle marked the center of the mound as well as the hub did, but more permanently. The rock mound is, of course, the original monument and the vanished hub and present axle merely give its center a location for subsequent surveys.
The one thing that I'm pretty sure did not happen in 1965, is that Orin determined that the center of the mound fell on the rock outcrop and then he scrutinized the nearby cracks until he found the one with the right dip and orientation so that after cutting the axle to the appropriate length and driving the axle to the appropriate depth, the center of the machined top would be directly above the point he determined to be the center of the mound.
The most important fact that very few seem to be able to wrap their heads around is the practical one that when a large rock mound is slightly scattered, the uncertainty in where different careful surveyors would independently locate the center of the mound if no permanent mark designating that center were in place is sufficiently large that worrying about the fact that an axle leans that is otherwise solidly set in rock and of a material that will likely be in excellent shape a century from now ignores the entire reason for the exercise in the first place. The point of placing a permanent marker in a rock mound is to provide a permanent reference point. Exactly one point on the axle performs that function: the machined center of the top.
[solved]
1. go back with a couple sacks of redi mix concrete, some forming material, and a couple gallons of water (don't tell TDD about that last ingredient).
2. pour a respectable and attractive monument up to 1/4" below the top of the axle.
Now even the Homeowner/Builder/Public Agency will accept it as "the place"
3. file a record of what you found, what you did, and Why for us anal types.
We all know it does not make a hill of beans, it just "looks wrong"
"Now, go out and do the right thing" Dr. Laura
Peter Ehlert, post: 436023, member: 60 wrote:
1. go back with a couple sacks of redi mix concrete, some forming material, and a couple gallons of water (don't tell TDD about that last ingredient).
2. pour a respectable and attractive monument up to 1/4" below the top of the axle.
Now even the Homeowner/Builder/Public Agency will accept it as "the place"3. file a record of what you found, what you did, and Why for us anal types.
We all know it does not make a hill of beans, it just "looks wrong"
Actually, the solution that's even easier than packing 160 lbs. of concrete mix, the necessary tools, and water a quarter of a mile up a limestone hillside in 105?øF heat is to simply adequately describe the axle in the written descriptiont that will end up in the public records. The actual monument is the rock mound and all the axle provides is the reference point for that mound. Pouring concrete around the axle would tend to make even more of a mess of the rock mound.
Making it clear that the machined center of the top of the axle (with accurate coordinates on the same) is the reference point will work and will be much more efficient in terms of time and effort that could be better spent on other tasks. If the fence weren't in the way, I'd probably consider rebuilding the rock mound around the axle, but the fence is in the way. Most likely, it was the fence construction that scattered the mound a bit when the line was fenced some time more than seventy years ago.
Things like this, and pincushion situations, that make me a firm believer in reference points and witness corners. In a legalese sense, the actual boundary corner is a mathmatically described point in space. A monument is a indication of where that point exists. In a sense, while we have accessories to the location of a monument, the monument itself is only an accessory to the actual point in space.
If it is a solid shaft, locate the center-top and the approximate point of surface penetration. Old, bent rebars sometimes can be rotated to determine determine where that point might actually be. If I find more than one monument proclaiming to be a boundary corner (in tight proximity), I will show the position of each and the residual location to where "I" believe, supported by my calculations, where the actual point in space to be located.
Euclid, post: 436035, member: 10127 wrote: Things like this, and pincushion situations, that make me a firm believer in reference points and witness corners. In a legalese sense, the actual boundary corner is a mathmatically described point in space. A monument is a indication of where that point exists. In a sense, while we have accessories to the location of a monument, the monument itself is only an accessory to the actual point in space.
If it is a solid shaft, locate the center-top and the approximate point of surface penetration. Old, bent rebars sometimes can be rotated to determine determine where that point might actually be. If I find more than one monument proclaiming to be a boundary corner (in tight proximity), I will show the position of each and the residual location to where "I" believe, supported by my calculations, where the actual point in space to be located.
Popcorn...where's my popcorn?
:party:
Methinks he doth protest too much.
A determination was made as to where the center of the rock pile was to be marked.
An attempt was then made to monument said center point by placing the end of a shaft on that point and whacking heck out of it with a sledge.
Due to the rock being stronger than the shaft, the shaft twisted to follow the path of least resistance.
This swung the shaft out of vertical.
The rock refused to allow the shaft to be driven until the top was level with the initial entry point into the rock.
The party driving the shaft lacked the ability to shear the shaft off at surface level.
The result being as shown in the photo.
The intended location of the center corner is , in fact, precisely where the shaft enters the rock at surface level.
Utterances to the contrary can be made, but they are futile.
Everyone knows where the intended center point is and it is not at wherever the top of the shaft refused to continue moving.
Holy Cow, post: 436040, member: 50 wrote: Methinks he doth protest too much.
A determination was made as to where the center of the rock pile was to be marked.
An attempt was then made to monument said center point by placing the end of a shaft on that point and whacking heck out of it with a sledge.
Due to the rock being stronger than the shaft, the shaft twisted to follow the path of least resistance.
This swung the shaft out of vertical.
The rock refused to allow the shaft to be driven until the top was level with the initial entry point into the rock.
The party driving the shaft lacked the ability to shear the shaft off at surface level.
The result being as shown in the photo.
The intended location of the center corner is , in fact, precisely where the shaft enters the rock at surface level.
Utterances to the contrary can be made, but they are futile.
Everyone knows where the intended center point is and it is not at wherever the top of the shaft refused to continue moving.
I think you're missing the obvious, though, that the rock mound probably looked in 1965 pretty much exactly as it does today. In other words, the process of having various surveyors independently choose the center of the scatter would have a standard error well in excess of the difference between the center of the top of the axle and any point on the cross-section of the axle below it. Speculating about where my late friend Orin "intended" to drive the axle and where he actually drove it is a fun parlor game but an irrelevant one since his intentions have nothing to do with the fact that five different surveyors would independently pick five different positions for where they regard the center of the scatter to be and his axle has exactly one definite point, the machined center on top.
The main significance of a leaning marker is when it shows that the marker has been disturbed. In this case the axle clearly has not been disturbed. Practicality and certainty wins over speculation and formalism.
To quote Ebenezer Scrooge: Bah! Humbug!
Kent McMillan, post: 436044, member: 3 wrote: Practicality and certainty wins
Oh my. I'd give my left one if that were really true. Had a guy measure a 1/2mile from the otro direction a couple of years ago and drive a PK nail 1ft away from the old one I accepted because "it missed the 1884 distance of 40.04 1/2 CH. by more that 1/5000"
I just shook my head. Soooo many things wrong with that statement. Purty sure I still have the pic of my foot between the two nails from a cold January morning a few years ago.
Steve
Holy Cow, post: 436045, member: 50 wrote: To quote Ebenezer Scrooge: Bah! Humbug!
Well, just consider what the result will be if one were to make the reference point the center of the cross-section of the axle 9.5 inches below the top of the axle. The difference between that point and the machined center of the top is approximately 0.22 ft. parallel with the fence and 0.10 ft. perpendicular to it.
Subsequent survey parties infrequently visiting this corner will probably be using RTK and their methods will most likely include the same crap that one sees today when points that cannot be directly occupied, such as fence posts, are located, namely: to hold the rover pole as close to the axle as possible on the theory that it's close 'nuff. In theory, offset points could be located, but the time factor means that easily 50% of the parties will put the rover on the top of the axle and beep it.
So, if the most functional reference point is actually the machined center of the top of the axle and the offsets between center of axle 9.5 inches below and at the top are so small (0.22 ft. and 0.10 ft.) that they are well below the random noise threshold of picking the center of the mound in the first place, it's dumb not to use the top when there is no sound reason to do otherwise.
[solved]
the axle is a witness to the true corner, the mound