Tom Adams, post: 366331, member: 7285 wrote: I agree 100%. I am guessing that the "law" being cited is for a retracement survey in relation to artificial monuments which is (I am also guessing) what 90% of the modern surveyor does. But I am also showing some of the possible absurdity of always having to make the statement either that something was 'found' or something was 'set' in my comment above. If I go to the thread of a stream and thence follow that stream, I don't necessarily care whether I say the word "found". As you point out, I will simply describe the stream well enough by measurement, or other means, so that another surveyor (or land owner) can feel confident that they are using the same stream.
But wouldn't you set a witness monument showing some distance +- on the pl to the cl of the stream and then meander
I see some statements throughout this thread suggesting to "set a more substantial monument". Why do surveyors think that a 30" rebar with a cap of some sort is remotely more "substantial" than the existing post the client wants to be the corner?
Fortunately I don't work in Texas so the found or set requirement does not apply. How I would handle such a requirement would be to add the definitions of found and set to the drawing legend as follows.
Found = an existing object accepted as a monument as described hereon.
Set= a 30" x 34" rebar with 2.5" aluminum cap stamped VP TAYLOR SURVEYS PLS 25966
It does seem that the assumption is always that the post (ambiguously referred to) is a rotten wooden post leaning precariously, waiting for replacement by an "ESL fence crew". Most of the rural properties in my area are owned by ranchers who appreciate longevity in the fences they build and also happen to be decent welders capable of building sturdy iron pipe fences. It seems arrogant to me that I would plant a rebar stake (of any size) that is more substantial than a braced 6 or 8 inch iron pipe post in concrete.
A couple of weeks ago, I did follow a survey performed a decade ago that called for a wooden fence corner post. When I got to the corner, there was a wooden fence corner post, but it was green (obviously new). The old post was laying beside it with a rotten base. Looking up line in the two directions the fence ran, I could see that the new post was inside the location of the old post. It seemed reasonable that the person setting the new post didn't want to fight with the rotted remains of the old post when digging the hole, so he set it over a bit. I was using RTK (gasp) and eyeballed the intersection of the fence, ignoring the new post, and set the rover where I estimated the intersection to be. I used stake out to see the distance to the corners I'd already tied up line in each direction (one to the North and one to the East). The distances were within about two tenths of the deed call. As I dug around, making sure there wasn't already an iron stake in the ground for the corner, I found bits of rotted wood, no doubt the remains of the old post that was laying down oriented precisely toward the spot. I hammered an iron rod in the ground, collected a good position on the rod and called it good... scratch that... very good. This is rural land, not high dollar commercial property.
I have run across many old maps (and some NEW ones in areas with zero regulation or checking) with simply "3/4" iron pipe" noted at all corner points. No effing idea if any were Found monuments or a Set monuments.
That makes it Very hard to decide if the last surveyor just went out, found Nothing at All, but and slapped 4 new gizmos in the ground at deed dimensions ... or FOUND 3 out of the 4, and put ONE new monument in (which is also at a point of occupation).
so, it pays to read the Code (it clearly does not say "mark all points either Found or Set") and refresh your ideas about what you are really doing out there.
3/4" tagged rebar or iron pipe is far from "durable" if it is set in sandy beach sand, 10 years later maybe al that can be detected is a rust stain. Been there, done that.
pull your head out of the sand, look around, mark things for future surveyors (and don't forget the land owners)
Shawn Billings, post: 366336, member: 6521 wrote: I hammered an iron rod in the ground, collected a good position on the rod and called it good... scratch that... very good. This is rural land, not high dollar commercial property.
Yes, although it would have been much better if the iron rod had professional identification on it as required by Texas practice. If you were using aluminum caps, you could even have stamped the cap "POST HOLE" for the benefit of later surveyors who might be thinking that Shawn Billings missed the actual post (the new post that will be looking old in the future) described in the deed.
Robert Hill, post: 366332, member: 378 wrote: But wouldn't you set a witness monument showing some distance +- on the pl to the cl of the stream and then meander
Yes, that would be standard practice, but I think Tom's comment was more addressed to the idea that some classes of monuments, such as streams and trees are obvious as to origin. They were not "set" by any surveyor; marked, possibly, but not placed.
This is the rule to which I am referring regarding surveyors' obligation to note monuments as found or placed:
å¤663.19. Survey Drawing/Written /Description/Report.
(e) Boundary monuments found or placed by the land surveyor shall be described upon the survey drawing. The land surveyor shall note upon the survey drawing, which monuments were found, which monuments were placed as a result of his/her survey, and other monuments of record dignity relied upon to establish the corners of the property surveyed.
I don't really have an answer to my own question to which I have complete confidence. I would prefer to say that the post is existing rather than found because I have the opinion (right or wrong) that found refers to an already established monument, record dignity or otherwise. As Kris pointed out above, we often will use an iron stake that has no "record dignity" but that was clearly placed by someone to represent a boundary monument, possibly the original surveyor, possibly a retracement surveyor. So record dignity can't be the only determination of found vs. existing. I do think that artificial vs. natural might be a good case for not using "found". Others have mentioned we typically don't go to the "found center of Smith Creek", we go to the "center of Smith Creek". A tree for corner is existing unless it's been marked (arguably becoming an artificial monument), which I'd say becomes a "found tree marked X". For following the intent of the grantor through some object that I didn't set nor was placed originally for the limits of a title boundary, I feel weird saying "found", but I believe it is the most appropriate of the two choices (found or placed).
It's both found and set.
"Set tag LS ___ on top center of existing 4' high 4"x4" wooden fence post from which a...
Set a couple witness points...refer to them in the description, move on to the next job.
Robert Hill, post: 366332, member: 378 wrote: But wouldn't you set a witness monument showing some distance +- on the pl to the cl of the stream and then meander
Yes, and what Kent said.
Every time the board gives me some kind of rule or law that is very precise micromanagement, it seems like there are situations that I come across that doesn't really fit the rule. I think you need to kind of observe the intent of the rule, and recognize when you have an exception to it. Maybe some jackass can come along and report you and say "Hey State Board, look @ this surveyor, he didn't say whether he found or set that stream, you should nail him" but hopefully the rulemakers in charge will recognize who is being the troublemaker.
(P.S. I hope "jackass" is an okay word. I didn't mean to call someone a "Democr@" or anything. BTW, I read that the donkey as the symbol of the Democr@ic party originated when Andrew Jackson was called a "jackass" and he actually took some kind of pride in it and used it, and eventually it was adopted as the party symbol. This is not meant as a political comment, and I purposely disguised the dirty word.)
Shawn Billings, post: 366349, member: 6521 wrote: A tree for corner is existing unless it's been marked (arguably becoming an artificial monument), which I'd say becomes a "found tree marked X".
Well, isn't it obvious that a tree of sufficient caliper to have an old mark "X" was already in place? Instead of "found 24" tree marked X", better practice is "24-inch [identify tree as to species] with scar of old mark 'X' on [identify side, presumably the one facing the corner]". There is no room for confusion and it makes clear that the mark "X" was one that was already in the tree, not one you made.
Kent McMillan, post: 366262, member: 3 wrote: If you consider the purpose of the rule in the first place, though, you should see that the main purposes of having land surveyors report whether a monument was found or set was as a means of documenting the trail of evidence. That is, if a Texas registrant recovers a boundary monument that is used in determining the boundary of a tract, he or she mentions the fact that it was a monument found as opposed to a corner conjured from thin air.
In the case of a fence post that is not mentioned in any conveyance in the chain of title to the subject tract or an adjoining tract, i.e. is not "of record dignity", a registrant who reports that he or she "found" a fence post marking a corner or angle point has the burden of explanation:
663.16(C) "All boundaries shall be connected to identifiable physical monuments related to corners of record dignity. In the absence of such monumentation the land surveyor's opinion of the boundary location shall be supported by other appropriate physical evidence, which shall be explained in a land surveyor's sketch or written report."
The misuse of the word "found" really mainly serves to confuse the issue when before the surveyor arrived it was merely an existing fence post.
There is no distinction of finding an unrecorded fence post vs. finding an unrecorded iron stake.
Kris Morgan, post: 366581, member: 29 wrote: There is no distinction of finding an unrecorded fence post vs. finding an unrecorded iron stake.
Yes, there is a obvious distinction. Markers of the sort set by land surveyors typically indicate a prior survey that one is finding evidence from. Fence posts are typically just fence posts. They aren't survey markers until some fenceline surveyor describes them as such or a professional land surveyor determines by a process of investigation that they perpetuate some boundary corner of record.
Kris Morgan, post: 366581, member: 29 wrote: There is no distinction of finding an unrecorded fence post vs. finding an unrecorded iron stake.
To continue the statement of the obvious, the reason for distinguishing between boundary markers found and placed or set is to maintain a trail of evidence or pedigree for boundary monuments. To accomplish that, a professional land surveyor examines the various descriptions of the boundary as they appear in the instruments of record (not limited to merely the last deed, of course) and notes which were found in place and which were replaced in the course of his or her survey.
So, a fence post that by misadventure marks a newly created boundary has zero pedigree. It falls in the same category as a tree that Mr. Client pointed to as being where he wanted some new corner to be. "Found" and "set" have no meaning in either context since the record discloses that there was absolutely no boundary corner of record there before the transaction that made it one. Surveyor neither found a boundary monument nor set one.
Kent, you and the other Texans need to lobby for mapping. Recorded Maps.
So much can be illustrated so quickly and clearly that the wordsmith will never be able to compete with.
Most of us are spatial in nature: "a picture is worth a thousand words"
Peter Ehlert, post: 366646, member: 60 wrote: Kent, you and the other Texans need to lobby for mapping. Recorded Maps.
So much can be illustrated so quickly and clearly that the wordsmith will never be able to compete with.
Most of us are spatial in nature: "a picture is worth a thousand words"
Well, you still need to *label* the map, right? That is the essence of the original question: how to label some fence post that the poster wants to use to mark some newly created boundary.
As to your larger point, I don't think that maps are as great in some respects as a metes and bounds description with a list of coordinates in some standard projection. You're as likely to get really crummy, uninformative maps cluttering the public records as really crummy metes and bounds descriptions as long as surveyors are confused what the underlying purposes for both are. The maps I see tend to overuse symbols and underdescribe markers. I'll grant you that maps can be understood by non-surveyors more easily than metes and bounds descriptions, but I'm not sure that is always a good thing.
Kent McMillan, post: 366613, member: 3 wrote: To continue the statement of the obvious, the reason for distinguishing between boundary markers found and placed or set is to maintain a trail of evidence or pedigree for boundary monuments. To accomplish that, a professional land surveyor examines the various descriptions of the boundary as they appear in the instruments of record (not limited to merely the last deed, of course) and notes which were found in place and which were replaced in the course of his or her survey.
So, a fence post that by misadventure marks a newly created boundary has zero pedigree. It falls in the same category as a tree that Mr. Client pointed to as being where he wanted some new corner to be. "Found" and "set" have no meaning in either context since the record discloses that there was absolutely no boundary corner of record there before the transaction that made it one. Surveyor neither found a boundary monument nor set one.
:good:
Exactly. Well put.
