Any constructive criticisms appreciated.
Way too much information. Now you have given everyone fair notice that they are now free to dispute every little picky point they can think of with you.
In a perfect world I suppose we all should make similar reports on every goat stake and extraneous material that "might" be a monument that we encounter as a way of announcing what we rejected and why. The problem is that there would be more of these kinds of reports than there would be survey plats.
If the stone has been disturbed, then shouldn't you establish a witness corner or reference monuments to the actual township corner because of the cultivation activity?
What I see of your corner record says you found it disturbed or at least suspect it disturbed and did nothing about it to perpetuate the actual township corner.
SD
I would set something in the field at the corner location. Pipe, rod, whatever and set the top no less than two feet below the surface. I've recovered many old markers deep in fields around here. The farmers here don't like fences and take them out as soon as they buy any adjoining land. Finding a monument removes all doubt as to the location of the corner.
I would also set some reference tie irons out on the edge of the field... like near an angle point in the fence (and note the distance/direction to the reference iron to the fence angle point). The ± distances may do some good to help find a monument if you set one, but ± distances to an unmarked spot really mean nothing.
Without a corner monument or ties, you're forcing the next guy to go a mile in two directions to re-establish the corner.
Yes, I would definitely file a record.
File a monument record. I think you always should. I disagree with the "too much information" theory. I know that I would be much more prone to accept someone else's position if they tell me everything they did.
I think explaining why it was not possible to set closer references is adequate and if someone made an issue of it, I think your argument would prevail.
Talk to the farmer and ask him if you can set something underground below a certain depth that won't interfere with his work.
Anyway, that's what I think. I know that sometimes surveyors trying to do the right thing and file something that they could have gotten away with not filing, gets them in trouble sometimes. That is not as it should be, and I could understand if someone decided not to file to save themselves from petty fault-finding.
I forgot to add the emoticon.
As you have noted, those who do provide information (as we all should) tend to get attacked once others have specific information to attack. Too many shy away from that potential of being attacked and do nothing, which is far worse in the long run.
> Without a corner monument or ties, you're forcing the next guy to go a mile in two directions to re-establish the corner.
>
That is my intent. Of course some mental midget might still come along and cross tie a point in from the +- ties, but I hope not.
I think sometimes less is more.
I like it a lot but as a potential follow-up surveyor I would hope there is another record that shows 3 control monuments relative to your calculated position to allow for redundancy & or one of the 3 being destroyed which would still leave a 2 point solution.
In the end, there will be a Monumented Land Survey Plat (MLSP) plat of the 2200 acre property I am surveying which will show ties to the location. The stones referenced on this record will have similar records filed.
If all else fails, the MLSP should provide more information than needed to establish this location. BUT, you will have to survey to get there.
I am still working out the note which will state, in essence, that this location is my [sarcasm]"double single proportion best guess" (I just made that up).[/sarcasm] Your results may vary if you were to survey west and south of the corner.
You could be clearer in stating what you accepted and rejected. I think you accepted the "position based on monuments to north and east", but it doesn't jump out at first reading.
And even if it has to be deep, there should be a monument set at the accepted location.
"Ties [from what?] to references" I suppose it is from your accepted position, but with so many things on the drawing and none marked as The Corner, you could make it more obvious at first glance.
I can't pick out a symbol corresponding to (3) fence corner.
Why do you say "ownership lines" and not "occupation lines" ?
Why do you only refer to monuments to north and east instead of from 4 monuments? Your tie distances don't match the record lengths, so I would assume you did do a double proportion but that isn't indicated.
My $0.00
> You could be clearer in stating what you accepted and rejected. I think you accepted the "position based on monuments to north and east", but it doesn't jump out at first reading. I will add to the stone note that the location is rejected.
>
> And even if it has to be deep, there should be a monument set at the accepted location. As stated, the location is not near any ownership property line. There are two owners of hundreds of acres in the area and really no need to set this corner until one or the other decides to subdivide. That is a job for the subdividing surveyor which might be me but I doubt it.
>
> "Ties [from what?] to references" I suppose it is from your accepted position, but with so many things on the drawing and none marked as The Corner, you could make it more obvious at first glance. Good point. I will change the "to" calls to the stones to "from".
>
> I can't pick out a symbol corresponding to (3) fence corner. It is kind of lost near the found stone, I'll try moving it maybe with a leader.
>
> Why do you say "ownership lines" and not "occupation lines" ? There is really no "occupation" in the vicinity, the nearest ownership line is south 660 feet next out is half mile. The fences are separation for stock for the most part.
>
> Why do you only refer to monuments to north and east instead of from 4 monuments? Your tie distances don't match the record lengths, so I would assume you did do a double proportion but that isn't indicated. This point is half mile west of the southwest corner of the ranch I am surveying. If I had found that corner before looking for this point, I wouldn't have even looked for it.
>
> My $0.00
You got me mister cow. I took you totally seriously.
However, I have seen guys file monument records a little late and got nailed for it by the board, and I have seen them get confronted for tying in the wrong monument/not finding the original.
To some extent the survey "police" make it more attractive to not file a record, or (not) record what you have done. I think that is partly why I took it seriously.
(Not putting down the board per se, it is often because of outside complainants, or driven by other people.)
