Is this really FRKN necessary?

Absolutely absurd - why must some surveyors feel like they need to 'leave their mark' on something when they find it? Just completely not necessary. Was recently in downtown ATL, noticed a CHURCH with beautiful granite steps and other really nice hard surfaces. Some surveyor had put a paint spot everywhere he took a shot, for crying out loud! Why? Grrrrrr... maybe someone should survey these surveyors home and paint up their front steps!

Not to condone excessive painting, but one can understand that when doing a route survey it is convenient to spot mark your shots so as to know that you have taken that shot already, just like when spot painting a tree you already tied for tree locations. I have spot marked trees, but I have noticed others while doing route surveys had spot marked every shot and painted station locations on the pavement. Keep in mind that the paint will fade away fairly quickly, at least mine does.

And a side note, perhaps the client wanted profound clues to where the marks are.

I used to think that way...

... When I was twenty years old. Now I understand that your explanation holds no water.

I am calling BS. Sorry bud, this is NOT personal.

A~men. What does "FRKN" stand for? Seriously, I am not sure it means "Franklin"?

Go across the street, and there you will find "Tearman Motel".

They have a bucket, (for their mop) and you can cry a bucket of tears, into the bucket, for all that ____ Paint!

🙂

N

Comon now...it's obvious it means Franklin. As far as the over excessive paint job...hmmmm. I wouldn't have done it that way. The monument is clear and not to be missed. The extra spray effort is possibly due to an inexperience jr. crew chief.

With regards to locating tree's, it's still not common sense being used. Keel seemed to work for me for years. I've never used paint to mark a tree or a shot. I think it's an issue with training.

So in response to your original post head line....No!

This strikes me as the "work" of someone with major inferiority issues.

We do not spot anything. That's what brains and memory was created to handle. Create some sort of pattern and stick with it. When in doubt, if ever, take a shot. Better to have two than none.

That's a pretty extreme example, and much of it was unnecessary. However, I've been part of quite a few height modernization campaigns in which the observers never see their stations until the scheduled session time. They have limited time to pack up at one station, drive to the next, set up and start logging data by the beginning of the session. When you have 8 or 10 observers out, all of whom have to collect data at the same time in order to get the desired vectors, having the station clearly visible from the road is not just a convenience, it's a necessity. Time lost to station hunting means blown sessions, and when the station at which the late observation occurs is connected to 4 or 6 others that were collected on time, it means a lot of personnel have to go back out for reobs.

"That's what brains and memory was created to handle".

That's what I was thinking....and that's why I carried a digital camera. almost as good as field notes....:)

I do recall a fellow from the Virginia Power fussin' at a crew due to the fact they set a spike in a P/P. Va Power said "That's OUR Property" "Not yours"

They asked if it would be ok if they came by their house and drove one in the side of their house. Pretty much shut them up.

Apparently common sense is a by gone!

Nothing you posted would bother me, I think it's a good idea to paint the control point ID on the E/P if others will rely on it ... for example, if a construction crew is going to use it as a benchmark, it's best not to leave the possibility of confusion.

The only thing that seems mildly excessive is painting the R/W marker orange, but I've seen much worse than that ...

must own stock in a spray can company..

i would on a construction site, yes.
In this case, no.

WEll being that I lived in Franklin my own as wee kid in the early 70s, my guess would it does infact stand for Franklin.

I do miss that town. I was only 10 or eleven when I met my first "real" girlfriend there - Kathy. I doubt anyone that might still be there would remember me. I remember them!

Anyway I've seen much worse painting excesses in my paultry times of surveying.
E

I used to think that way...

Yes the polka dot crew. I have never left little spots of paint all over the job site; I think it looks ridiculous. A little logical order and memory is sufficient.

And painting a 2' high knee-cap breaker like that orange is totally absurd, why?

We do paint the sides of concrete posts in the forest red (never the cap on top) but that is because it is dark in there and I don't want the loggers destroying the monument. But never out in the open when it is obvious like that.

Old California Highway Commission monuments have a "C" embedded in the concrete like hat. The are 6x6.

The old Division of Forestry (our predecessor agency) set a lot of 4x4 concrete monuments with a brass cap on top on Forest boundaries. They monumented fire stations with a 1" iron pipe with a brass cap which has an Allen set screw. Later they used a 3/4" pipe with a drive in brass cap.

I think the paint at the EP with a distance to the monument is reasonable along with a lath but there is no need to paint the grass and the concrete monument.

Someone went out of their way to make it obnoxious. Could there be a story behind the paint? Did a client complain about not being able to find corners, so the crew "got sassy"?

I used to think that way...

I didn't take it personal. I understand what you mean. If the crew can't follow a pattern in the field, that's just pathetic. I will spot paint a tree, though. But spot painting every shot along a road is ridiculous. I am just saying I understand WHY they did it, but I wouldn't do it. And even then, the paint will fade. Am not going to lose any sleep over it though.

I used to think that way...

Thanks man, I appreciate your perspective.

I slept well last night too...

:rain: ;') :good: