Yesterday, I got a call from a local surveyor asking about a marker with my professional identification on it that he had found in the course of surveying a 100 acre tract that once upon a time in the early 20th century was one big cotton field. He described the locality as being at the intersection of two state highways, which placed the marker in question in the general vicinity of where I had made several surveys in the past, but none of which were actually at the intersection.
After a bit more Q and A, I figured out that it was probably a marker that I'd set in the course of a survey of the site for a new school nearly twenty years ago. The surveyor was able to tell me that the identifying number on the aluminum-capped monument he'd found was "222", so I dug out the map of the project from the file drawer and looked for Rod and Cap No. 222.
I sent him a copy of the map, the listing of the state plane coordinates of all of the markers shown upon it, including several right-of-way markers that have most likely since been destroyed. Nearly twenty years later, it turned out the the marker's coordinates in the Texas Coordinate System of 1983 remained at current epoch within 0.10 ft. of those that I'd determined in 1998 by connection to a network of L1 GPS vectors I surveyed that began at the Austin CORS and ran in segments for a total airline distance of about 26 miles to Rod and Cap No. 222.
Digging further into the file, I found the report I'd written that gave what I thought were some useful explanations and I passed that along, too. It was interesting to see the form of report that I wrote years ago (a style that has evolved over the years since) and gratifying to see that I'd laid out the rationales for the determinations I'd made in a way that still made sense.
There was also a metes and bounds description that was prepared from the work that actually does appear in the public record (and that does describe Rod and Cap No. 222).
In case anyone is interested, I've attached copies of the map, Star*Net listing, report, and written description that together make an account of the work.
Well done! Affording others the opportunity to perpetuate the cadastral fabric that weaves our society together is a win for our profession.
I know a few years back, I had a crew doing an ALTA near Austin (out of our home territory) for a good client of ours and we found one of Kent's markers, I called him and ask if he had any info and he most graciously sent us maps, plats, field notes and corner listings of everything he'd done out there, After doing our due diligence and what all Kent provided, made the job kinda easy, and I'll say thanks again.
Wow....I bet that guy was blown away by all the information provided.
Paramount Avenue.....that sound like an address Kent would have.
Alan Cook, post: 406584, member: 43 wrote: Well done! Affording others the opportunity to perpetuate the cadastral fabric that weaves our society together is a win for our profession.
As long as Texas doesn't have any very good provision for recording maps of surveys and the acompanying reports in a way that makes them discoverable by search, I think that licensees have an ethical obligation to fill the gap by sharing of information as long as there is no reason to think that the information will be abused. This is particularly true in cases where the older work perpetuates evidence that may no longer exist.
My experience has been that this sharing ethos works for me in that by providing information from my own files, I improve the chances of receiving useful records from others in the future.
Very impressive! Thanks for sharing, Jp
1. while true over a much wider area, if one should find themselves doing any work in downtown austin it would be absolutely imperative to get hold of RPLS 4341. the maps, control, and background he possesses- and willingly shares- is one of the (if not *the*) most critical keys to understanding how the original city of austin has come to exist on the ground in its current state. while i consider myself to be fairly well versed on myriad issues, quirks, and realities concerning land surveys and title in downtown austin (having spent the brunt of the last 15+ years working specifically in the area), there is NO way i would know half of what i do currently if i hadn't sent that first email to kent way back when.
2. i'm guessing there's a good chance the surveyor who got in touch yesterday is the guy who took over for me. one of the last things i did before leaving the old company was to write a proposal to topo and plat the adjoining two sides of kent's survey.
Kent McMillan, post: 406596, member: 3 wrote: As long as Texas doesn't have any very good provision for recording maps of surveys and the acompanying reports in a way that makes them discoverable by search, I think that licensees have an ethical obligation to fill the gap by sharing of information as long as there is no reason to think that the information will be abused. This is particularly true in cases where the older work perpetuates evidence that may no longer exist.
My experience has been that this sharing ethos works for me in that by providing information from my own files, I improve the chances of receiving useful records from others in the future.
Also it increases the chances that the subsequent surveyor will accept your corners.
:gammon:
Kent McMillan, post: 406596, member: 3 wrote: My experience has been that this sharing ethos works for me in that by providing information from my own files, I improve the chances of receiving useful records from others in the future.
:gammon:
Steve Gilbert, post: 406607, member: 111 wrote: Also it increases the chances that the subsequent surveyor will accept your corners.
You are right and if they happen to have been destroyed, it gives them some good information to reset them.
Ed
Even in the recording States we share pretty well. It's basic Professional courtesy.
Kent McMillan, post: 406596, member: 3 wrote: As long as Texas doesn't have any very good provision for recording maps of surveys and the acompanying reports in a way that makes them discoverable by search, I think that licensees have an ethical obligation to fill the gap by sharing of information as long as there is no reason to think that the information will be abused. This is particularly true in cases where the older work perpetuates evidence that may no longer exist.
My experience has been that this sharing ethos works for me in that by providing information from my own files, I improve the chances of receiving useful records from others in the future.
Unfortunately many surveyors don't feel the same way about sharing information.
aliquot, post: 406620, member: 2486 wrote: Unfortunately many surveyors don't feel the same way about sharing information.
We probably wouldn't want their info then anyway.
flyin solo, post: 406603, member: 8089 wrote: 2. i'm guessing there's a good chance the surveyor who got in touch yesterday is the guy who took over for me. one of the last things i did before leaving the old company was to write a proposal to topo and plat the adjoining two sides of kent's survey.
The fellow who called was a solo practitioner, I believe, who said that he mainly did residential lot surveys. I don't think he's associated with an engineering firm.
There several reasons to share your information. I would say that, as a professional land surveyor the primary one is to protect the boundaries/property rights (the reason you are licensed). Professional courtesy is another. But even if you are selfish and only want to look out for yourself and you don't respect the boundary rights nor professional courtesy.....like someone else said above, showing another surveyor what you did and why will provide better chances that he will agree with you. When you run across a pin and don't know how it got there, and it doesn't match the evidence you found you have a lot less certainty than if the other land surveyor shows you his plat which should show the logic he got getting there as well as other evidence that you may or may not have found.
