The city *used to* tie out existing monuments that were in public improvements that were to be replaced, usually just sidewalks, and then after the new improvements were finished the monuments were re set back into the new walk.
They stopped doing this unless a CR is on file with the county for a monument that needs to be preserved.
Maybe the city should just stop trying to preserve them all together.
The last two surveys that I have done in Glendale had situations where the replaced monuments were evidently *not* set back in thier original position. In both cases, you could see that these monuments were placed into the concrete of the new walks while the concrete was still wet, probably within an hour after the concrete had been poured.
If the city had filed a CR when the monuments were removed for re installation at a later time showing thier relative positions to each other and the street C/L control then that would have helped, but that was never the case.
So in both of these situations there are re-set monuments that no longer serve any purpose other than to create problems. After working an area for so many years you get to know the type of work that the older LS/RE did and when I come across tag numbers of surveyors known for good solid work in new walks that are just so far out of whack that the monuments are no longer valid because of the careless manner in which they are replaced after construction, I just have to say that if the city stops the practice of trying to preserve monuments then they will be doing the surveyors and the public a good service.
On a different note ....
I have two different ties notes of the same intersection.
On the one below, it shows the C/L intersection and a distance south to the next intersection of 870.97'. There is also a distance north to another intersection. The field book showing this is filed in book 352 page 12. These notes were done in 1994 and were part of the family generation of C/L ties of that intersection with prior references going back in time.
352 PG 12
I have highlighted the two distances to intersections north and south of this one. Apparently, someone gave these survey technicians a copy of StarNet and a computer, so with
those two magical items in hand, this was spit out in 2007.
370 PG 16
Now, this is a nice pretty picture, but that's about all that it is. This is *not* the first time I have seen the city survey division decide to *create* a new intersection. The last time I discovered this new creation the former survey supervisior had to write a report explaing to the city engineer jusy *why* he had shifted, or created, a new C/L intersection just because StarNet said that's what should be done. His report was about 40 pages from my faded memory. I had written a letter to the City Engineer about the new creation.
So here we are. I am generating CR's stating that very old LS/RE tags that once marked property lines no longer do and they are not valid survey monuments. As far as shifted intersections go, well, I guess that's a problem for the younger LS guys. I have been working this city for such a long time that I know not to blindly accept thier work just because they are "City Engineer Tie Notes".. I learned that a long time ago.
Gotta love "Moving Monuments". In an area that has been established for some time, one would think that certain monuments perpetuate themselves. I agree that if you are changing the location, maybe you should just not bother? I'm assuming you have gone to the City and expressed your concerns (to deaf ears?). I have seen examples of these moving monuments in Arizona. I believe it does make one's job a bit more difficult when trying to re-establish original corner locations if someone decides to change things.
I believe we had a situation in Houston where one Surveyor, (after uncovering an older monument) referenced said monument on the surface in order to save another Surveyor time in recovering said monument. The city ruled that he was (disturbing?) the placement of the original monument and requested he NOT set his new reference over the original corner. I can see both sides to this one.
Good luck.
Paul: Just inform the City that they are REQUIRED to do the tie outs and file Corner Records with the County... education is the key.
> I'm assuming you have gone to the City and expressed your concerns (to deaf ears?)....
Deaf ears...that is a perfect description. I may write to the city engineer (CE) about this new creation. This CE is different from the last one. The last CE understood the importance of original or close to original monuments. I am not sure about the ne CE though, he may be one that only understands math.
Monument preservation - Peter
> Paul: Just inform the City that they are REQUIRED to do the tie outs and file Corner Records with the County... education is the key.
This is a hot topic with CLSA and the PPC (Professional Practices Committee)of CLSA.
Some are on the side of the fence that believes monument preservation should be done and done right, others think that only those monuments tied to a filed record should be preserved.
David Hobbs is the one that can elaborate on this. He has been at war with a few cities over this. It's a friendly war, but David does not pull punches and he has already gotten one newspaper to report on monument destruction and he may just get more media involed..Hard to tell with The Hobbit.
Education only works for willing students:party:
They have adjusted everything to fit the physical street alignment.
Just the backa..ward way of doing things in my opinion.
It has been my understanding that control is supposed to remain the same and be used to show locations.
> They have adjusted everything to fit the physical street alignment.
If you are referring to where the curb/walk lines are shown on the 2007 ties then that is not what they did. The same dimensions from C/L to curb line etc are shown on both sets of ties.
What they did was F**k up a perfectly good intersection.
This type of thing ,done by folks that OUGHT TO KNOW BETTER, is extremely frustrating. The act is very specific, it states what has to be referenced before and after construction and WHO IS REPSONSIBLE for doing the work. The local agency doing the work is responsible for filing before and after corner records for monuments that control boundarys and benchmark. It should be noted that with respect to boundary control, it would mean presvering monuments not of record just as much as brass disks in monument wells.
Get you local PPC involved.....
Is that the same "GONZALEZ" on both reports?
Is he the party in charge? If so it would be interesting to get his take on the 1.70' differnce.
I could see a difference of 0.10' or even 0.20', but the 1.70' would be a huge red flag to me. Either somebody did a crap job measuring the first or second time, or some poor decisions are being made.
Are they using Star*Net to do COGO?
Most that I know of just use Star*Net to combine and adjust survey data from different platforms.
So, you are saying that the curb lines have not changed and the two plats reflect two different locations as to curb lines and centerline of streets
or
that one or both is a lie.
> So, you are saying that the curb lines have not changed and the two plats reflect two different locations as to curb lines and centerline of streets
Yep. Those curbs/walks have not moved, been there since the late 20's.
> Is that the same "GONZALEZ" on both reports?
It may not be the same person though, then again, maybe it is.
> Are they using Star*Net to do COGO?
The reason I mentioned Starnet in my OP is because I was told by the survey supervisor, who is no longer with the city (retired with a BUNDLE) that Starnet was the deciding factor to create a new intersection point in a different part of the city. That one was shifted 8" south from one that had been in use for maybe 90 years. That took place about 5-6 years ago.
I figured if Starnet was used that time, it was probably used this time..there really is no public paper trail that shows just why this 1.7' shift came about.
Starnet or any other program that determines closure and/or survey correctness is only as good as the data.
It may be that they are having a problem with curve calculations along Howard St.
From the results, it is apparent that it is necessary for an outside party aka yourself or other fact finder to put an end to their faults.
Everyone has a superior they report to, hint hint hint.....
Even if falling on deft ears, it is worth reporting;-)
> It may be that they are having a problem with curve calculations along Howard St.
I ran some record map calcs and the 1.7' shift just makes the overall distance south fit record better. This intersection has been perpetuated by the city since the late 20's or so. The map recorded in 1923, so I think late 20's is a safe guess.
Right or wrong about what the distances are to record there is no good reason to shift an intersection in 2007.
> Everyone has a superior they report to, hint hint hint.....
Mark's probably seen this already..I'll hear about it next time I see him when I do research at the city.
Monument preservation - Is it worth it? Absolutely!!!!!
A recent press release on the subject of Monument Preservation:
By the way, Steve Steinhoff was a recent recipient of CEAC's Surveyor of the Year in California. CEAC is the County Engineer's Association of California. Steve is currently the Chair of the CEAC Survey Policy Committee and very active in the California Land Surveyors Association - Los Angeles Chapter