Monument Records, What is their purpose supposed to be?

> 1. What is the purpose of a monument record?

I think it is to preserve the location of a monument found and/or used. (short answer)

> My thought is that it is intended to assist the surveyor in finding the monument that exists. If the monument does not exist, I would never re-establish it based on monument record ties. Those ties would however assist in documenting that I surveyed the corner back in from other control correctly.

I disagree. I will reestablish a missing monument based on all the evidence I find and including monument record ties. They might be direct-measurement ties to the original monument location. Why wouldn't you use them?

> 2. Why set any nail or any other thing in the side of a pole or post?
> The pole or post as an entity in its self would serve the same purpose.

I guess that is based on the fact that you wouldn't use it as evidence. I would set ties that are specifically and uniquely-identifiable as the tie I used. Such as a washer with my number on it. Not just some feature that is out there such as a random fence post or power pole.

I think monument records were created as a more modern version of bearing trees; for set or recovered corners.

> 3. What are you going to do with all those washers you bought now?

I see we differ in what you might use a monument record for. What if it is the "best available evidence" of where a monument was? Are you really going to set a quarter-corner on the proportioned split between section corners before using accessories right next to the monument's original location?

How many have you seen that when you cross chain from three ties you get three different locations? That is the reason I would never use the monument record to re-establish the corner. If my location doesn't match some of the ties though I'll be looking for what I did wrong.

The purpose of a monument record is to be just that, a record of what was found, set, or otherwise, at a particular corner of the PLSS. In Illinois, those nails, poles, etc. that are shown on a monument record are in effect, part of the monument as well.

The records are only as good as the information contained. IF a record is filed, too often the known HISTORY of the corner is left off of the description. To me, not knowing any history of the corner is itself notable on the record.

I will try to duplicate the position of a corner I can't find if local ties are available.

There is the mindset of "I'll be the first to file a monument record on the corner that way nobody can call me wrong." In my opinion, just because a monument record exists doesn't mean you have to accept its location.

> 1. What is the purpose of a monument record?

I think Justice Cooley continues to say it best.

If now the disputing parties call in a surveyor, it is not likely that any one summoned would doubt or question that his duty was to find, if possible, the place of the original stakes which determined the boundary line between the proprietors. However erroneous may have been the original survey, the monuments that were set must nevertheless govern, even though the effect be to make one half-quarter section 90 acres and the one adjoining, 70; for parties buy, or are supposed to buy, in reference to these monuments, and are entitled to what is within their lines, and no more, be it more or less. While the witness trees remain, there can generally be no difficulty in determining the locality of the stakes. When the witness trees are gone, so that there is no longer record evidence of the monuments, it is remarkable how many there are who mistake altogether the duty that now devolves upon the surveyor. It is by no means uncommon that we find men whose theoretical education is thought to make them experts, who think that when the monuments are gone the only thing to be done is to place new monuments where the old ones should have been, and would have been if place correctly. This is a serious mistake. The problem is now the same that it was before: to ascertain by the best lights of which the case admits, where the original lines were.

:good: :good:

That guy just never gets old...........

> How many have you seen that when you cross chain from three ties you get three different locations? That is the reason I would never use the monument record to re-establish the corner. If my location doesn't match some of the ties though I'll be looking for what I did wrong.

Vern,
I agree to an extent. (because) More often than not, I use the ties to help me find the monument and even then I confirm the location. (buy the monument, buy all the mistakes that put it there).

How many have I seen that don't "work"? How many legal descriptions have you seen that don't close? How many property pins have you found where the distances don't match record between them?

I am not saying that I would blindly set a new monument based on ties without evaluating all the other evidence, and boundary work necessary. But I would not ignore reference ties. They would be part of my evaluation. Further, like I said, I would not be doing a last-resort proportionment to monuments a half-mile away over strongly considering the existing accessory ties. cross-ties out a foot, proportionment off 50'. I like to tie to at least four accessories. It can help you spot an outlier.

If I find, accept, and use an existing monument; I take new ties including to the existing accessories I found on someone else's record; and I report both the found and record distance to the reference tie. No different than when I retrace a property and record the measured and record distance between property corners.

We have established a corner position using a tie to a reference mark, when that was the best evidence remaining. Never say never. I would rather do that than proportion.

:good: :good:

To memorialize the location and condition of the subject monument. Taken with preceeding monument records to provide a history of the monument. I review the history of a location by the monument records filed on it for a clue as to how it was established, how long ago and by what method. Sometimes that data is there.
To notify the following surveyors how the monument was established, if the establishing surveyor bothers to incluide that information. I hate the monument records that say "nothing found, set ____ monument" without a clue as to what method was used.
I have often used monument records to reestablish the location of a destroyed monument, usually in the road, and in fact have prepared numerous monument records in preparation for county road projects so that the locations are not lost to construction. Isn't a reference to a washer on a monument record the equivalent of the bearing trees and the notes of the GLO. Who would hesitate to use that information to restore an obliterated monument? How many sets of bearing trees have you found that the ties pulled did not result in a small triangle or rectangle?
I take pride in our monument records and now include Lat./Long. with metadata on our records. I have received calls from other surveyors complementing our firm on that practise. It is all about leaving those "footprints" for others to follow.
The washers identify the PLS in accordance with the law in some states.
With all respect, I may have ranted a little bit but I have strong feelings about leaving a solid track to be followed.

Rant away, that is why I posted this question.

I don't go out finding monuments for the fun of it, not saying that your road work is fun, I occasionally have to do that too. I am almost always doing a survey that will be recorded. I want the following surveyor to reference my survey not some nail in a pole or fence post that got moved.

I have seen notes on plats: "SECTION CORNER REPLACED FROM TIES" What the heck kind of way to survey is that?

Well, I normally request payment for the work, but finding monuments no one else has seen for many years is one of the most pleasurable activities in this profession for me. Not in the roads so much as in the desert and in the forest and mountains. However, the filed monument records are an integral part of the final survey product. And if the survey record doesn't fit the monument, I tend towards the monument or the best evidence of where it was, which may well be a monument record. And other times a careful examination of the filed record or a set of records has led me to the rejection of a monument.

The primary intent is to get you to the monument that existed on the day the references were noted. Properly measured horizontal ties to fixed reference objects should put you directly back to where the monument was located. Carefully measured slope ties may or may not get you back to the precise spot depending on a change in elevation at the location of the monument. Either method may be a hundred times better than working from other measurement data to points say a quarter mile or more distant that were determined by long outdated means such as chaining along various offsets to the true line then using 3-4-5 type right angle methods to get back on line. (Those were the days, my friend. I thought they'd never end.)