I show a small open circle for corners not found or set and put it on the legend described as a point.
Shawn Billings, post: 425116, member: 6521 wrote: I despise abbreviations like this on plats. I've been surveying a while now and I've never seen SFNF. I would have had no idea what it meant before now. If I don't know what it means, then I'm guessing that the public has no idea what it means. Dave Karoly at least explains the abbreviation on the plat, which is good. I see way too many plats with 1/2IPF. Is this clear to the reader? Rant off.
That is what legends are for.
John Putnam, post: 425119, member: 1188 wrote: That is what legends are for.
As long as the abbreviation is explained. I still don't care much for them.
I suppose that the symbol is unnecessary unless the scale of the map does not allow for an independent note that states the origin of the point and the date it was last recovered. The maps that we make are for owners, builders, bankers and many times they don't have the technical acumen to understand a legend much less an acronym.
It is the recovery date that I find interesting sometimes as it establishes when and who last saw it. Have you ever arrived at a spot where a previously not found/used point is under a parked car or six inches of asphalt.
When nothing is shown how do you know what was searched for? I always wonder this when looking at resurveys of surveys of lots and blocks. Typically a surveyor will show the block or cl intersection corners and his prorated distance to re-set a lot corner. But the typically rule of thumb is not to prorate past next nearest monument. How does the next surveyor know if he looked for intermediate lot corners if it is not stated or shown. I like it when a surveyor places a number or letter at the corner such as "A" at the front corner then states in his legend "A" = searched for 3/4" iron pipe per subdivision X found nothing. You use the same letter for most of the mons searched for in a lot and block case. My 2 cents, Jp
P.s. If a symbol is used for a computed point or SFFN point, it should be weighted accordingly. Such as a small open box not a large control point symbol like I see around here.
This particular county has a tradition of putting these SFNF notes all over the place. I guess they can be informative in certain instances, but even with these notes, if they are important boundary points, i'd be looking for them again even if they were reported to be not found. Of course, there is also a wide degree of effort that can put towards any given search. You could just walk out of the truck and swing the metal detector around a few times, you could be measuring with a rag tape and compass from another monument, you could be calculating from other found points and staking into them, you could be carefully scraping dirt away to look for any remnants of an old stake, etc. No one talks about this. As for describing the nature of the monument that is no longer there, this seems useless but maybe it means something to someone. I've also never understood why any symbols are used at all if there is nothing actually there, what value do these "dimensional points" provide? To me it's nice to pick up a map and see symbols where things are actually in the ground, it gives you a quick view of what may be out there to be found.
A thing that annoys me are section corner reports that never change although the real world has changed. A firm found a certain monument at this corner in 1999, then again in 2004, then again in 2010 and then again in 2017. The corner references are identical, down to the nearest 0.01 foot. The problem is the nail in the power pole in 1999 disappeared when they replaced and relocated slightly the power pole in 2002. Also, the top/center of the telephone box allegedly measured to in 1999 was altered in 2005 when they replaced the old box with a new box that was of a different shape and two feet taller. The nail in corner post to the northeast disappeared with the corner post sometime between 2010 and 2017. GGGGRRRRRRRR!!!!
thebionicman, post: 424969, member: 8136 wrote: Washington allows similar practice. I personally wont do it.
This was actually the first place I'd ever seen this. And not just a couple instances - the majority of the maps I pulled were like this. Paper surveys, very little in the way of "found" monumentation. Crazy.
iBandit, post: 425211, member: 12513 wrote: This was actually the first place I'd ever seen this. And not just a couple instances - the majority of the maps I pulled were like this. Paper surveys, very little in the way of "found" monumentation. Crazy.
I've got another word for it but I believe Wendell might get upset. That policy needs to go..
iBandit, post: 425211, member: 12513 wrote: This was actually the first place I'd ever seen this. And not just a couple instances - the majority of the maps I pulled were like this. Paper surveys, very little in the way of "found" monumentation. Crazy.
I think you have two issues here. I agree that a survey based on minimal evidence and calls to SFNF is no stronger than a survey that does not show what was hunted for. Bad surveys are just bad, no matter what data is included. The second issue is how much information do you include for the next guy down the road. Personally I like to leave heavy foot steps for the future.
Case in point is the typical survey that shows a right-of-way based only found monuments on the side of a the subject property. If I have some idea that the prior surveyor actually looked for other mons then I might have a better understanding of the resolution. Did he cut corners or did she do a proper job and just strike out.
Will you look for those monuments that the previous guy looked for but did not find or take his word for it? If you look regardless then I'd say it's superfluous information.
Shawn Billings, post: 425254, member: 6521 wrote: Will you look for those monuments that the previous guy looked for but did not find or take his word for it? If you look regardless then I'd say it's superfluous information.
I'm looking for those monuments regardless. I am personally on the ground. Call it ego, insanity, or whatever you want. But I always feel like I can find corners that the guy before me didn't. Mostly because the guy before me likely sent out a two man crew that doesn't have my 30 years of experience or my desire to get after it.
The same with recovery notes for NGS Monuments. NGS notes of "Monument Not Found" don't eliminate those monuments as possible control, they just move further down my list.
Bottom line, I love all of you, but trust none of you. Lol!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Years ago I remember seeing all these plats prepared by ole Pope, the county surveyor, of whole areas of the county. Most of the time he added a note if it was drawn from records but sometimes you had to pay attention. If it said "Survey for" it was done on the ground but "plat for" meant it was drawn. Some maps would have a corner description of "Post Oak" but beside it or below it would be "(Hickory)". In that case, you knew he drew it from old notes or maps and he had two adjoining maps that didn't agree. At least we had two choices! In my state, the position of County Surveyor is only a title. There is no salary or official duties that would require a paid County Surveyor. Sometime in the 70s, ole Pope's transit, etc. was stolen and he never replaced it. He just drew composite maps for people that thought they were getting a survey. In the off chance that he HAD to have field data, he farmed out the fieldwork (to most any jackleg).
BushAxe, post: 425267, member: 11897 wrote: I'm looking for those monuments regardless. I am personally on the ground. Call it ego, insanity, or whatever you want. But I always feel like I can find corners that the guy before me didn't. Mostly because the guy before me likely sent out a two man crew that doesn't have my 30 years of experience or my desire to get after it.
The same with recovery notes for NGS Monuments. NGS notes of "Monument Not Found" don't eliminate those monuments as possible control, they just move further down my list.
Bottom line, I love all of you, but trust none of you. Lol!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Damn straight.
A lot of our reference monuments on plats are shown but were then never put in. Nobody enforced it once filed. Terrible.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Bush Axe nailed it. Do it like the first guy was never there, because he probably didn't put the effort into that I will. It's my neck not that of some remote boss I've never seen but signs all the plats that I also never see.
Searched for not found is actually a requirement under some circumstances. For instance for corner records it's required that any searched for not found monument be recorded. That's probably why I'm used to seeing the SFNF note since it is a very common notation. It's not been enforced as far as I know that searched points weren't filed on, and can be argued that it shouldn't be a requirement. You need to be careful doing research and not expect that a corner filed on means a corner found or set.
I must be naive. I assume if I see some monuments called out as found, and then nothing at some other corners, that the surveyor looked for them, but didn't find them. Depending what state I'm working in, I then wonder why he didn't set anything at those corners.
JPH, post: 425291, member: 6636 wrote: I must be naive. I assume if I see some monuments called out as found, and then nothing at some other corners, that the surveyor looked for them, but didn't find them. Depending what state I'm working in, I then wonder why he didn't set anything at those corners.
If you survey a block and find/set all four block corners and don't find any lot corners, are you required to remonument the entire lot or just the clients corners?
Of course not. I'm talking about points on the actual boundary of the subject property.
That said, I don't really work in areas where there are any "blocks" to speak of.
