I would not remove an original stone in good condition.
Ones that are in poor condition are required to be rehabilitated, in other words a new cap and bury the stone alongside. Often they are in poor condition, marks have faded or they are just in pieces.
[sarcasm]How can a god-made stone with god-like surveyors marks set firmly in gods ground be in poor condition?[/sarcasm]
I am somewhat bitter from all the original stones I have seen in a ring around some monument that is not up to code today and probably was not up to code when set.
Yup, I've read that a time or two. I like the part that says, 'unless circumstances preclude the use of such monument'. I can't set a pin with a 140 year old rock in the way...;-)
I feel your pain, I will leave an old well marked set stone in place. That's the best option, for sure, put a magnet alongside it to help find it in the snow, but otherwise they should remain in place,,,,,,,but,,,,,,, when they are crumbled, in a dozen pieces, split into shards, then.........
For one example from my experience: The top can be broken off and possibly missing but the base is still in place; set a standard monument with accessories and report said discovery on a monument record.
Another example from experience: The corner is embedded in the mantel but the 65 year resident points out where it was before if fell into the irrigation ditch and signs an affidavit, and the location fits the record; set a new monument.
And so on...
No.
How's that for a rare, simple answer from me.
The provenance of the iron would be established by the Record of Survey, and it's record of a cap added to that found rebar.
I do not have an opinion one way out the other on this. But, unless called out on a survey, a rebar is just a piece of metal, in some ways. The best way to create a footstep for others to follow may be to add a cap. But, I am in a recording state.
I can respect either decision. The number of companies surveying around here would make it difficult to say, "That looks like the rebars old Bill used back in '01."
(No, please don't consider this a revival of the "goat stake" issue. Please search past threads for that sort of fun.)
No ID required here in PA but as rule if I set it I cap it. If I find it, I note type, size, material and how far above grade it is on my plat.
Another good example of bad ideas promulgated by the Arizona surveyor's organization. They cite all these ridiculous technical rules, that do nothing to advance the practice of good boundary practice. Noting that it is found (and accepted or rejected) on a Record of Survey should be sufficient. On the other hand, the requirement to file a Record of Survey when a monument is found or set that is not of record is one of the best things to happen in the state.
> The provenance of the iron would be established by the Record of Survey, and it's record of a cap added to that found rebar.
Actually, what capping some old unidentified rebar does at best is make it "the rebar that dmyhill thought was the original corner last year". At least in Texas, just because dmyhill decided that some rebar was an original stake doesn't make it so.
> I do not have an opinion one way out the other on this. But, unless called out on a survey, a rebar is just a piece of metal, in some ways. The best way to create a footstep for others to follow may be to add a cap. But, I am in a recording state.
In Texas, the unidentified rebars are typically called for in some instrument of record, either a subdivision plat or a metes and bounds description used in conveying land. Just because there is no neon sign saying "this is the original corner stake" doesn't mean that a surveyor isn't allowed to arrive at a conclusion using his or her powers of observation and deduction.
It is simply nutty that anyone would want to attempt to "upgrade" some original monument of record by adding a new cap to it that both conceals the physical characteristics of the monument and makes it resemble something of much more recent origin.
It is simply nutty that anyone would want to attempt to "upgrade" some original monument of record by adding a new cap to it that both conceals the physical characteristics of the monument and makes it resemble something of much more recent origin.
Yes, there seems to be a certain type of regulator that wants everything "up to code" or something; Like doing some electrical work in my house and the contractor gives me a limit not to exceed, he says if you do the inspector comes in and you will be redoing who knows what:-(
I have to agree, leave good monuments alone, so what if there isn't an number on them.
In a recording State it makes perfect sense to make a monument easily identifiable by placing a cap on it. If you haven't pulled the records and followed the pedigree of the monument you are correct, the cap is misleading. You have also utterly failed to follow the standard of care.
There is a reason each State sets it's own policy. One size does not fit all...
Yeah, in CA we aren't required to add our tag. However I do know that there have been surveyors who regularly did this. I see many old maps with a monument description saying something like "Found rebar, no tag, accepted as southeast corner of parcel, added brass tag stamped 'LS xxxx' to rebar".
While I can appreciate that this makes it clear to know whether or not I have found the monument that was found by LS xxxx, it doesn't necessarily make it clear if I have found the monument originally called by the older survey.
But in all of these cases, the added tag was a brass disc wired to the pipe. So the top/end of the monument is still observable.
The biggest problem I see is apathy in describing the monuments, both by the original survey and by subsequent surveyors that find the monuments. I've seen a chain of maps that are all referencing the same monument and the descriptions vary from map to map. The original might say "set 1" iron pin", then the next map finds a 1" rebar, the next finds a 3/4" iron pipe, the next just an iron rod, the next a "monument", and so on. I get on my field crews to make sure they get as accurate a description as they can. And since they all have a camera in their pocket, they can take a picture if they have any doubt. Oh, and they're all carrying a pocket tape so they can darn well measure the diameter.
There have been plenty of times when the crew will say they found a 5/8" rebar but the map I have says 3/4" iron pin. So I'll ask them what they ACTUALLY found. There's no need for me to confuse the chain of maps even more by adding in yet another description of the monument.