I send out a resume now and then. A few weeks ago an engineering firm wanted an LSIT-or-better to sit in a chair 8 hours a day making subdivisions and short plats, writing all the legals and producing finished drawings. All the fieldwork done by the crew, and working under another stamp. After dancing around the temptations of a regular paycheck and the stories of repeat business and steady customers, I said, "send me an example of what you need done."
The PDFs arrived. They were bringing control in from the section corners, with labels like "visited 1996" and "visited 2001." And a few "not visited this survey." On each of four different projects, at least three corners were pincushioned by a few tenths to a foot, rejecting found rebars with other LS's caps because they didn't fit the outside-in version of math on the ground. Capped rebars, not goat stakes. I began to wonder if they were using old datum coordinates for the section corners with new datum coordinates on site, or what exactly. They didn't like my questions so I declined. No sense enabling pincushioners.
[SARCASM]I bet they have great year-end bonuses, not having all that additional field expense......[/SARCASM]
The company did not happen to be in southern Oregon did it? That is the only place I have ever heard the term "not visited this survey" used on a plat. If others have heard that term in other places please let me know, and how common is it. Jp
I see it in the Vancouver, WA area.
(Honestly, at least they note it. Not just show it, leaving all to assume they did visit it this survey.) Still generally a bad practice, IMHO.
I have seen in on early 80's and late 70's surveys in Alaska. Not very common.
ppm, post: 416599, member: 6808 wrote: I see it in the Vancouver, WA area.
My first reaction also. Very common in Clark County.
I would have no problem with it if the company had a control network and database of ties. Then the note would be "tied in 1981, not found in 2017. Set Blue Gumball".
Jp7191, post: 416572, member: 1617 wrote: The company did not happen to be in southern Oregon did it? That is the only place I have ever heard the term "not visited this survey" used on a plat. If others have heard that term in other places please let me know, and how common is it. Jp
I call out Record Location for monuments located in previous surveys by my firm or provide a reference if I have a plan. These are only done when the monument cannot be otherwise recovered.
You are not alone. I am careful not to make blanket generalizations, but I have seen numerous, stamped, recorded plats, readily available to the public, show pincushions when it was clear to me that the purpose should have been retracement. My impression when talking to these large firms about this, whom appear to set far more pincushions per mile than small or solo surveyors, is that decisions are made in the office, and they have guys with a lot of time to draft in text and details of why their measurements overrule the "lesser" work of their previous surveyors. The business plan is set pincushions to save time, draw a perfect, impressive detailed plat explaining why found monumentation is "lesser" and "unacceptable", and no one will ever be able to prove wrongdoing, when in fact this practice results in the exact opposite of the objective.
Mark Mayer, post: 416620, member: 424 wrote: My first reaction also. Very common in Clark County.
I would have no problem with it if the company had a control network and database of ties. Then the note would be "tied in 1981, not found in 2017. Set Blue Gumball".
I would agree if the control network was published in the record via map of survey. In fact I am a proponent of showing your control on your map of survey, and on land division maps. It is the way we work now, radially from control, why we still report our information by only bearings and distances shown on a map when we know that 99% of us never occupied those points but radially set them from site control point. This takes us back to the post running now about least square adjustments in retracement. With the tools we are now using our positional tolerances of our monuments over a 40 acre site is probably well within 0.25' and our control points over the same site are most likely within 0.06' compared with pre 1980's site that the positional tolerance of the monuments set across the site would be closer to 1' depending on line of site and other factors.
Back to the point, as map reviewer I see the comment "not visited this survey" when the point is the second point of the basis of bearings, and when I question it as a reviewer on the survey and ask the surveyor to tie the unvisited point and show monuments that are on the same line (cl of road)(and set by the same survey firm in the last 20 years) he drops the not visited point on his revised Plat and shows the 3 other monuments on cl and they don't fit together +-0.5' in a 1/4 mile but we were suppose to trust this Surveyor as a Professional! In my first life as a private Surveyor I disliked map reviewers and rules more than most, but in my second life I dislike piss poor professional practitioners more and now understand where all the rules come from. Jp
Ps. Spelling and punctuation nazis, piss off. 🙂
Jp7191, post: 416868, member: 1617 wrote: I would agree if the control network was published in the record via map of survey....
I'd like to see control on all Records of Survey maps. In fact I'd like all boundary surveys to be tied to a public control network. But I don't see what the difference is if I tied a monument in 2017, 1997, or 1977. I tied it, I have the data. If I tied it from properly maintained control which can be recovered and augmented that's golden.
The problem with "not visited this survey" is that someone else may have since my last visit. There may be a sleek new brass 3 feet away from the bent iron pipe I tied way back when.
Mark Mayer, post: 416870, member: 424 wrote: I'd like to see control on all Records of Survey maps. In fact I'd like all boundary surveys to be tied to a public control network. But I don't see what the difference is if I tied a monument in 2017, 1997, or 1977. I tied it, I have the data. If I tied it from properly maintained control which can be recovered and augmented that's golden.
The problem with "not visited this survey" is that someone else may have since my last visit. There may be a sleek new brass 3 feet away from the bent iron pipe I tied way back when.
I completely agree with that closing statement. As much work as it was to get my Washington license, seeing the practice of 'record monuments' was a major letdown. LSAW needs to push legislation to end the no survey surveys...
I have seen "not recovered this survey" by one company. Many times this is a case where they have done maybe 20 or more surveys in the same section for the same client. Clearly they have some control points set that facilitate their work. There really is no need to go back to each section corner and shoot it again. They definitely do not need to dig it out from the eight inches of cold patch in the middle of the road.
Where I don't want to see it is when they were there 10 years ago, one time, and are merely assuming that nothing has changed.
Holy Cow, post: 416876, member: 50 wrote: I have seen "not recovered this survey" by one company. Many times this is a case where they have done maybe 20 or more surveys in the same section for the same client. Clearly they have some control points set that facilitate their work. There really is no need to go back to each section corner and shoot it again. They definitely do not need to dig it out from the eight inches of cold patch in the middle of the road.
Where I don't want to see it is when they were there 10 years ago, one time, and are merely assuming that nothing has changed.
I agree we need to trust the professional but we need to have some measurements and ties shown on the survey in order to follow in his footsteps. I am aware of a subdivision map (20 lots, and about 12 years old) here that was in a high development area where the surveyor (30 years of practice) shows 4 found monuments total on his map and stated " 3 were not visited". No control network shown or any other ties than record were shown. He also got the adjoining road alignment incorrect which resulted in approximate loss of 5' of lot depths along the road and 300' of street improvements incorrectly constructed. Our state board has had this one for about 3 years now and no enforcement yet??? Jp
I followed one Surveyor who had a dozen Surveys and a handful of subdivision plats tied to a quarter corner. My research showed a pattern of shifted occupation and rejected 1/16th Corners.
I called him and he told me he stopped visiting the Corner some time back. We searched dilugently in the old asphalt road to no avail. I pulled out the 1970s Corner Record and started looking. Of the 4 accessories three were gone. The 4th was in a pile of debris and fill. I pulled back the pile and started digging. About 3 feet down I found a beautiful 1946 brass disc in an old headwall.
After processing the data it became apparent that every single map since that surveyor visited the corner was tied to a spurious monument. It was also obvuous that nobody had even tried to find the correct or false corner in 20 plus years. The chain of destruction left in his wake was unreal. Dozens of deeds, boundary agreements and other records that would never have nmbeen needed had the firsr surveyor (or anyone after) bothered to do any professional work.
Had i been the PLS signing that map i would have turned it all over to the Board and let the blood run. The point isnt thst i did some great job, its that failing to visit Corners leaves evidence and changed conditions undiscovered and therefore undisclosed. It does not protect the public and it borders on fraud.
thebionicman, post: 416874, member: 8136 wrote: LSAW needs to push legislation
It seems obvious that a surveyor should visit sufficient monuments on each project to confirm they are there and provide good ties from them to his current work. But don't prevent him from also giving redundant ties to the monument where he dug up the road a few years ago.
Bill93, post: 416956, member: 87 wrote: It seems obvious that a surveyor should visit sufficient monuments on each project to confirm they are there and provide good ties from them to his current work. But don't prevent him from also giving redundant ties to the monument where he dug up the road a few years ago.
The practice you are describing is a slippery slope. The effort to uncover a monument when you have the locstion does not outweigh the potential damage from failing to maintain the infrastructure of our monuments. Visiting and rehabilitating them is part of our statutory and professional duty.
In Washington we carry that a step further. I can reference somebody elses record monument and never look for it. I can also record a boundary line adjustment and not set the new corners. I find both of these abhorrent practice. We have to do better.
thebionicman, post: 416977, member: 8136 wrote: The practice you are describing is a slippery slope. The effort to uncover a monument when you have the locstion does not outweigh the potential damage from failing to maintain the infrastructure of our monuments. Visiting and rehabilitating them is part of our statutory and professional duty.
In Washington we carry that a step further. I can reference somebody elses record monument and never look for it. I can also record a boundary line adjustment and not set the new corners. I find both of these abhorrent practice. We have to do better.
Agree that recording a new boundary line without monuments can be, and is often harmful to the public. In my experience, all of the "line of agreements" Ive encountered when done by neighbors, as laypeople, without a good survey, are impossible to retrace.
warren ward PLS CO OK, post: 416979, member: 12536 wrote: Agree that recording a new boundary line without monuments can be, and is often harmful to the public. In my experience, all of the "line of agreements" Ive encountered when done by neighbors, as laypeople, without a good survey, are impossible to retrace.
I also agree. Any line of agreement has got to have a surveyor involved and tied to monuments on the ground. If not, nothing is really being solved and the confusion will continue in the future, or as you mention, perhaps make things worse.
There is a firm that found a stone monument during a lot survey done in 1980 which was an original town corner. This corner was also a corner of an abutting addition to the town and of course a lot corner of both additions. The surveyor determined that the stone was not in its original location by about 45' and showed a tie from the corner he established to the recovered stone. Later the firm with a different surveyor does several lot surveys and shows ties to the supposedly out of position stone. Another surveyor which previously worked for that firm is currently still showing ties to that stone on there surveys. The stone was destroyed shortly after the 1980 survey while building a pad for a mobile home. I brought this up to the surveyor in which he replied he was preserving the original locations of the town site. I thought as I walked out of his office, BUT HELLO the stone was determined to be not in its original location not to mention its been gone for 25 years.
In the past I have relied on old field notes for the position of long gone monuments, it was clearly noted on the face of the survey as well as detailed in my report. There is a firm in my area that has the records of a surveyor going back to the 1910's. I have seen on occasion, monuments on their plans stating the position of a monument in 1943 per so and so's field notes. Sometimes this is the best info available and I think it is quintessentially following in the footsteps.
Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk
