This is also a real world example, but one with a twist. The object was to locate a particular witness corner on the common line between two long, skinny lots originally surveyed and platted in 1957. After surveying about five or six lots to either side of the subject lot, and researching the history of conveyances since the original subdivision, I came to the conclusion that a witness corner that the original 1957 surveyor had reportedly set was most likely in a certain position where I found no marker in place.
However, since it appeared that someone had removed the 1957 surveyor's rod on some date after 1982 (and quite likely only a year or two before my visit, or so I thought) and since the soil was a caliche type, I speculated that it would be worth carefully scraping back the topsoil to see whether any trace of where a rebar had once been driven could be found. There was in fact a hole in the soil.
Found 1/2 in. diameter hole in soil
Set up total station over center of hole
Drilled 5/8 in. hole in rocky ground and set rod and cap
Used optical plummet on total station to position punchmark on cap
So, is anyone of the opinion that setting a new rod and cap in the hole was improper destruction of important evidence?
No, in fact it's required by law in this state.
:coffee:
Good sleuthing Kent
I got whiplash on this one - we go from obliteration of monuments to perpetuation of monuments :-S
> So, is anyone of the opinion that setting a new rod and cap in the hole was improper destruction of important evidence?
Well....could someone reference off and remove the new rod and cap and find the original hole, or do they have to take your word for it?:-P
Nope, I'd have done the same thing. My soil doesn't work like that, but when a pine knot rots out, it leaves a hole in the clay. I've driven more than a few rods in old pine knot holes to perpetuate the location of the original corners.
Would you care to speculate on why the '57 rod had been removed? Were other '57 rods found in place?
You mention 1982, is that significant?
> I got whiplash on this one - we go from obliteration of monuments to perpetuation of monuments
Well, I thought that common complaint was that removing erroneous markers was destroying "evidence". So, isn't removing a hole where a monument had been also removing evidence and equally objectionable?
> Would you care to speculate on why the '57 rod had been removed? Were other '57 rods found in place?
>
> You mention 1982, is that significant?
1982 was when a survey was made of the undeveloped lot and various rods were reported to have been found in place at the time. It's significant because both of the lots on either side were also undeveloped and all three were under one ownership. So there was no particular reason explanation for the rods other than that they were the monuments placed by the 1957 surveyor and noted upon the subdivision plat.
Part of the reason for surveying about five or six lots to either side of the subject lot was to show that there was a pattern of old rebar markers of similar type, some with histories of recovery predating any development of the lots, that was consistent with the 1957 surveyor's record in a way that another attempt to locate the lot was not.
As for why what was most likely the original rod was removed, I could speculate, but it probably wouldn't be appropriate.
Were there actually people or statutes presented in the previous threads that would say perpetuating the location of a found monument with something more substantial was wrong? I too have a slight case of whiplash. I thought that obliterating monuments entirely was the main issue up until now.
> Were there actually people or statutes presented in the previous threads that would say perpetuating the location of a found monument with something more substantial was wrong?
Would you call a hole in the soil a monument? :> Isn't it merely evidence that was destroyed?
Well yeah, kinda.
> As for why what was most likely the original rod was removed, I could speculate, but it probably wouldn't be appropriate.
You said before that the hole marked the location of a witness monument. Do you suppose someone may have removed it to prevent others from mistaking it as an actual corner monument? How far would the witness have been from the actual corner?
This seems different (someone removed a correct and useful monument) than your last example where there were several garbage monuments that probably needed to be removed.
> You said before that the hole marked the location of a witness monument. Do you suppose someone may have removed it to prevent others from mistaking it as an actual corner monument? How far would the witness have been from the actual corner?
As a practical matter, the witness monument was the corner. It fell about six feet or so back from the top of a rock bluff with about a 40 ft. (I'd guess) drop. The land uphill from there was the only building site on the lot. The actual corners down on the river weren't shown on the subdivision plat as having been marked and are to be located as prolongations of the upland lot lines that were (the front corner on the road and the WC being the entire control for the line in question).
> > So, isn't removing a hole where a monument had been also removing evidence and equally objectionable?
You didn't "remove" the hole, you only placed your monument into it. I call it a fine job of perpetuating the evidence.
DDSM
> It fell about six feet or so back from the top of a rock bluff ...
Ah. Perhaps it was never set. He probably drilled the hole (to mark the spot) but didn't bring enough pins with him. Maybe he planned to come back later and put it in the hole but forgot.
I use 10" bridge spikes for traverse points. A few years ago after doing my field ties I went back out to set the corners. One of those spikes was missing, it had been where a hostile neighbor had easy access to it. Used your, find the hole method to recover the point, made a few check shots and went on with the job. Now I try to make my control a little harder to notice.
jud
> Ah. Perhaps it was never set. He probably drilled the hole (to mark the spot) but didn't bring enough pins with him. Maybe he planned to come back later and put it in the hole but forgot.
No, all of the witness corners fell in positions set back from the bluff by about that distance and virtually all of the rest remained in place. That missing marker had been found in place in 1982. It was fairly obvious that the original monument had been removed.
Texas?
Texas, is where surveyors pull each other monuments and then monument the holes left from where other monuments were pulled.
I guess to be a surveyor in Texas you have to be "a-hole expert".
Just kidding, sort of.
Texas?
> Texas, is where surveyors pull each other monuments and then monument the holes left from where other monuments were pulled.
Actually, Texas is where original monuments matter and erroneous ferrous junk ... usually not so much. It's other places where boundary corners are expected to continually acquire more and more markers, none of which may be removed because they are "evidence" and stuff.
