It may be unstated, but certainly understood, that when a surveyor is hired to reference key monuments before construction and replace them after construction is complete it is expected that the replacement monuments will be in the same location as the originals, not tenths away, not feet away, and not 20 feet away. And yes, I'm serious. Also disgusted with some of the members of this profession.
I remember Col. Epps teaching us how to reference monuments, and making us practice it until we got it right. Too many of our peers seem to have skipped Surv 90.
Bruce, that is a great comment in many ways. One of them is that this is your 1000th post. Congratulations!
Must be one of the reference monuments set. (that's sarcasm, you see)
Bruce, a few years back (on the other forum) I stated that when we "reset" monuments after construction we set them where we found them, not necessarily where I might think the corner belonged. I caught a ration of "stuff" about NOT placing the monument where it "belonged". I could, and did, defend the practice in court. Apparently there are STILL those out there that worship numbers, and overlook any other evidence.
Andy
Andy,
The response is, 'It belongs where it was found Scooter....'
I agree 100%- "original position" means ORIGINAL POSITION. Period.
The only superior evidence is that which you haven't yet found.
I agree 100% and would argue that monument preservation is much different then boundary surveying.
If you are hired to preserve a monument, then that SOB better go back exactly where it was... right or wrong, it was there for a reason.
One of my biggest gripes. I frequently go back and revisit monuments tied on previous surveys that have been impacted by construction and there is a fairly good chance either they were never replaced or they were put back somewhere other than where they were originally tied, often with no monument record. Certain local government entities and their low ball construction surveyors seem to be the ones behind most of it. Talking original section and quarter corners. Creates some real dilemmas for me as to what to hold when I know the corner I'm working with isn't in it's original location and everyone that had a hand in it moving or disappearing is completely indifferent. At least I'm not the only one that runs into this.
Just because I'm paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get me.
Andy Bruner, post: 395552, member: 1123 wrote: Bruce, a few years back (on the other forum) I stated that when we "reset" monuments after construction we set them where we found them, not necessarily where I might think the corner belonged. I caught a ration of "stuff" about NOT placing the monument where it "belonged". I could, and did, defend the practice in court. Apparently there are STILL those out there that worship numbers, and overlook any other evidence.
Andy
I quite agree that the replacement monuments should go where the recently destroyed monuments were. My grip is when the new monuments are feet from where the old monuments were. If a surveyor is being paid to reference and replace, then the methodology should be sufficient to put it back within a hundredth or two. Not two tenths, not two feet, not twenty feet (the monument where I was today is no doubt 0.22 feet from where it was several years ago before repaving). And how the heck do you manage to muff it so bad that the new monument is twenty feet away from where it was.