Probably my favorite survey marker on that survey was this one below that is Axle No.167 on the West line of Chicon Street at the intersection of the South line of Haskell St. It is nearly certainly the same "Ford Axle" set in August of 1931 by a local surveyor named M.O. Metcalfe. Mr. Metcalfe was the son of a Surveyor/Engineer named O.E. Metcalfe who was City Engineer around that same time. Both Metcalfes, pere et fils, left remarkably solid bodies of work behind that have survived very well.
Axle No. 167:
Prism and Target set up on Axle No. 167:
BTW, as far as I know "Ford Axle" is a synonym for "Ford Model T Axle". The object in the photos above corresponds exactly in dimensions and numbers of teeth to that of a Model T Ford and in 1931 I can't imagine any other Ford Axle that would have been so plentiful in the scrap piles from which surveyors pulled markers.
Kent McMillan, post: 387303, member: 3 wrote: From time to time, I've posted examples of surveyor's reports that give a sense of what level of investigation is sometimes required in Texas surveying. This is an another example in that continuing series, but from an urban setting dealing with a small lot in a 1910-vintage subdivision. The attached report describes the findings of a survey that I made last year in connection with a dispute that had arisen as to the location of the common boundary between two lots in what is known as DRIVING PARK ADDITION laid out in 1910. The land subdivided is bounded by streets originally laid out in 1840 as a part of the subdivision of the so-called Government Tract that the Republic of Texas had acquired for the establishment of the City of Austin as the new capital of Texas.
In case they are of interest, here are the map and the accompanying report. Yes, the map was plotted on a pen plotter and, yes, they both it and the report are an argument in favor of the recording of such things. Since we do not have the means to do that aside from the subdivision process or in connection with land transactions, the second best option was to provide these digital copies to the surveying section of the City of Austin Public Works Department where they should be available to anyone else researching surveys in that area. That at least is the theory.
Kent: excellent report, all very clear. One question, though. Does this report get filed somewhere official, or is it just for the client? It would certainly be very useful to the City, and for anyone doing a survey in that area in the future.
John Hamilton, post: 387541, member: 640 wrote: Kent: excellent report, all very clear. One question, though. Does this report get filed somewhere official, or is it just for the client? It would certainly be very useful to the City, and for anyone doing a survey in that area in the future.
The report was prepared with the object of laying to rest any question about the correctness of the determination of the boundary that was the subject of the dispute heading toward a lawsuit. There is no place in the public records where something like that can be recorded so that any future surveyors working in the area would be expected to find it.
I provided digital copies of both the map and the report to the Surveying Division of the Department of Public Works so that they will be on file there and indexed so that they can be retrieved. Obviously, a surveyor would need to know to research the files there in order to find them, but any diligent local surveyor should know to do that. That doesn't include the folks doing $350 surveys of residential properties, though.
Kent, the County Clerk will not let you file the report in the OPR books? I know many clerk's are steadfast in what they will accept, so I'm ready to hear they won't, but in some panhandle counties we have been filing reports in OPR. The clerk lists the survey firm as Grantor, the property owner as Grantee, and ties the record to the property, and the abstract firm includes the record in the abstract record. (Disclosure, we are an LSLS firm, so we are also filing our reports in the Surveyor's Records when we can get the clerk to open those records)
Monte, post: 387584, member: 11913 wrote: Kent, the County Clerk will not let you file the report in the OPR books?
It could be filed with an affidavit, but in the Official Public Records, it would effectively become invisible and would never be found by even a diligent surveyor doing research in the area. What is needed is a separate index of surveys that is searchable by geographical and land-related keywords such as street and subdivision names, which is what the Surveying Division of the COA Department of Public Works does maintain.
Jones, post: 387356, member: 10458 wrote: Actually I do, I find it important to consider all of the evidence. When I read your other statement, it appears you disregarded it based solely on its age. I was just asking what made you disregard it, other than its age.
ORIGINAL monuments hold. Not the retracing surveyor, the original surveyor. It does create problems when no original monuments are extent, but there it is.
dmyhill, post: 387587, member: 1137 wrote: ORIGINAL monuments hold. Not the retracing surveyor, the original surveyor. It does create problems when no original monuments are extent, but there it is.
Those junk #3 bars that some unknown person set at some time between 2014 and 2015 also show the merit of the Texas rule requiring professional surveyors to place markers with professional identification on them. New rebar with no identification = most likely not even the work of a land surveyor.
You don't need to have a surveying license to buy either #3 rebars or plastic flagging at Home Depot and I think the odds are very much in favor of those new rods having been set by one of the construction subs, most likely either the one who scraped off the lot or the carpenters who built the formwork for the foundations of some structures after the lot was cleared.
dmyhill, post: 387587, member: 1137 wrote: ORIGINAL monuments hold. Not the retracing surveyor, the original surveyor. It does create problems when no original monuments are extent, but there it is.
Yes but Kent said
"e of the bits of evidence that I didn't discuss in the report linked above was this #3 rebar that had been considered by a surveyor to control the Northwest corner of Lot 8. There was just one tiny, little problem with the rebar being some ancient survey marker. Can you tell what it is?"
He seemed to disregard the monument based solely on its age. If you look at the Northwest corner of lot 8 on his map he states he set a iron rod and cap. He gave no other reason that I found either in his report or on his map that even mentions said rebar. So I concluded he disregarded it based on its age until he gave his explanation.
Kent also gave what I took as a snide remark about surveyors relying on any rebar they find. I for one do consider the validity of every corner I find, and not disregard it based on its age; but if its in the proper location.
Jones, post: 387593, member: 10458 wrote: Kent also gave what I took as a snide remark about surveyors relying on any rebar they find. I for one do consider the validity of every corner I find, and not disregard it based on its age; but if its in the proper location.
I actually wrote two reports, one that I posted above that deals with the general question of how to locate various lots and blocks in DRIVING PARK ADDITION and certain streets bounding the land subdivided and one that does what is in effect an autopsy of two recent surveys of the boundaries in question.
As for the idea that some surveyors rely upon any rebar they find, even a new rebar with no professional identification attached and wildly out of position, yes, that does happen, particularly in the El Cheapo Rapido end of things where there is apparently not enough time to do anything other than hope for the best.
Kent McMillan, post: 387596, member: 3 wrote: I actually wrote two reports, one that I posted above that deals with the general question of how to locate various lots and blocks in DRIVING PARK ADDITION and certain streets bounding the land subdivided and one that does what is in effect an autopsy of two recent surveys of the boundaries in question.
As for the idea that some surveyors rely upon any rebar they find, even a new rebar with no professional identification attached and wildly out of position, yes, that does happen, particularly in the El Cheapo Rapido end of things where there is apparently not enough time to do anything other than hope for the best.
I agree some do, I was just getting at there had to be another reason for you to disregard the newer one.
Jones, post: 387597, member: 10458 wrote: I agree some do, I was just getting at there had to be another reason for you to disregard the newer one.
Well, the fundamental reason is, of course, that it is zero evidence of where lots were laid out in 1910 but represents, at best, someone's opinion as to where they were. Standard procedure is to search for the best evidence and some new, unidentified rebars along the street side of a corner lot would virtually never be evidence of anything other than there are new unidentified rebars there.
What happened was that one of the surveys in question uncritically considered those two brand new bars to correctly mark the corners of Lot 8 in Block P on Chicon Street with absolutely no further inquiry insofar as the map of that work reflects. It was and still is an amusing example of what $350 buys.
What Jones and Kent are discussing is probably one of biggest 800 pound gorillas in the room when surveyors compare notes; what evidence do you disregard?
Realizing that all monuments are not only an indication of what the surveyor that set them followed (or didn't); sometimes they are the ONLY evidence left by a previous surveyor. Oklahoma is not a recording state so 99.9% of the time I'm stuck trying to figger out what the hell the guy before me came up with on which to base his survey if I am finding conflicting evidence. But does that mean the guy before me was correct just because he was first? Not on your life.
Even in such cases where property owners have acted upon poorly or erroneously set corners with their occupation the task at hand is to locate the property as it was originally laid out. Merely relying upon a chronological progression is ducking your responsibility as a surveyor. I am not saying that property owners that have acted upon badly located corners don't have rights. They most assuredly do. That is however secondary to the location of corners as they were originally set out. Even if there is an indication of either adversely possessed or acquiescent retreat from a boundary line, the location of the original line is paramount, particularly in litigation. Sometimes I think we surveyors get the cart before the horse and start a preponderance of physical evidence in an effort to show our clients "what they own". That is the one thing we cannot do; that is a title issue and not a survey issue.
So when do you disregard an existing monument? Easy. When it's wrong. When there is available evidence or records that existed at the time the previous surveyor executed his survey that indicates position error or blunders in his work, the pin is in the wrong place. The fly in the ointment is when we as surveyors have the need to determine a blunder from merely poor or inadequate field work. That's something that must be taken case by case; leaving your experience and your conscience as guiding lights.
Like my old mentor use to tell me, "A pin set in the wrong place will always be wrong."
paden cash, post: 387609, member: 20 wrote: What Jones and Kent are discussing is probably one of biggest 800 pound gorillas in the room when surveyors compare notes; what evidence do you disregard?
In the case of an old addtion such as that one that has been nearly fully built up since the 1930s, one pattern of misadventure one sees is the atraction of bright and shiny objects. SuperRapido Surveyors arrive and lock onto the easiest markers in the block to find, which in this case were freshly flagged up #3 bars that some formwork carpenter likely set, work their numerical legerdemain and then proceed to stab some more bright and shiny objects into the ground in agreement with what was easy to find. Maas, Maynus & Associates Mappers arrive and continue the process.
Naturally, there is old evidence that a prudent surveyor would have used to determine boundaries, but it is harder to find than the bright and shiny objects. Over time what happens is multiple patterns that are more or less internally consistent within themselves develop, collide or stare at each other from a distance while the original lots are still there waiting to be found.
Kent McMillan, post: 387614, member: 3 wrote: ...Over time what happens is multiple patterns that are more or less internally consistent within themselves develop, collide or stare at each other from a distance while the original lots are still there waiting to be found.
Well put.
I have at times had to look really hard for evidence. Sometimes not so much. I do remember one survey (in a city block) that had lots of evidence of several later surveys, all in discord with the other. The original plat (pre-1920) plainly stated the block corners were "4x4 redwood posts". I saw no evidence that anyone had ever actually looked for these corners, probably because redwood and pin-finders don't play nice together.
Redwood is an odd wood for around here; can't say as I had ever actually uncovered any and didn't know what to look for... but I found remains from three of the four block corners almost 2' deep. Somewhat decomposed but their size and composition was unmistakable. 75 year old redwood was still distinguishable as 'red'. My discovery technique was as advanced as the pyramids. I ignored all the modern rebar and located all the old fences and original structure corners then calc'd some "dig spots".
My, my...lookie what this old dummy found. Somebody here on the board once said it so well, "You don't have to be a good surveyor if you can find all the corners."
I am always impressed when finding an axle shaft driven into the ground marking a corner. The Model T shaft was about 30" long and must have been a bugger to cart around. They had the advantage of having a tapered end but nevertheless, it still needed to be planted.
How long was the bar that Kent removed for the photo? I presume that you put it back where it was.
Also, just because one is in a "recording state" does not mean that everything that you find falls on a document or map that was "recorded with the public". I find capped bars and uncapped bars all the time that have no record. Many that are clearly in violation of the statutes by which we are bound to work. There has only been a process here since 1973.
We as Surveyors are tasked to find and examine all of the evidence. When to stop and what to disregard is different with every job. However the litmus test should always be could someone, without a shadow of doubt prove me wrong. If you truly believe the answer is no, that's when you stop. Are we going to miss something occasionally, of course, but hey where all human.
Daniel Ralph, post: 387618, member: 8817 wrote: I am always impressed when finding an axle shaft driven into the ground marking a corner. The Model T shaft was about 30" long and must have been a bugger to cart around. They had the advantage of having a tapered end but nevertheless, it still needed to be planted.
I'm pretty sure that particular axle was driven with a sledge hammer. The soil in that location is a Colorado River loam that a person could probably sink a 6 ft. rebar into with just a post driver.
How long was the bar that Kent removed for the photo? I presume that you put it back where it was.
That #3 bar was 24 inches long. Yes, I set up a tripod and tribrach over the bar before pulling it to inspect it and replaced it in the same position because litigation was pending. Fortunately, a week later when it was time to set markers for the correct corners, the landscapers had removed them along with the stubs of chain link fence posts of the yard fence and everything else that a bobcat could scrape out, covering it all up with sod. So I had a clean slate to work with, which suited me perfectly well.
Daniel Ralph, post: 387618, member: 8817 wrote: I presume that you put it back where it was.
Why would he put it back? What possible good could come of that? Like he says it is a good thing it was removed by a landscaper. (And yes, coming litigation is a good reason.)
We sit here and all of us complain about shiny objects distracting the owners and other surveyors, but we do not feel we can clean it up...if not us, who?
And I ask that as a question. Not rhetorical. I would put it back as well, but it pains me. I am not sure it is the right thing to do.
My buddy's neighbor built a fence, saw a rebar in the front, and pulled to it. Well, it was a No. 5, not a No.4 as called out on the plat, had no cap, and stuck up about 0.3'. Hmmm, well, the actual corner fell inside the water meter (with a No 4 rebar and cap). I left it. It was used to tie up a tree to keep it straight. But, it bothers me when I see it...
Jones, post: 387621, member: 10458 wrote: However the litmus test should always be could someone, without a shadow of doubt prove me wrong.
If that is the test, I have never seen a correctly done survey in my entire life.
