Robert Hill, post: 387921, member: 378 wrote: In the end, did the physical properties (c/l, curbs sidewalks)of the streets that were reestablished by your survey work differ from your monuments. curious
The established centerline of the 60 ft. right-of-way of Chicon Street does not fit the centerline of the pavement well at all because when that pavement was constructed sometime around 1959, the city survey party ran a line that diverged from the established centerline. So, if you split the curbs on Chicon, you're in for a rough ride as you go South from East 1st St (East Cesar Chavez).
On the East-West streets like Willow and Canterbury, the pavements are closer to centered because the centerlines for construction were laid out better. In all instances, the pattern is that concrete curb inlets were built well before the curb and wherever the inlets were poured tended to shift the curbs accordingly.
I'll add, though, that where pavements and sidewalks were built so near in time to the layout of the subdivison or first construction in it, I'd expect the locations of curbs, inlets, and sidewalks to be very good clues as to where street lines were marked then. The key is the proximity in time.
In many of the older, historically poorer neighborhoods, there was a lapse of fifty years or more between layout of subdivision and arrival of curb and gutter. So the relation between the two is often purely speculative.
Kent McMillan, post: 387354, member: 3 wrote: Surely you don't mean that a surveyor should consider any recently set rebar with plastic ribbon tied to it as definitely fixing any property corner that it falls in the vicinity of in a subdivision laid out a century earlier.
You forgot to exempt your monuments. 😉
Kent McMillan, post: 387971, member: 3 wrote: I'll add, though, that where pavements and sidewalks were built so near in time to the layout of the subdivison or first construction in it, I'd expect the locations of curbs, inlets, and sidewalks to be very good clues as to where street lines were marked then. The key is the proximity in time.
In many of the older, historically poorer neighborhoods, there was a lapse of fifty years or more between layout of subdivision and arrival of curb and gutter. So the relation between the two is often purely speculative.
Good point and true. I find a lot of good information in the cities survey field books for the street topo and construction of old subdivisions roads. One old subdivision plat I worked on, there was no reference to monuments being set on the plat but shortly after the plat recorded the city engineer topoed the street and had notes referring to front property hubs he used for turning points. It occurred to me after reading those notes that there was no reason for him to reference how he was controlling the street, the control was there in plain site, being front pl hubs every 60' on both sides of the street. Soon there after the curbs were built. I had no problem stating that the curbs were the best available evidence after looking for remnants of the hubs in this case. Jp
FL/GA PLS., post: 387974, member: 379 wrote: You forgot to exempt your monuments.
The survey markers I set represent my opinion based upon the evidence that I found. They are evidence of my opinion. When you consider the map and report, it should be obvious that they aren't an opinion that is unsupported by old evidence, though. This is completely unlike the map of the survey that was *based* upon those two new #3 bars that some subcontractor had apparently driven into the ground. Those were uncritically accepted as marking the West corners of Lot 8 with no further inquiry.
BTW one thing about surveying in an area being redeveloped (read: lots being scraped off and new construction replacing pretty much everything that was on them) is that control points that are convenient to the site, but out of harm's way seem to be the most permament and useful.
I'm a fan of more rather than fewer when it comes to those things, and have found that this particular style of marker lasts quite well as long as it is either in the top of existing concrete curb (away from where an ADA ramp might yet be constructed), in an already constructed ADA ramp, or in a concrete sidewalk that seems to be sound enough to linger around for a few more decades. This is a 1-1/2-inch diameter Aluminum Washer from Surv-Kap held in place with a 3/8" Spike. The punchmark on the head of the spike is the actual reference point. The point number is stamped on the washer.
Practice tip: If you find one of these things, you are not actually required to circle it in flourescent spray paint. You can just tell everyone that you did and they will most likely never know.
Kent McMillan, post: 388016, member: 3 wrote: Practice tip: If you find one of these things, you are not actually required to circle it in flourescent spray paint. You can just tell everyone that you did and they will most likely never know.
In Florida, all centerline intersections, P.C.'s, P.T.'s. P.R.C.'s and "P" whatevers within a platted subdivision are required to be monumented. Most are the same type marker as you posted above. You should see some of these subdivisions, there are giant flourscent orange and pink polka dots everywhere.
FL/GA PLS., post: 388022, member: 379 wrote: In Florida, all centerline intersections, P.C.'s, P.T.'s. P.R.C.'s and "P" whatevers within a platted subdivision are required to be monumented. Most are the same type marker as you posted above. You should see some of these subdivisions, there are giant flourscent orange and pink polka dots everywhere.
That spike and washer marker would not be my first choice to set in a flexible asphalt pavement. Is the idea that concrete's the standard paving material in Florida?
When setting control in concrete curbs or sidewalks I just use a grinder and cut a cross. That'll last decades as long as the sidewalk or curb exists
Rich., post: 388063, member: 10450 wrote: When setting control in concrete curbs or sidewalks I just use a grinder and cut a cross. That'll last decades as long as the sidewalk or curb exists
One problem with that, though, is it isn't as identifiable as a mark with some unique characteristics and a surveyor's professional identification. The anonymous marks can really only be identified indirectly and as the mark population thins out, it becomes progressively more inconvenient to go hunt for and locate three marks just so their identities can be demonstrated.
Kent McMillan, post: 388068, member: 3 wrote: One problem with that, though, is it isn't as identifiable as a mark with some unique characteristics and a surveyor's professional identification. The anonymous marks can really only be identified indirectly and as the mark population thins out, it becomes progressively more inconvenient to go hunt for and locate three marks just so their identities can be demonstrated.
I guess you mean for public use as in subdivision control. I wouldn't be able to for that, we are required marble monuments for that. I only use crosses for my job specific control that I, and only I, will use.
Rich., post: 388073, member: 10450 wrote: I guess you mean for public use as in subdivision control. I wouldn't be able to for that, we are required marble monuments for that. I only use crosses for my job specific control that I, and only I, will use.
I was thinking more about supplemental control in locations that are apt to be permanent and most useful. I don't consider survey marks on the centerlines of busy streets to be as useful as coordinated control points in locations that are out of traffic, easy to uncover, and practical for suveying purposes. I'd much rather have some marks that fit that bill and their coordinates in the same system as the coordinates of the boundary corners and other survey markers of some parcel of interest. That translates into (a) work out of traffic, (b) control immediately identifiable), and (c) other good stuff.
Kent McMillan, post: 388076, member: 3 wrote: I was thinking more about supplemental control in locations that are apt to be permanent and most useful. I don't consider survey marks on the centerlines of busy streets to be as useful as coordinated control points in locations that are out of traffic, easy to uncover, and practical for suveying purposes. I'd much rather have some marks that fit that bill and their coordinates in the same system as the coordinates of the boundary corners and other survey markers of some parcel of interest. That translates into (a) work out of traffic, (b) control immediately identifiable), and (c) other good stuff.
Absolutely. Putting supplemental control near the centerline of a road would be quite silly. Considering I run a robot, it would also be asking for trouble.
Rich., post: 388107, member: 10450 wrote: Absolutely. Putting supplemental control near the centerline of a road would be quite silly. Considering I run a robot, it would also be asking for trouble.
I'd imagine that there are still cities around the US that are maintaining networks of control points. While in Austin, it pretty much falls on surveyors in the private sector to do that, that doesn't mean that I wouldn't prefer to have the city maintaining both the archive of records of surveys that wouldn't be accessible in the real property records as well as a reliable and accurate network of permanent control points connected to the earlier lines and marks run by the Austin City Engineer at various times back to the early 20th century.
Kent, what will become of your survery records when you shuffle off this mortal coil? Have you planned for the eventual? Your work ranges widely across the state with meticulous control and point numbers. How will you pass your footsteps forward?
Andy Nold, post: 388117, member: 7 wrote: Kent, what will become of your survery records when you shuffle off this mortal coil? Have you planned for the eventual? Your work ranges widely across the state with meticulous control and point numbers. How will you pass your footsteps forward?
Well, much of the stuff is reflected in the public records. The other files are, as you say, scattered all over the State from Galveston to Oklahoma and from Buffalo Bayou to Presidio. There is no good solution to disposing of them.
It's the same here. No cities maintain control points. All private.
When surveyors get old they sell what they got.
At least the local surveyors society has a list of who has who's records.
Kent McMillan, post: 388119, member: 3 wrote: The other files are, as you say, scattered all over the State from Galveston to Oklahoma and from Buffalo Bayou to Presidio. There is no good solution to disposing of them.
I will say that the Texas GLO is in a unique position to maintain an archive of reports dealing with original land grants and the resurveys of those grants. As long as they are submitted to the GLO in digital form with appropriate keywords and geographic extent for indexing purposes, they could be maintained in a "For Information Only" part of the GLO map collection that would have no official weight, but would be extremely useful.
Materials in that map collection would not be officially "filed" any more than material such as the Maddox maps were and so would be exempt from the practice of Licensed State Land Surveying as defined in the Act. The LSLS license is basically just a license to file particular types of documents in the GLO, so if uploading a digital image is simply sharing information, that would not be covered.
I would suggest that you should will your records to the CCC closet that you invested in to perpetuate. Not state control but not lost. There should be a challenge question for registered Texas surveyors to gain access to the records . Maybe something about Powell's 1930's reserved of the 80 mile reservation and the validity of the KRA capped monuments? Or something central texas.
Actually, what would work better is some online digital archive of the sort that the Texas GLO could maintain at small cost. I've just posted an example of the sort of report that would be a pretty good supplement to what little is available presently for Atascosa County in the GLO sketch files.
