I know this is asking way too much, and some followers of this thread will probably think I am on a foolÛªs errand. But, did you participate in the drafting of this regulation?
LRWells, post: 346454, member: 7284 wrote: But, did you participate in the drafting of this regulation?
No, but I thought it was a good proposal and supported it without reservations. It served to raise the bar and to let the surveyors who were wobbling along the edge of the minimum standards know how far away they had drifted from best practices.
As a reminder, Rule 663.17(d) provides:
"Where practical, all monuments set by a Professional Land Surveyor to delineate or witness a boundary corner shall be marked in a way that is traceable to the responsible registrant or associated employer."
I have yet to hear of a case where the provisions of that rule have been misapplied.
According to the board minutes for complaints 12-36, 37 & 38, the surveyors were found guilty of violating 663.17(d) for not mentioning on the plat that an ID cap was placed on the iron rod that was set. As plainly stated in the rule, it merely requires that set monuments be identifiable. It does not apply to mentioning ID caps on the plat. If you are ignorant of this fact, then either you have not been paying very close attention to an earlier thread, or you do not believe in a literal interpretation of the rule. I would like to know which one it is.
Thanks, concise and to the point. This is a first time experience for me. I just wish it had been yes.
LRWells, post: 346667, member: 7284 wrote: This is a first time experience for me.
Well, as you learn more about surveying practice, you'll do well to quit worrying about meeting minimum standards and work on figuring out out how to consistently do much better than the minimum.
There you go again, back to obfuscation, thatÛªs the Kent I have come to expect, with a dose of disparagement.
Neither my knowledge of surveying practice, nor my ability to exceed the minimum standards, have anything to do with my participation in this thread. And, as you very well know, my first time experience was a concise answer from you that was to the point.
It really isn't a rule at all, is it? It is more in the way of a statement of policy that has been written into the regulation.
I'd wager that the board just didn't like the way the registrants were practicing the profession in general. This was a merely a way to exact some punishment.
I once spent some time sitting in on Oregon State Board meetings as an observer for PLSO. I saw a number of occasions where registrants got themselves in deeper hot water - turned benign enquiries into public complaints into full blown investigations - by failing to respond to the board in a professional and timely manner, by being unable to answer questions that should have been routine, and just generally digging their own hole deeper. And they ended up being disciplined for a) failure to maintain PDHs and/or b) failing to file their ROS in a timely manner.
LRWells, post: 346663, member: 7284 wrote: According to the board minutes for complaints 12-36, 37 & 38, the surveyors were found guilty of violating 663.17(d) for not mentioning on the plat that an ID cap was placed on the iron rod that was set. As plainly stated in the rule, it merely requires that set monuments be identifiable. It does not apply to mentioning ID caps on the plat.
As I thought, you haven't been following this thread. Other Texas rules, specifically Rule 663.19(b) and (e), require registrants to describe monuments. So, a registrant who describes a monument just as a "1/2 in. iron pin set" is presumed to have accurately described the monument he or she placed, i.e. just a 1/2 in. iron rod without professional identification. Raketenwissenshaft? Ich glaube nicht.
LRWells, post: 346785, member: 7284 wrote: Neither my knowledge of surveying practice, nor my ability to exceed the minimum standards, have anything to do with my participation in this thread.
Actually, your comments have been indistinguishable from those of a habitual violator looking for a "Get Out of Jail" card. Any ethical practitioner would be more concerned with increasing the scope of enforcement activities than wanting to pretend not to understand rules written in standard English for people who are supposed to have a more than superficial understanding of land surveying.
Au contraire, mon ami (and I use that term rather loosely) once again you are obfuscating. I have been following the thread very carefully and anybody else that has, or chooses to do so, can see that I have yet to take issue with Rule 663.19(b) & (e). Instead, I have questioned the proper interpretation of 663.17(d) and the apparent misapplication of this rule by the TBPLS.
Yes, your failure to understand how the different Texas rules interrelate in the cases described is not newsworthy.
Kent McMillan, post: 346924, member: 3 wrote: Actually, your comments have been indistinguishable from those of a habitual violator looking for a "Get Out of Jail" card. Any ethical practitioner would be more concerned with increasing the scope of enforcement activities than wanting to pretend not to understand rules written in standard English for people who are supposed to have a more than superficial understanding of land surveying.
I guess I must have missed the habitual violatorÛªs comments. If it is directed to me, your comment regarding understanding the rules is way off the mark. As anyone who is following this discussion can see, it is you not me who stretches the definition of 663.17(d), and no amount of disparaging words of obfuscation can change that fact.
LRWells, post: 346949, member: 7284 wrote: I guess I must have missed the habitual violatorÛªs comments. If it is directed to me, your comment regarding understanding the rules is way off the mark. As anyone who is following this discussion can see, it is you not me who stretches the definition of 663.17(d), and no amount of disparaging words of obfuscation can change that fact.
Since you've failed to support your continued suggestion that somehow the facts described in the newsletter did not merit a finding that the registrants had not set monuments in comliance with Rule 663.17(d) and can't see the simply logic that applies to the board's action, what other explanation seems more plausible than that you have a vested interest in failing to recognize the obvious? I prefer not to believe that logical thinking has become merely a curiosity as mode of analysis in the surveying profession.
Kent McMillan, post: 346951, member: 3 wrote: Since you've failed to support your continued suggestion that somehow the facts described in the newsletter did not merit a finding that the registrants had not set monuments in comliance with Rule 663.17(d) and can't see the simply logic that applies to the board's action, what other explanation seems more plausible than that you have a vested interest in failing to recognize the obvious? I prefer not to believe that logical thinking has become merely a curiosity as mode of analysis in the surveying profession.
Confound it; you know very well that I never suggested such a thing. All I have said and or maintained is 663.17(d) is limited to placement of the monuments and does not apply to description of the cap. If a capped iron rod was not set, then the rule has clearly been violated. But, the failure to mention or describe the ID tag is not a violation of this rule, plain and simple.
The thought occurs to me that both of us may be using different source material. I am relying on the minutes of the board dated 5/29/15. Is the newsletter that you mention different than these minutes? If so, I would sincerely appreciate it if you would upload a copy of it to a post so that I may be able to give it all due consideration.
LRWells, post: 346960, member: 7284 wrote: Confound it; you know very well that I never suggested such a thing. All I have said and or maintained is 663.17(d) is limited to placement of the monuments and does not apply to description of the cap. If a capped iron rod was not set, then the rule has clearly been violated. But, the failure to mention or describe the ID tag is not a violation of this rule, plain and simple.
The thought occurs to me that both of us may be using different source material. I am relying on the minutes of the board dated 5/29/15. Is the newsletter that you mention different than these minutes? If so, I would sincerely appreciate it if you would upload a copy of it to a post so that I may be able to give it all due consideration.
I think you have your threads confused. This is a thread about the early history of Rule 663.17 and the short life of a proposed rule designated as 663.20 that was withdrawn before adoption but that attempted to bring standards well above minimum into the discussion as desiderata.
Kent McMillan, post: 346961, member: 3 wrote: I think you have your threads confused. This is a thread about the early history of Rule 663.17 and the short life of a proposed rule designated as 663.20 that was withdrawn before adoption but that attempted to bring standards well above minimum into the discussion as desiderata.
There is no confusion on my part. But, even if I was, your response is merely obfuscation, which I have come to expect from you. You deign to lecture me that this thread is in part about Rule 663.17, yet my current issue with you is the proper interpretation of 663.17(d). So, where does the confusion lie in that. And, I note with interest that you seem to be changing the intent of 663.20. Perhaps you are the one who is confused.
If you truly believe that I am confused, then please extend me the courtesy of either confirming or denying whether we are using different source material.
I don't think I've ever seen so many happy-sounding expressions of wistful aspiration in a document of that length. It reads more like a prospectus for yet another internet start-up company that doesn't actually have any assets.
What's not to enjoy about prose like this:
"The ownership of an apartment (volume of space)
and its associated shared property regimes (tenants
in common) can be more readily recognised and
authorised in a future 3-dimensional representation.
Institutional and legislative frameworks, that provide
the legal mandate for regulatory operation of the
cadastral system, will need to be reviewed to ensure
adequate provision for a 3-dimensional digital
representation." ?
I'll grant you, though, that there are quite a few other very strong contenders for Best of Show in that document. I would not rule out:
"Linking cadastral information
with other information will be
an imperative. The collective
intelligence achieved through
system integration will lead
to more effective and active
engagement with citizens through
smart transportation systems,
emergency services, health care,
protection of the environment,
and the provision of utilities
such as energy, water and waste
management. "
This is great that Australian cadastral surveyors are to be essential parts of the provision of energy, water, and waste management, but I'm willing to hold someone's beer and watch. :>
