Searched for, not found.

Back about 2 revisions of our State Board of Registration Rules and Regulations the corner recordation act said we had to file on a corner searched for and not found. Many never paid attention to it. I have filed them and don't really care what your problem is with it, it's informational and you can take it or leave it, but it makes a public record that I did search for it and didn't find it. Take it for what it's worth.

Pablo B-)

I use SFN, which I lifted from some California surveys. I find it helpful to know that someone Searched and Found Nothing.

:good:

>I have filed them and don't really care what your problem is with it, it's informational and you can take it or leave it, but it makes a public record that I did search for it and didn't find it.

I definitely agree that the surveyor who reports that (in effect) he or she made a diligent effort to locate a boundary marker and did not find any evidence of the marker has left a valuable record. It would seem standard practice to me to note when one is, for example, setting a new monument to mark a corner previously reported as having been marked that the older monument had not been found in place.

To resolve the dilemma on certified plans of survey publicly lodged in our central plan register at the Lands Titles Office here in South Australia we put the note next to symbol for a reference mark with notation NLF (Not looked for} or next to a symbol with a slashed line through it with the notation GONE (having carried out a diligent search). If a reference mark is found then its type, bearing and distance to an identified corner number is shown in a reference mark table. Like wise and new reference marks placed are added to the table. If the mark found is a permanent mark PMFD then the Pm's unique number is also added. The unique number made up of a map sheet number and then a sequential number. This unique number also carrying Map grid of Australia E&N and Australian Height Datumn level coordinates to 3 decimal places of a metre. General in an adjusted network area.

The notation NLF added to plan when those reference marks in the course of our survey are not necessary to be located for the definition. Thus advising the following surveyors that should marks found become GONE then the surveyor can search the earlier plans for their their fixes to boundary corners.

Once again our Torrens Title system of land Registration makes for a far more uniform approach to plan presentation.

Will include a link to our "Bible"

Portion of Section 7.58 onwards has this matter discussed in it.

RADU

What bugs me is I had a map checker insist I put a SFNF note at a quarter corner where I had used a section corner a half mile away for control to double proportion in the section corner to the south. I think its obvious the quarter corner was determined to be lost i,e, SFNF, so the adding of the note for an obviosly lost controlling position strikes me as dumb. I see no benefit in stating the obvious.

Agee 100%, silly stuff

I heard of a company that required its crews to take store shot at the location of desired evidence, just to show that they had indeed searched the location.

I think that if you do not trust a field hand to search correctly you should either train them correctly of fire them.

I am not sure how to think of it on finished product, seems like it would be nice in less clear situations than the one you describe.

I've used a SFNF note in situations where there are alternate solutions and it provides clarity as to my decision making process. However, I take exception to map checkers who try to push it as a standard in blanket form. The reason for this post is in response to a conference presention where it was being pushed by the presenter as being necessary in a blanket generalization. My point being is that it goes without saying in many situations.

I think I know who you're talking about. 🙂

Many times in our section corner reports a note is added that generally tells the story that a previously reported monument was not found thus resulting in the placement of a replacement monument.

On the other hand, I have never seen a survey plat with any such initialing or words indicating that a specific monument was searched for but not found at any number of specific corners shown on the plat. This would require writing a small book on many of our in-town type of surveys where we go searching for evidence from eight or ten different surveys in the same and adjoining blocks in order to locate a single lot in a standard block.

I would hope that on a survey plat, if I do not show a controlling corner to have been found, it is inferred that I searched for it. Someone trying to make me note that, is to at some level try to hold my feet to the fire. But if I don't find an existing controlling corner, my feet are already "to the fire".

Anyway, I like the way the NGS has a method to note (for free) on their records that if I tried to find a mark, I can go in and put a date and note that I didn't find anything. For this state and any other states that have monument record filing, it would be awesome to be able to go online and submit a date and that you searched for a monument and didn't find it. That would help tremendously for anyone who is looking for the same corner that you were there before and also didn't find it.

It's not about trusting your crew. It's proof you were there. I take those shots and I am the only one accountable. Six months from now when preparing the plat there is no question whether or not I remembered to look for a corner when the "Looked Here" shot is glaring at me.

:good:

But what happens when a later surveyor comes along and finds said un-found object?

Me and Taso were called out to mark a line between two neighbors disputing about a fence over the line. Both parties had already had their own surveyors out but neither could find the front pin by the road. How we got called into it I don't have a clue. I figured we were about to jump into the shark tank. Taso said not to worry. He told me to go get the pin finder and start looking while he went about something else. The back corner was previously found and flagged and a point on line had been set that both previous surveyors agreed upon. The neighbors apparently didn't.
Well, I couldn't find the pin either being the location was falling right underneath a electric box's pad. The pin finder was making all kinds of racket for me but I couldn't discern the noise. Taso comes to check on me and I'm clueless. Dam if he isn't certain he's found it and sends to the truck for a shovel. Sure enough, we find it right at the edge of the pad just under the concrete.
Then I setup the gun and we shoot both corners. Sure enough again, the fence was indeed over the line.

What I'm getting at, what if both those previous surveyors had noted SFNF and here we come along and find said "not found" thing? Does that make the previous surveyors lessor than us? I would hope not. Does Taso's acute sense of hearing work better than mine? You bet!! After we were done, I asked him how the hell he could tell. We go back with the pin finder to show me. He turns it on and shows me his settings which were pretty much the same I tried. A couple of passes back and forth and he asks "do you hear that [change in pitch]?". Hell, I couldn't at all.
Guess I owed him a beer for that day. 🙂

Good point.
I've had situations where accumulative evidence can move a search location around & it is really nice to have that record.

I disagree, if the crew is out trying to piece together an old description or two, and have little to go on, taking a SNF shot where they have all ready looked may be helpful to those in the office when analyzing the data. It also could be helpful to the crew when they go out in the future to further look for missing point (look about 3.2' northwest of your SNF point) without setting up equipment to search for a calculated point.