Hence the saying, “tag, you’re it!” 😉
> Recording state? If your completed survey plat is a public record, no problem with it. If your survey plat is not a public record, then did your field notes (legal description) get filed in conjunction with a deed and is your action described in the field notes? If none of the above, then probably a bad idea to mark someone else's monument.
NM is a recording state. So is Arizona. I just remembered Arizona requires you to cap/tag any bare monument you find and accept.
Except for corner records and Record of Survey, CA is a non-recording state and IMSM does not require capping/tagging unmarked monuments found and accepted.
It is not required nor accepted practice to cap/tag unmarked monuments in either Oklahoma or Texas, but I have seen it done there.
Should you cap ALL FOUND & accepted monuments?
Since your recording a plat with the necessary notes I don't see a huge problem with it. Where is the corner you capped in relation to your survey? Recording or not, if the corner isn't adjacent to my survey I probably wouldn't cap it.
Sorry Bill, you're preaching to the choir. I view it the same you do, but the powers that be don't.
:good: Excellent response.
Should you cap ALL FOUND & accepted monuments?
Since the Record of Survey Drawing will become Public Record and you state what you did, along with a full description of the monument as you left it, should not be a problem. I probably would not place my cap on them, but someday an occasion might come where I would, perhaps in a pincushion situation, even then all the monuments would be noted and described, leaving a cap on the monument you held would make it clear to the owners and those who followed what you chose to use and your filed survey drawing will show the whys.
jud
No
No
"Yes, it sort of buggs me that I did it."
Hell Nate, just go back and yank your cap off and be done with it!
Have a Great week.
Yeah, FL, and it'd bugggg me even more, to find ANOTHER surveyor's cap on it, in another week! (I found a subdivision ORIGINAL mon, that is 10' away from 2 other markers.
N
Nate,
“(I found a subdivision ORIGINAL mon, that is 10' away from 2 other markers. “
Cripes! That could really lead to some interesting conclusions.
Have a great week.
Ps: still got “Big Help” in slavery?
Ian / jim / Ryan,
The Board has an opinion that states that it is not required in California.
Ric
Sounds like a good idea to me especially in non-recording states. I don't consider it defacing the original monument, you aren't replacing it, you're preserving it, for goodness stake. It gives the guy following you a chance to see your 'signature' on it, and gives them a chance to look you up if they need to find out more about why you accepted it or need to discuss it with you.
Unfortunately it's true. As evidenced by this thread, too many surveyors believe that the monument is unacceptable unless they leave some of their own markings on it. I believe someone here once called a monument with 18 different types of flagging as covered in "surveyor's excrement".
Funny how no one seems to be concerned about painting it like a day glow billboard, or wrapping six layers of flagging on it, yet, add a cap to help the next guy.......nah.
It's not the Dead Sea Scrolls.....;-)
Isn't the rule in NM that if you use the monument you have to TAG it, not recap it?
Thanks Ric. I received an email with the 1990 opinion attached. But a letter was also attached as well from Don R. Nance, Executive Secretary of BPELS to Mr. C.P. Campbell, Director of Public Works, Mendocino County dated February 13, 1974 that says "(BPELS) concurs in the concept...that all government and property corners should be perpetuated. Sections 8762 and 8772 of the (LS) Act, the Board believes, should be interpreted to require that a corner monument when found, used and accepted as a corner by a ...land surveyor should be perpetuated by placing his identification tag on the monument if no such tag is affixed at the time he uses the monument. Enforcement of this policy by your personnel on future maps has the support of the Board."
The 1990 Board opinion letter says, "...In conclusion, it is our opinion that a land surveyor is not legally obligated to tag an undocumented and untagged monument which he or she has used in his or her survey."
Does the 1990 opinion letter negate the 1974 letter? The 1990 letter is from the Board Legal Affairs department (Staff Counsel), so since it's a "legal" or lawyer written opinion is it now the accepted opinion of the Board that it's not required?
One of the things that always fascinates me is that surveyors will tell you that the law requires "insert rule here" Often I find that if I research the law, it either doesn't exist or is completely different from what I was told. I think this rule is an example, someone in California believes the law requires it but a search by others turns up a board ruling that says it is not. I guess my point is that the law is complex and we should not just listen to what everyone else says, but take the time to research ourselves. I'd love to see more actual quotes from the various states codes when people discuss topics like this. If anyone has a cite for a law that requires tagging monuments which are found, I would like to see them.
AZ says to tag them on your property
Here is an exerpt from the AZ Minimum Technical Standards for boundary surveys. Section 8.B
"..B. When accepting a found monument of the surveyed property that does not have any record or physical evidence identifying its creator, then where practicable to do so, the surveyor accepting the monument shall affix his/her registration license number to the existing monument."
To me it tends to imply "surveyed property", so tagging an unmarked monument that you accept as a property corner on the property you are surveying, must be tagged. All additional untagged monuments need not be tagged, but noted on the plat. Makes sense to me and I see nothing but good from it. So in my example above I guess I'm ok.
The entire AZ MTS currently in effect
But I will note that there is a push to revise them considerably in the next year. It sits well with some and not so well with others, so we'll just see how that all pans out.
In Kansas our minimum standards are to bring a found monument up to modern standards. Example is finding a stone, and putting a iron bar next to it (capped), or drilling it and adding a capped rebar. Another practice they recommend is bringing the monument closer to the surface. If we find a stone a few feet down, we'll put a capped bar above it. We are required to record a section corner report, of what's found, reference ties to it, and any improvements, methods used to reset if it's been lost or obliterated. This way the history remain, but a monument should be easier for the next surveyor to find. As far as lot corner we typically just show what we found. Surveys are not required to be recorded here, but many surveyors give the public works, or road dept. a copy of a survey map, along with giving them an extra copy of our reference ties. At this time our Historical Society is the only agency we are required to give the Corner Reports too.
My short answer gut feeling says no. If I did't set it, I don't cap it. And, like Tom said in one of the first replies it would be akin to putting your signature and someone else's work. We all know that is just plain wrong.