There's nothing quite like looking for rocks.
A broken stone:
One that was found in a mound of stone:
sometimes the marks are hard to see, but a wire brush really helps:
and sometimes they are tiny:
Only two left to find, the last attempt is today, I may have to prorate them- YUCK!
Those are some sweet "finds" Mighty, keep up the good work.
Loyal
That sure doesn't seem like a stable mark.
Do you set your own? Or just reference the find?
Cool pix.
Looks like a great find. Great pics.
Loyal-The last 2
I needed two stones (well one stone and one mark) to finish off the west portion of this survey. Another party chief and I had looked for 38 and were only missing these two.
That's not something I usually see, finding all or almost all the stones. But the country is remote-nothing to disturb corners.
So today we both go out to look for the last two, of course they are at the far end of the property; about an hour and ten minutes from the highway turn off for the ranch to the base point and another 20 minutes on 4 wheelers across country.
Found the first one (the third attempt) in tall grass and brush. It was about 1 inch above ground. This is the north 1/4 of S.34 and the hard thing about finding it was the section is about 80 feet longer than the notes say-and it's only peaking out of the ground in a dense grass/brush area.
I can just make out the 4:
and now the stone is in the ground and a 3-1/4" cap has taken its place:
The second one is the W1/4 of S.21. Did not find that one. It was described as found stone in place 3ft x 5ft 4ins above ground, marked x on stone and marked 1/4 west of x, raise a mound of stone W. of corner.
This is what it looks like; the pile is just me marking the first search point.
Finally gave up on it and went to the northwest corner to prorate in the W1/4. It is in Hawthorn, Aspen and poison ivy. This is the second attempt for it and but there is a better calc. And found it also. Really weird stone (I'm calling it the shark tooth stone) but, it's set and after brushing on it some notches showed up:
That place actually made me nervous. There is bear sign and the ravine is stuffed with berries. I kept hearing animals (cows probably) moving around and I was getting a bit jumpy. Add all the ivy into it and not my favorite place.
Got it done, the w1/4 monumented, and went home and scrubbed down.
Loyal-The last 2
Nothing quite as satisfying, as a job WELL DONE.
Loyal
Good work!
I do not get to do enough of that anymore. The joy of the research, the calc, the search and the find (hopefully). Noticed in the one pic a rover. Hope you didn't use RTK for your search. Been reading in some other threads, even today's, that those things have no value in surveying. Sorry 😉
RTK! No,no, I couldn't stand that 0.04' floating around in the survey.
Funny thing though, the title person on this one is asking for an ALTA survey.
I said, Huh? You want a what?
So maybe I need to tighten things up a bit.
> So maybe I need to tighten things up a bit.
Actually, you were the only RTK user posting to that thread below who had bothered to test the accuracy of the positions their equipment delivered in any serious way. I have every confidence that you aren't a "one-beep-fits-all" sort of surveyor that seems to have become the standard for RTK work.
So a point could be made that the RTK was actually of value in the course of your work related to a cadastral survey. Yes, it was for corner search, but still valuable. Correct me if it was not valuable becuase a starment was made in an earlier thread that by someone else that RTK is of no value to surveyors, and part of that seemed to come from a stance that only cadastral surveying was actually surveying.
And I always appreciate your insights and attention to good practices.
> becuase a starment was made in an earlier thread that by someone else that RTK is of no value to surveyors, and part of that seemed to come from a stance that only cadastral surveying was actually surveying.
Actually, you asked what the value of RTK was and I gave the opinion that BY ITSELF it was whatever you could sell it for on eBay. That was a humorous way of making the point that it is the expertise of the user that makes RTK useful or not. By "expertise", I don't mean facility with pushing buttons, but a professional understanding of the accuracy limitations of the system so that it isn't used inappropriately. If RTK is used for farming, that probably is not so critical as it is in cadastral practice.
I wouldn't even think of a one beep location. We always wait for two beeps.
Coolest stone
On this project we recovered almost everything. But there were two stones that were "found" in place stones. One had fallen off a hillside (at least that is my opinion) and the other was on a flat area.
That stone we finally found after two tries-third time's a charm. The third time was greatly helped by a can of wasp spray because there was a nest in the stone mound north of the corner.
The notes said, a stone in place 3ft x 4ft. 8ins above ground, mark a cross the cor. point, raised a mound of stone north of corner. And this is what was found; the cross is still visible, but is getting worn away:
Then a monument was drilled into the stone at the cross and a 3-1/4" aluminum cap set into the stone:
Thank you. I do not like see surveyors insult each other.
I found a good IPA while here in Virginia. St Georges. Someday I will take you up on that.
I have read some of your writing and would like to ask you about the drones. Can I have your email?
> Kent is worried about improper use of tools. I think he fails in assuming that no one who uses RTK knows what they are doing, ever, and has to resort to insults like "one beep fits all".
Actually, that's more of a description. How would you describe a method that relies entirely upon quickie RTK shots with zero checks?
> If RTK gets dismissed by a small group then that is just fine.
Actually, the obvious point is that the problem isn't with RTK, it's with users who use it inappropriately, meaning : with no professional appreciation of the limitations that exist in many common situations. The inability to discuss obvious problems with RTK such as relative positional accuracy is definitely diagnostic.
> Those are some sweet "finds" Mighty, keep up the good work.
>
> Loyal
Or you could say; "those are some 'Mighty' sweet finds."
> Please do volunteer to help the NGS develop further their standards for proper RTK use. Seriously. Just slamming is not helping and it is getting incredibly tiring bordering on counterproductive.
Okay, so you're on record as feeling or thinking that an objective discussion of the errors inherent in RTK positioning and the limitations that follow from those errors is "slamming"? Do you *feel* this or *think* this?
looks like you're having a good summer. I see that you're still casting shadows, so you must not be all smoked in like we are up here.
The pic of the shark tooth stone - were the notes for notches or grooves?
I like the note below the description: land mountainous and nearly level.
Sorry about the quality-that's how it came to me.
> But what should have been a serious discussion god eroded by such things as insulting surveyors, insulting states, insulting published standards, generalizations aboput a tool having no value for surveyors, etc.
You may be unaware of this, but nearly all of your comments have been on a feeling level. That is the basic miscommunication here. I can't help you, I'm afraid; I've never really understood the ISFP and ESFJ types very well. It's an uncommon type in the land surveying profession.
