In a thread below, I recommended using symbols for boundary markers that distinguished them by function in the construction rather than by the physical property of the marker. In particular, the important functions are whether they were:
- set,
- recovered and original,
- recovered and either not of record or not controlling.
The ideal, in my view, is to allow another surveyor to quickly take in the logic of the construction. The exact descriptions of the monuments, i.e. whether that controlling monument is a 1/2 in. rebar or an old cedar stake, is in a lower tier of information. Here's an example of what I mean. The actual descriptions are in a list keyed by monument number to the map.
The solid dot in circle represents an original monument described in a conveyance of record. The solid dot represents a monument that either is not described in a conveyance of record or that doesn't control a boundary. Open circles are monuments set.
I use solid dots for monuments set by me and open circles for those found. My logic is that I want what I set to stand out, and the support for my choices to be background. Use many other symbols following the same trend also a legend describing symbols used and sometime you will find a symbol in the legend that says, as noted and you then are forced to trot over to the note which you more than likely have already seen. Don't know where the open circles came from indicating set monuments or the logic for it, but many use them without doing harm to anyone.
jud
.
.
> I use solid dots for monuments set by me and open circles for those found. My logic is that I want what I set to stand out, and the support for my choices to be background. [...] Don't know where the open circles came from indicating set monuments or the logic for it, but many use them without doing harm to anyone.
Well, the logical situation to me is that the first and most important monuments are those from which the construction flows. I want them to have the highest graphical weight so that they stand out the most. It's as if you're studying the project afresh and want to take in the evidence quickly. You would, I think, look for what evidence the boundaries were based upon before new monuments were placed.
The positions of the set monuments pretty much are highly dependent upon other evidence and are, more or less, impersonal in that two competent surveyors working from the same evidence would be expected to arrive at a similar construction by which they were located. That is why they get the lowest graphical weight in my scheme.
It's customary around here to use a solid circle for found monuments and open for set monuments, usually with two little lines coming out from the edge of the circle. No real reason for it, it's just what most people do. If the found monuments are shown on previous maps or documents, we'll put a (1),(2) etc. in the legend indicating what book and page the monument is shown on/in and in the body of the map say "found 3/4" rebar tagged LS XXXX per (1)" I've seen people try to put individual types of symbols for each reference but if the map gets reduced or microfiched or scanned badly, sometimes it becomes hard to tell the different types of symbols apart. If our measured bearings and/or distances differ from those in previous maps or documents, we put those in parentheses with (1),(2) etc. after them to indicate what document said what.
I label each monument with text of some sort.
IPF = iron pin found
IPS = iron pin set
GPF = galvanized pipe found
CMF = concrete monument found
etc.
> It's customary around here to use a solid circle for found monuments and open for set monuments, usually with two little lines coming out from the edge of the circle. No real reason for it, it's just what most people do. If the found monuments are shown on previous maps or documents, we'll put a (1),(2) etc. in the legend indicating what book and page the monument is shown on/in and in the body of the map say "found 3/4" rebar tagged LS XXXX per (1)"
Yes, but the real problem that I see is how to as quickly as possible give a sense of the basis upon which a boundary determination was made, an overview of the whole. The other element is that not all found monuments are equal. Some are later resurveyors' work that simply doesn't control the original line, some may not be original but long recognized by other surveyors as controlling some particular corner, and some are of unknown origin.
The problem is easier in subdivisions, where the problem is just one of showing where one found
a) the original evidence, the monuments shown on the record plat,
b) other non-original marks that have some compelling history of acceptance, and
c) wacky markers that are just mistaken efforts.
Symbols for Survey Markers... Kent from SOZ Bible
Note... Look on forward for how we present offset marks. Very easily done with software tabulating corner reference marks in reference mark schedule and placing corner marker on diagram.
The reference mark schedule showing those marks found so on plan diagram we omit writing if placed or found beside symbol as following surveyor knows they are reference marks that need to be looked for.
RADU
Symbols for Survey Markers... Kent from SOZ Bible
> The reference mark schedule showing those marks found so on plan diagram we omit writing if placed or found beside symbol as following surveyor knows they are reference marks that need to be looked for.
Yes, the convention used in South Australia uses the heirarchy of marks in their presentation, the most important marks in the State network having the most prominent symbols, grading all the way down to the lowly 2 x 2 peg.
Symbols for Survey Markers... Kent from SOZ Bible
Huh?
Symbols for Survey Markers - Examples from SOZ
> Huh?
Here are some of the symbols for survey markers used in South Australia (taken from the publication that Richard linked above):
Symbols for Survey Markers - Examples from SOZ
Oh.
Symbols for Survey Markers - Examples from SOZ
> Oh.
I didn't reproduce the page showing the marks abbreviated "MILF", though. Those are used in the Australian state of NSFW.
Symbols for Survey Markers - Examples from SOZ
I just said "Oh" pretending to understand so I can go do something else. Talk to you later.
Symbols for Survey Markers - Examples from SOZ
> I just said "Oh" pretending to understand so I can go do something else.
Well, the South Australian example is one of using symbols mostly to indicate the functional type of the mark, not the actual material, except in the case of pegs and possibly peg & trench monuments. It's worth looking at for that reason, I think. That is, the symbols distinguish the marks by how they fit into the overall scheme of boundary control.
The abbreviated mark descriptions probably wouldn't be a good example to copy in US practice where there is a much wider variation in the actual objects used to mark and reference land boundaries.
