LRWells, post: 345010, member: 7284 wrote: Before you climb too high on your soapbox, I suggest you consider your refusal to accept the plain language in 663.17(d).
Hey, if you want to claim that is just isn't "practical" for you to set monuments with professional identification, you shouldn't have any trouble at all explaining why you just can't do it when the questions arise. I promise that I won't try to talk you out of trying that, either, once you get licensed.
Kent McMillan, post: 345014, member: 3 wrote: Hey, if you want to claim that is just isn't "practical" for you to set monuments with professional identification, you shouldn't have any trouble at all explaining why you just can't do it when the questions arise. I promise that I won't try to talk you out of trying that, either, once you get licensed.
There you go again with the twist. I haven't claimed anything of the sort. I am just trying to get you to accept the fact that you have consistently advocated in this thread that Rule 663.17(d) requires you to describe whatever ID cap that may have been affixed, when it plainly does not.
PS. I am still waiting for your response to my question whether you have a particular basis for your comment regarding Shawn. If I could figure out how to do it, I would provide you with a link that takes you to it. If you forgot where it is, see post #160 in this thread which appears on page 2.
PPS. I donÛªt have an inkling of interest in becoming a Texas registrant.
Kent McMillan, post: 345009, member: 3 wrote: Okay, we'll mark you down as not interested in how the other rules of the TBPLS relate to Rule 663.17(d) in the violation of the same reported in the newsletter.
Now that's a real stretch. I guess I'll have to mark you down as someone who does not care how the rules are applied as long as the application suits your point of view, biased though it may be. If the three surveyors had violated 663.19(b) & (e), it should be stated in the minutes, but it aint. But, even if these rules had been violated, it is merely evidence not proof that 663.17(d) was violated.
Kent McMillan, post: 344993, member: 3 wrote: Possibly in your mind, but the real question was...
Since the question was mine (from my mind), and I started this thread, I've got to admit, this one gave me a bit of a chuckle, Kent. Your ability to interpret my thoughts is as good as your demonstrated ability to interpret these rules. :bad:
Now that's a real stretch. I guess I'll have to mark you down as someone who does not care how the rules are applied as long as the application suits your point of view. If the three surveyors had violated 663.19(b) & (e), it should be so stated in the minutes, but it aint. But, even if these rules had been violated, it is merely evidence not proof that 663.17(d) was violated.
LRWells, post: 345054, member: 7284 wrote: I am just trying to get you to accept the fact that you have consistently advocated in this thread that Rule 663.17(d) requires you to describe whatever ID cap that may have been affixed, when it plainly does not.
Sorry, but you obviously haven't been reading this thread. Anyone who has actually read my comments would know that the rules that require registrants to describe the monuments they set are 663.19(b) and (e). So, because the registrants subject of the board actions that Shawn originally mentioned described the monuments they set as "set iron rod" with no mention of any professional identification, they themselves provided the prima facie evidence that they had no affixed any professional identification.
These rules have a history that begins in 1980. The emphasis upon description is hardly late-breaking news in Texas surveying practice.
And the fact that they did not violate 663.19(b) and (e) is exactly the point that has thus far eluded you. That means that their descriptions of the boundary monument set as being merely an "iron rod" with no mention of professional identification were correct and so the violation was of rule 663.17(d), not any subsection of 663.19.
LRWells, post: 345054, member: 7284 wrote: There you go again with the twist. I haven't claimed anything of the sort. I am just trying to get you to accept the fact that you have consistently advocated in this thread that Rule 663.17(d) requires you to describe whatever ID cap that may have been affixed, when it plainly does not.
PS. I am still waiting for your response to my question whether you have a particular basis for your comment regarding Shawn. If I could figure out how to do it, I would provide you with a link that takes you to it. If you forgot where it is, see post #160 in this thread which appears on page 2.
PPS. I donÛªt have an inkling of interest in becoming a Texas registrant.
I can't imagine describing a monument set without mentioning how it was tagged or capped?
That is just odd and against 100 years of practice in California.
At a minimum the note is "Set 3/4" rebar tagged LS7849." That is the bare minimum, I normally include much more than that.
Kent McMillan, post: 345083, member: 3 wrote: And the fact that they did not violate 663.19(b) and (e) is exactly the point that has thus far eluded you. That means that their descriptions of the boundary monument set as being merely an "iron rod" with no mention of professional identification were correct and so the violation was of rule 663.17(d), not any subsection of 663.19.
Do you mention in your descriptions or plat that you have set your monuments to a sufficient depth to maintain a stable and distinctive location? (663.17a)
If you don't mention this detail (and I doubt that very many surveyors do mention this detail), is it reasonably presumed that you did not set the monument to a sufficient depth to maintain a stable and distinctive position? Or is it presumable that, absent some evidence to the contrary, that you did in fact set your monuments to a sufficient depth to maintain stability and distinction of location even though you did not overtly state such on your plat or in your description? Note that both the requirement to set a monument to a sufficient depth and the requirement to place a monument traceable to the surveyor or employer are found in the same section: 663.17 Monuments. It is entirely inconsistent for you to claim that one must be described on the plat or it is presumed to have not been done, while the other is presumed to have been done regardless of description.
Dave Karoly, post: 345085, member: 94 wrote: I can't imagine describing a monument set without mentioning how it was tagged or capped?
That is just odd and against 100 years of practice in California.
At a minimum the note is "Set 3/4" rebar tagged LS7849." That is the bare minimum, I normally include much more than that.
I appreciate your position, Dave. 100 years of practice in California really has no bearing on the legalities in Texas, which is the central issue of this thread. You're certainly entitled to have an opinion of what the Texas law means. I'd really like to know. But standard practice in California isn't really relevant.
You say that this is a bare minimum in California. You also state that you include much more than that? Why do you include more? Why not the minimum?
[sarcasm]Wow! So much nicer in NY, where the de facto standard is "IP found" or "IP set". Saves all that pesky typing.....[/sarcasm]
Shawn Billings, post: 345094, member: 6521 wrote: Do you mention in your descriptions or plat that you have set your monuments to a sufficient depth to maintain a stable and distinctive location?
The verb "set" means that the monument has been anchored into some stable material that is presumed to be earth as a matter of description unless noted as a rock outcrop, concrete, asphalt pavement, the stub of a fence post, a tree root, or whatever. The purpose of the description is of course to actually describe the distinctive features of the monument by which it may be identified and evaluated in the future by others.
The emphasis on descriptions that you seem to find alternately so inscrutable or so burdensome has actually been part of the rules of practice for nearly twenty-five years. At one point the Board even capitalized in bold letters the requirement to describe monuments, obviously to emphasize its importance.
Actually, you were complaining about the TBPLS finding a violation of Rule 663.17(d) based upon the evidence described in the newsletter and have consistenly failed to see the obvious. What else is one to conclude but that some other matter is weighing on your mind?
Usually, when surveyors get wildly exercised about the monumentation rule, there is a worry about their own failures to comply with 663.17(d) or the related rules behind that.
Shawn Billings, post: 345096, member: 6521 wrote: I appreciate your position, Dave. 100 years of practice in California really has no bearing on the legalities in Texas, which is the central issue of this thread.
That would be true if the reasons for the California rules and the Texas rules were not quite similar. The importance of identifiable monuments is the same in Texas as it is in California.
Dave Karoly, post: 345085, member: 94 wrote: I can't imagine describing a monument set without mentioning how it was tagged or capped?
I cannot either, and if that is what you think, then it was Kent who put that thought in your mind. I am merely trying to emphasize Kent's mistaken interpretation of Rule 663.17(d), where he reads more in to it than what it plainly states. Leastwise that is how I see it.
Kent McMillan, post: 345109, member: 3 wrote: The emphasis on descriptions that you seem to find alternately so inscrutable or so burdensome has actually been part of the rules of practice for nearly twenty-five years. At one point the Board even capitalized in bold letters the requirement to describe monuments, obviously to emphasize its importance.
Well before ID caps were even a consideration. Next.
LRWells, post: 345117, member: 7284 wrote: I am merely trying to emphasize Kent's mistaken interpretation of Rule 663.17(d), where he reads more in to it than what it plainly states. Leastwise that is how I see it.
Yes, but you've already admitted that you aren't a Texas registrant, so your lack of familiarity with the laws of Texas that govern surveying practice is entirely understandable, specifically your ignorance of Rules 663.19(b) and (e).
I'm afraid your ignorance of the rules of practice is showing. The paper I'm working on that traces the developement of these and other related rules that have been adopted into law will help you see things as they really are.
You're twisting in the wind now. The rule 663.17a says that a set monument must be set to a sufficient depth, etc. There would be no need for a rule saying "set to a sufficient depth" if "set" were a verb meaning it was placed in stable soil, or whatever nonsense you dribbled out there. Do you just make stuff up and call it fact because it sounds good?
Come on, Kent. You're ruining this thread with that kind of distraction.
Do you state in your plat or descriptions that you set the monuments to a sufficient depth to maintain a stable location or do you rely on reader of your work to merely presume you did so? It's really that simple.
Kent McMillan, post: 345122, member: 3 wrote: Yes, but you've already admitted that you aren't a Texas registrant, so your lack of familiarity with the laws of Texas that govern surveying practice is entirely understandable, specifically your ignorance of Rules 663.19(b) and (e).
So now you have taken to questioning my intelligence. Cast dispersions on your adversary; score 1 for Kent. Maybe the participants in this thread will agree with you, maybe they won't. I cannot tell as the like button does not appear in my posts. But, for what it is worth, I know more than a handful of Texas registrants, whom I believe would disagree with your assessment of me, including one notable past-member of the TBPLS. And, I am quite familiar with the practice of surveying in Texas. Or, at least I once was as of 4 years ago.
