RADAR, post: 345213, member: 413 wrote: If the worst thing a surveyor does; is not use a lot of verbiage in the description he reports, for the corners he finds or sets. If the rest of his work is spot on; he does diligent research; his measurements are accurate and verifiable: is he really that bad?
The failure to properly describe monuments found and set is almost invariably linked to inadequate research, sloppy measurements, and general lack of quality. The production line surveyors who can't bring themselves to describe the monuments they find in a way that identifies the actual objects are usually working at the lower limit of minimum standards and inevitably shortcutting them. Is it surprising that the results are predictably ugly? I don't think so.
I mean, what does it take to actually describe monuments? Less than a minute? So, what sort of an operation worries about shaving a few minutes off of a survey? It is almost invariably the same sort of operation that can't be bothered to do more than the most minimal research or spend more than a minute or two looking for an existing monument.
Would you figure you found the "right" monument if was stamped with the proper ID as per the surveyor who said he set it? I personally spell it out but can see both sides.
It is something that you are automatically required to do. Unless they didn't cap it or whatever like all calling for the same set monuments that they set previously. But do you always change that to found on an update? You found what you set...
rochs01, post: 345224, member: 266 wrote: Would you figure you found the "right" monument if was stamped with the proper ID as per the surveyor who said he set it? I personally spell it out but can see both sides.
Ordinarily, if the monument and its prior description of record are professional strength, it should be possible to determine whether the monument is the same one described by some prior survey as opposed to merely guessing that it could be. For years, the typical problem in a residential subdivision was sorting through this hodge-podge of unidentified rods to try to figure out which were original monuments and which were almost certainly subsequent replacements after improvement of the lots. That exercise involved the sizes of the rods and their patterns of deformations, considering where utility trenches ran that would have destroyed markers, whether the marker was in undisturbed soil beneath imported topsoil, color of plastic flagging, basically all the clues that were available. That is much simpler when the original markers have distinctive characteristics that are traceable to the surveyor who laid out the subdivision.
It is something that you are automatically required to do. Unless they didn't cap it or whatever like all calling for the same set monuments that they set previously. But do you always change that to found on an update? You found what you set...
My opinion is that when a surveyor finds monuments that he or she has previously set, the best practice it to mention that fact. Variations on that would include:
"a Punchmark on a 2 in. Aluminum Cap stamped "KENT MCMILLAN, SURVEYOR, 710, RPLS 4341" affixed to a 5/8 in. Iron Rod found, being that same marker originally set by the undersigned in May of 1995 to mark the West common corner of Lots 20 and 21 as shown upon the plat of [subdivision]" In this case, the monument is the original lot corner as set by me when the subdivision was laid out twenty years ago and I identify it as such.
"a Punchmark on a 2 in. Aluminum Cap stamped "KENT MCMILLAN, SURVEYOR, 710, RPLS 4341" affixed to a 5/8 in. Iron Rod set by the undersigned [a few months earlier] as a replacement of the original "iron stake" shown on the plat of [subdivision] as marking the West common corner of Lots 20 and 21 no longer in place"
The object is to determine the pedigree of the monument found in place, if possible, and to report that status. Reporting monuments one has previously set as merely markers of unknown origin that he or she has found isn't really much of a contribution.
Kent - Don't tell me you don't use nail polish! It lasts forever unless your in a cat fight...
Oddly, it has never occurred to me to carry a bottle of fingernail lacquer around to use to paint drill holes. :>
What a bun fight!
As a professional (licenced, registered, etc) land surveyor, we have to comply with all sorts of different legislation, rules, guidelines, etc.
How do surveyors choose which of those legislations, rules, guidelines, etc get mentioned on the plat, plan of survey, etc?
Surely not all of them that you have complied with in the process of completing the survey have to be mentioned.
One example: There would (or should) be some requirement that your EDM is checked/calibrated at sufficient intervals. Do you put evidence of that on the plat so that another surveyor in the future can have some confidence that when you say you measured 100.000 between two marks, you actually did?
Seems like a bit too much grey area and an official clarification/interpretation would be very handy with the issue at hand.
Seb, post: 345235, member: 7509 wrote: How do surveyors choose which of those legislations, rules, guidelines, etc get mentioned on the plat, plan of survey, etc?
Typically no reference is made to the specific rules since Texas law provides that registrants will conform to all of the rules of practice. So, if a registrant is engaged in professional surveying as defined in the licensing act, all of the rules governing professional surveying apply and the public are entitled to expect that those rules have been observed.
Quote Kent. "all of the rules governing professional surveying apply and the public are entitled to expect that those rules have been observed."
Does that mean that if a cap was required it was set? I want to know what the real reason for the board action was. I can see that surveyor A said he set a point followed by Surveyors B and C saying the same thing. Obviously at least two of the three are lying.
vern, post: 345276, member: 3436 wrote: Quote Kent. "all of the rules governing professional surveying apply and the public are entitled to expect that those rules have been observed."
....Obviously at least two of the three are lying.
Maybe some folks are just better at ciphering and measuring than others:
[MEDIA=youtube]Aqo_46uC7ew[/MEDIA]
vern, post: 345276, member: 3436 wrote: Quote Kent. "all of the rules governing professional surveying apply and the public are entitled to expect that those rules have been observed."
Does that mean that if a cap was required it was set?
Definitely not. What it means is that if a member of the public hires a surveyor to survey a tract of land he or she is entitled to expect that the surveyor will do various things, including set identifiable monuments if monuments are placed.
I want to know what the real reason for the board action was. I can see that surveyor A said he set a point followed by Surveyors B and C saying the same thing. Obviously at least two of the three are lying.
My guess would be that most disciplinary actions are not unlike convicting Al Capone for not paying his income tax.
Kent McMillan, post: 345286, member: 3 wrote: My guess would be that most disciplinary actions are not unlike convicting Al Capone for not paying his income tax.
I have not reviewed enough of the new investigator's cases to say that it applies to him, but more than one of the previous investigator's charges seemed like they weren't sure exactly what rule violation needed to apply but the work was crap so they needed to be charged with something. He had a few catch all charges like failure to do adequate research. I'm not saying that disciplinary action was unwarranted.
An old GLO/BLM practice...
I accept your concession.
I can't think of a reason that you would continually misrepresent your opponent's views except that you've come to the conclusion that your argument is simply inferior. It would make no sense that you would continue to imply that your adversary is engaging in poor practice or is in noncompliance with statutes, without any evidence to support such speculations. The only logical conclusion is that these attempts to sully your opponent's professional reputation are the acrid stench of the final gasps of a very poorly formed position as it claws for any traction.
Therefore, to save you any further embarrassment (and if you are not embarrassed, you really, really should be, as such behavior is classless and unethical), I accept your concession.
You could apologize for these dishonorable inferences. You'd feel better and gain standing among your peers; I would think that in both accounts the reaction to a sincere apology, mentally and socially, would be so much more than the brief euphoria your ego experiences when you belittle others.
I'll hope for the best in you.
Your argument is with the other Shawn Billings. He's the dude who posted above:
"All set monuments are to comply with both 663.17(a) and 663.17(d). It is unnecessary to describe monuments on a plat or in a description in such a way as to evidence the compliance with either statute."
He is obviously ignorant of Rules 663.19(b) and (e). Either that or he doesn't know what the word "describe" means.
Tag or cap all accepted monuments is a requirement in NM.
It's not that I am against a protracted discourse on the original subject, it's just that the debate seems to be more than you can handle, causing you to jeopardize your integrity. No debate is worth tarnishing your integrity.
I'll keep hoping for the best in you - apology or not, although I am convinced that atoning for your actions would be cathartic for you.
I am about to see the youngest of 4 daughters off to college. I can tell you with certainty 'red' is not an adequate description when it comes to nail polish...
thebionicman, post: 345373, member: 8136 wrote: I can tell you with certainty 'red' is not an adequate description when it comes to nail polish...
Considering that the gal at the reprographics place today had lacquer on her nails that looked exactly like 1957 Chevrolet Surf Green, I'd say that anyone stuck on painting their drill holes red may could broaden their aesthetic horizons while still purchasing their supplies at the drug store.
You are obviously gazing into the mirror at this point. Do you mind if I include your comments in the paper that I'm writing? Naturally, I'll change your name. Mainly, they provide a humorous counterpoint to what the rules really provide.
If history is any indication, you will not quote me accurately.
My conscience is clean, I've not been dishonest in anything I've said. You have been dishonest about me. A clear conscience for you is an apology away.
