I'm going to pass you (LRWells, not Bill93) off to someone with more patience for endlessly explaining the same obvious thing. Perhaps someone else will explain to you that Rule 663.17(d) is not the only rule that all Texas registrants must follow and do it for a few hundred more times until finally the light of logic does dawn. If you refer to several earlier posts in this discussion, you will find the logic laid out as clearly as I think it needs to be.
[MEDIA=youtube]1FcUc2Tk0GQ[/MEDIA]
I didn't get clarification directly from the TBPLS on this issue, however, I did just notice that the TBPLS has made the following proposal to the Texas Administrative Code:
663.19(e) Boundary monuments found or placed by the land surveyor shall be described upon the survey drawing including how it is marked in a way that is traceable to the responsible registrant or associated employer. The land surveyor shall note upon the survey drawing, which monuments were found, which monuments were placed as a result of his/her survey, and other monuments of record dignity relied upon to establish the corners of the property surveyed.
It seems strange that this rule change would be necessary if this was already what the rule said. Regardless, here it appears that this will likely be the rule regarding documentation of monuments in the near future. My preference would be that the new clause be phrased:
including if it is marked in a way that is traceable to the responsible registrant or associated employer and if so, how.
as there is language that allows for traceable markings not to be placed on a monument set, if it is unreasonable to do so, making the question of how null:
663.17(d) Where practical (emphasis mine), all monuments set by a Professional Land Surveyor to delineate or witness a boundary corner shall be marked in a way that is traceable to the responsible registrant or associated employer.
Shawn,
I noticed the proposed Rule change as well. Your point regarding the inscription is the exact same thing I gave the Board feedback on during a previous Rule revision several years ago. Apparently they didn't think much of it. I'll say it again, monumentation needs to have either the RPLS # or the Firm Registration #. Why is that so hard for folks to understand?
Shawn Billings, post: 343694, member: 6521 wrote: ...traceable to the responsible registrant or associated employer
By statute, it appears to be acceptable. I prefer a link to the actual surveyor, too.
My biggest problem with the associated employer is that sometimes vague company name used on some of the caps, such as initials, when the company isn't known by initials. Or, a DOT contractor company I followed a year or two ago, set rods with initials "ABC Inc" for the company name. Problem is that there never was an ABC, Inc. The company name was Alpha Bravo Charlie, Inc. and it was bought out by Big Survey, Inc, five years ago. But they are still setting "ABC Inc" ID caps. You got to get pretty sleuthy to make that connection.
My other problem is that when a company with multiple surveyors goes out of business, you have no link to the responsible surveyor anymore.
Glenn Breysacher, post: 359058, member: 188 wrote: I'll say it again, monumentation needs to have either the RPLS # or the Firm Registration #. Why is that so hard for folks to understand?
I agree, Glenn. Before there were Firm Registration Numbers there wasn't a good way to go about it. Now there is, and while I'm not crazy about the Firm Registration, this seems like an excellent place to utilize it.
Shawn Billings, post: 359060, member: 6521 wrote: I agree, Glenn. Before there were Firm Registration Numbers there wasn't a good way to go about it. Now there is, and while I'm not crazy about the Firm Registration, this seems like an excellent place to utilize it.
The Firm Registration would work the same as agency identification here in California. That is, the principals may change over time, but someone will be in responsible charge for the position of those stamped monuments. We have recently been required to designate a land surveyor in responsible charge for each public agency - as the statute states: in order for the public sector to have the same licensure requirements [obligations] [which are] imposed upon private sector surveyors.
In 2009, this is what my letter to the Board said:
I would also like to comment on subsection (d) of 663.17. Specifically, the following language:
ÛÏÛ?shall be marked in a way that is traceable to the responsible registrant or associated employer.Û
While I understand the reasoning behind the marking being traceable to the associated employer (i.e.-large firms with many RPLSs), the practical use of this information is obfuscated. In my experience, the vast majority of the employer inscriptions that are found on monuments are not traceable to the company since they use an abbreviation
or some initials. If a surveyor is working in a locale that he/she is familiar with, then some of these abbreviations will be common and known to many local surveyors. However, this is the exception and not the rule.
Since each firm is required to register with the Board, and is subsequently assigned a unique firm number, I would suggest that the rule be revised as follows:
ÛÏÛ?shall be marked in a way that is traceable to the responsible registrant or associated employer, using the registrantÛªs Board issued registration number or Board issued firm number.Û
Shawn Billings, post: 359060, member: 6521 wrote: I agree, Glenn. Before there were Firm Registration Numbers there wasn't a good way to go about it. Now there is, and while I'm not crazy about the Firm Registration, this seems like an excellent place to utilize it.
I have always supported that everything spelled out in plain American English with no cryptic meanings or legal runroundthebush jargon that hides the purpose.
When this update passes, it will be clear what is and what is not allowed.
For 40+ years I've been distinguishing between who set what by what is set and the color and type of the flagging, stake, wireflag and/or amount of monument extending out of the ground.
In the past few years, that has become more difficult.
A few are copying what I do and others are simply new and unfamiliar.
:gammon:
Roun heah, we do Fip, or Sip!
A Harris, post: 359067, member: 81 wrote: I have always supported that everything spelled out in plain American English with no cryptic meanings or legal runroundthebush jargon that hides the purpose.
When this update passes, it will be clear what is and what is not allowed.
:gammon:
And this brings us back to the question from the original post. Is there some violation in not noting the ID cap on a set monument? Based on the paragraph that describes the reason for this rule change it would appear to me that this new addition brings a new requirement, not a clarification of an existing requirement. Elsewhere in the list of proposed changes, the words "The proposed amendments to xxx.xx clarify that..." are used. But here we see this proposed amendment preceded with this bit of explanation:
The proposed amendment to paragraph å¤663.19(e) would require (emphasis mine) the land surveyor to not only describe the monuments found or placed but to also describe how the monument is traceable to the responsible registrant or employer.
This "would require", not this "clarifies" an existing requirement. I believe the Board realized that the clear language of the rule in plain American English made no such mandate. Why does it matter? Answer: Ex Post Facto. If this was a clarification of an existing requirement, those surveyors who did not describe the ID caps on monuments found or set prior to the adoption of this clause would be subject to Board discipline. If this requirement is not actually established until this rule change is adopted (no sooner than March 16, 2016), then only surveyors violating the amendment after the date of adoption would be subject to Board discipline.
Shawn Billings, post: 359085, member: 6521 wrote: And this brings us back to the question from the original post. Is there some violation in not noting the ID cap on a set monument? Based on the paragraph that describes the reason for this rule change it would appear to me that this new addition brings a new requirement, not a clarification of an existing requirement. Elsewhere in the list of proposed changes, the words "The proposed amendments to xxx.xx clarify that..." are used. But here we see this proposed amendment preceded with this bit of explanation:
The proposed amendment to paragraph å¤663.19(e) would require (emphasis mine) the land surveyor to not only describe the monuments found or placed but to also describe how the monument is traceable to the responsible registrant or employer.
I think it's clear enough that there is a need to amend the rule since so many registrants evidently believe that they can describe a monument found without actually noting the stamping on any tag or cap affixed to it. It would be funny to try to similarly idiot-proof every other rule of the TBPLS until a better class of registrants can be found.
I
The other implication of the amendment being worded "would require" rather than "clarify" is that Kent was wrong in his assertions. He was wrong about the interpretation of the rules and he was wrong about my intentions and my ethics. He was wrong and wrapped up in a cacoon of arrogance.
Nate The Surveyor, post: 359084, member: 291 wrote: Roun heah, we do Fip, or Sip!
[sarcasm]Is that "FOUND IRON PIPE" or "SET IRON PIPE", or must someone guess whether it's an "iron pin/rod"? Does everyone in your locale set the same size, so there's no need to specify the size? What about an inscription as to who set it?[/sarcasm]
:stakeout:
Found it, pfool
Set it, pfool
Silent letters are so convenient.
There are millions of FIP and SIP and imaginary and to be set monuments on millions of plats (plaks). It's a bit like what script writing is becoming representative of more and more each year. The reader actually must use their brain to decipher the code. What a shame! The brain should be saved for more important challenges such as video games.
Or maybe the brain should be used to figure out how to use the sarcasm font.
The desire to maximize descriptions has always fascinated me. Where to stop being the issue.
Found: nominal 5/8" (five-eights inch) iron (not painted) rebar manufactured by Hemmingsworth Steel Corporation between 1945 and 1948 at a mill in Botswana and shipped to this country on a Liberian-chartered triple hulk ocean-going vessel, being nominally 30" (thirty inches) in length, saw cut, extending nominally 1-1/2" (one and one-half inches) above the common soil surface, deflecting 3 degrees from true vertical alignment towards north 17 degrees 46 minutes 9 seconds west based on grid north as determined by.................................................................
Holy Cow, post: 359157, member: 50 wrote: ...Found: nominal 5/8" (five-eights inch) iron (not painted) rebar manufactured by Hemmingsworth Steel Corporation between 1945 and 1948 at a mill in Botswana and shipped to this country on a Liberian-chartered triple hulk ocean-going vessel, being nominally 30" (thirty inches) in length, saw cut, extending nominally 1-1/2" (one and one-half inches) above the common soil surface, deflecting 3 degrees from true vertical alignment towards north 17 degrees 46 minutes 9 seconds west based on grid north as determined by.................................................................
Kent, is that you?
Holy Cow, post: 359157, member: 50 wrote: Found it, pfool
Set it, pfoolSilent letters are so convenient.
There are millions of FIP and SIP and imaginary and to be set monuments on millions of plats (plaks). It's a bit like what script writing is becoming representative of more and more each year. The reader actually must use their brain to decipher the code. What a shame! The brain should be saved for more important challenges such as video games.
Or maybe the brain should be used to figure out how to use the sarcasm font.
The desire to maximize descriptions has always fascinated me. Where to stop being the issue.
Found: nominal 5/8" (five-eights inch) iron (not painted) rebar manufactured by Hemmingsworth Steel Corporation between 1945 and 1948 at a mill in Botswana and shipped to this country on a Liberian-chartered triple hulk ocean-going vessel, being nominally 30" (thirty inches) in length, saw cut, extending nominally 1-1/2" (one and one-half inches) above the common soil surface, deflecting 3 degrees from true vertical alignment towards north 17 degrees 46 minutes 9 seconds west based on grid north as determined by.................................................................
Then there's folks such as yourself, who apparently micromanage their ink supply and can't afford to type the few extra words that it takes to clarify what you've set or found to perpetuate survey monumentation.
Perhaps some folks should learn how not to be cryptic and actually say what they mean. You know, use your brain to craft a description that is intelligible instead of just saying "that's good enough" or "I don't feel like typing a few more words today". I mean, after all, that would completely wear someone out to think and type that much, now wouldn't it?
Please, point me to the published rules of the use of the sarcasm button. After all, we certainly want to use it exactly as you do.
Holy Cow, post: 359157, member: 50 wrote: The desire to maximize descriptions has always fascinated me. Where to stop being the issue.
Maybe there is a way to settle the question. If we start from the understanding that surveyors and the public at large need an unambiguous description of a boundary, then the question is becomes "how much information is necessary for a reader of my survey to come the same place as I have for the boundary?" or perhaps asked another way "what is the minimum amount of information necessary for a follower to find my exact footsteps?" Part of that can be done by providing accurate measurements between corners. The measurements will define precise points on the ground, if you find a monument within a reasonable distance from measurement point, then you have notice that the monument is a "footstep". Then you look at the report and it says "1/2" iron pipe found" and you find a 1/2" iron pipe, you again have notice that the monument is a "footstep". Is it enough? Does the manufacture date of the pipe help make the description unambiguous? Meh.
Now descriptions that read "to a point" leave some ambiguity don't you think? Unless there are enough references to put a follower at that point with reasonable effort.
I think I figured out the sarcasm font once, but gave up. I enjoy seeing it, I'm just not good to adapting to its use myself. As far as I can tell there are no rules for usage. I apologize if I irritated you personally, Glenn. Paden's light-hearted comeback was in line with my light-hearted intent. That danged flippancy may have me in trouble again.
Living in a world where nearly everything to be found is somewhat cryptic, going to the opposite extreme seems ludicrous. Somewhere in the middle, maybe.
Middle ground:
Found 1/2" iron bar, no cap
Found 1/2" iron bar, SKW cap
Found horseshoe slipped over top of broken limestone
More typical on a plat:
No information
FIP/SIP
IP
Stone
Pipe
Stake
Very seldom usage on a plat:
Found 1/2" rebar with CFS 37 cap set per survey found in Survey Book E, Page 331 in the County Surveyor office; replaced with 5/8" x 30" smooth iron bar with Murphy and Associates cap with company registration #327.
A very common tactic used is to place a triangle at a section corner to announce that it is a section corner. Somewhere else on the plat it may state whether it was found or set. It may or may not provide any information as to the apparent source (source unknown being the standard). One usually has to get the rest of the information from the Land Survey Reference Reports for that corner from the State Archives. Those records may have a great deal of information, but, all of that detail is not on the plat and is not included in any kind of description for the tract involved as would be typical in a Texas survey report.
Every area of the country has their own approach as to what is the norm, what should be the norm and what is overkill. I understand that Texas takes great pride in being unique, and that's great. If the rest of the world follows, something new will need to be created so as to continue to be unique.
The typical monument found has no cap. Many of the ones with caps have been smashed beyond recognition. Those that survive are mostly a set of initials and a registration number (VHRIII/976). A few companies use the big caps with the full name of the company but any of a dozen different LS registration numbers until they finally went to a company registration number.
Shawn has hit the nail on the head. The goal is to get the next surveyor or the client to the correct monument. With the exception of ridiculous pincushion corners, finding something as described on the plat should be a fairly easy task. It doesn't take a three-page historical document of the monument's heritage to clarify that a capped 1/2" iron bar is not a three-foot high chain link fence post.
Holy Cow, post: 359179, member: 50 wrote: Shawn has hit the nail on the head. The goal is to get the next surveyor or the client to the correct monument. With the exception of ridiculous pincushion corners, finding something as described on the plat should be a fairly easy task. It doesn't take a three-page historical document of the monument's heritage to clarify that a capped 1/2" iron bar is not a three-foot high chain link fence post.
I quite agree that being verbose is not a good idea, and I don't think I ever stated that I was a proponent of that. In this thread, I think we all basically agree what is needed to enable retracement. That is, more information is required than "IPS". My question to other surveyors has always been, why wouldn't you want to give more information than this, unless you're are trying to hide something that you've done.
I believe that this type of discussion is long overdue, especially in Texas. Thankfully, the TBPLS is trying to improve this situation with the recent discussion of proposed rule changes. I sent my comments to them, as I did in 2009, and recommend others in Texas do the same. What has been blatantly obvious to me, that has escaped other registrants, is that a few extra words in your description specifying your monumentation & inscription thereon, don't really cost anything, and are fundamentally required of a professional to enable accurate and simplified retracement.
