All survey markers shall be shown and described with sufficient evidence of the location of such markers on the land surveyors' drawing, written description or report.
I think I can put further spin on this by postulating that the language only states that the monument has to be clearly described with respect to its location, not its material, who set it, or any other characteristics (imho), just because of the rule's grammar. But maybe I have been spending too much time with attorneys.
Well, I think you are pretty much correct, Jack. The only requirement I've found that is mandated for a description of a monument is whether it is found or set. With this new rule, there will now be a mandate for how a monument is marked in a traceable way to the responsible registrant or employer. Outside of this, it appears the surveyor is given wide latitude and discretion on what other information to provide.
As I've said, and I believe we would all agree, good practice will dictate that more than found/set and traceable information should be provided. But this was never a question of good practice (regardless of the tortured machinations to make it so), but was always a question of the nature of a specific requirement and by extension the Board's authority to penalize for violation of that requirement. I would hope that surveyors would provide size and material of the monument (where applicable) in a description but I don't see how a surveyor would be in jeopardy from the Board if this were not included in a description of the monument.
Hopefully we all strive to be better than the minimum, but that pursuit in itself doesn't change the standard that defines what the minimum is, regardless of our personal predilections.
Found a rusty circular piece of thin metal being held down by a round-headed screw of some sort with the head being about 7/32" in diameter and having a straight slot in an asphalt parking lot. Best guess on source is LS #123 with ABC as all other corners but one are caps on probable 1/2" iron bars possibly 24" in length with ABC #123 on them. The final corner is a small divot in top surface of a concrete block in a retaining wall with reddish keel "+" about four inches in total length of each crossing line.
Or:
Found screw/shiner in asphalt parking lot.
Found "+" of red keel on top of concrete retaining wall
In either case, the math puts you on what is described and nothing anywhere similar exists within 200 feet.
EDIT: This baby's gonna hit 10,000 views before long.
Holy Cow, post: 359204, member: 50 wrote: Found a rusty circular piece of thin metal being held down by a round-headed screw of some sort with the head being about 7/32" in diameter and having a straight slot in an asphalt parking lot. Best guess on source is LS #123 with ABC as all other corners but one are caps on probable 1/2" iron bars possibly 24" in length with ABC #123 on them. The final corner is a small divot in top surface of a concrete block in a retaining wall with reddish keel "+" about four inches in total length of each crossing line.
Or:
Found screw/shiner in asphalt parking lot.
Found "+" of red keel on top of concrete retaining wallIn either case, the math puts you on what is described and nothing anywhere similar exists within 200 feet.
EDIT: This baby's gonna hit 10,000 views before long.
OK, I'll bite again. So you come upon a pincushion with two or three similar objects (5/8" yellow plastic capped iron rods (yes we know that they aren't really iron). Now wouldn't it be helpful to know which one it is that's called for in your vesting deed? If only that previous surveyor could've mustered the energy to type a few more words in his description to let you know what his inscription was.
Glenn Breysacher, post: 359211, member: 188 wrote: (yes we know that they aren't really iron)
Maybe that's the real problem: The good folks over at Dewey, Cheatem and Howe don't really know what's going on. They send out the crew with instructions to go as fast as they can. So, maybe, or maybe not, they took the time to describe what was found or set and did it adequately. So, to maintain the letter of the law; the good folks keep it to a minimum.
I had an engineer tell me once; the less information on a plan, the less you will get sued for....
Fortunately, pincushions are rare where I work. Yes, it would be nice to be able to tell which is which. Frequently, the answer comes with finding the others set on a specific survey as recorded at the courthouse. The caps should be of the same size and color and represent the signing surveyor. Hiding surveys from the public eye is the number one problem, not the lack of a few extra words. It will probably not be a survey of the tract you are attempting to survey, but an adjoining parcel. The survey you are doing frequently has little to do with the vesting deed. The deed existed long before a survey was ever made. The pincushion largely came about by lazy surveyors who did not spend enough time in the courthouse doing proper research of their tract plus all of the neighboring tracts and numerous surveys. Some come about by deed stakers who really believe if the deed says 1320 feet they really meant 1320.0000000 feet.
paden cash, post: 359161, member: 20 wrote: Kent, is that you?
No, that's the Divine Bovine's idea of what actually describing a survey marker in a way that is most useful for the purposes of professional surveying amounts to.
Glenn Breysacher, post: 359211, member: 188 wrote: OK, I'll bite again. So you come upon a pincushion with two or three similar objects (5/8" yellow plastic capped iron rods (yes we know that they aren't really iron). Now wouldn't it be helpful to know which one it is that's called for in your vesting deed? If only that previous surveyor could've mustered the energy to type a few more words in his description to let you know what his inscription was.
In my opinion, the best question is why any surveyor would bother to mention the marks on a bearing tree either as marks cut by him or her or the scars of them as found. I mean, isn't "14-inch Live Oak" all any surveyor would need to note if he or she thinks that mentioning the identifying marks on an artificial monument to be optional?
Shawn Billings, post: 359097, member: 6521 wrote: 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.
No, what I think the rule obviously reflects is that a surprising number of licensees need training wheels and have to have the most obvious stuff spelled out for them. I trust that now all the other TBPLS rules will need to be similarly idiot-proofed as well.
Kent McMillan, post: 359221, member: 3 wrote: No, what I think the rule obviously reflects is that a surprising number of licensees need training wheels and have to have the most obvious stuff spelled out for them.
Words have meaning. You were wrong. There's no harm in being wrong. I've been wrong and will be wrong in the future, I'm sure (and if I am not wrong in the future, then I guess I'll be wrong now about being wrong in the future). That's fine. It's human. Your arrogance added to the inescapable human condition of fallibility makes for a captivating spectacle. You were coincidentally wrong and pompous. I knew you were wrong and if you didn't know then, now you know that you were wrong. Those reading this thread know that you were wrong. You were wrong a lot. You double-downed on being wrong and at the same time disparaging to those with whom you disagreed. Perhaps as a stipulation of your arrogance you continue to denigrate the profession to explain why you were so wrong.
Now, I'm sure you understand the difference between "clarify" and "would require", so I'll spare the thread a language lesson, but certainly if the new rule were for the effect of having "spelled out for... the surprising number of licensees" that are too idiotic to know better, the Board would have chosen the work "clarify" in the explanation of the rule. But, as I'm sure you've observed, the Board used "would require".
Holy Cow, post: 359217, member: 50 wrote: Fortunately, pincushions are rare where I work. Yes, it would be nice to be able to tell which is which. Frequently, the answer comes with finding the others set on a specific survey as recorded at the courthouse. The caps should be of the same size and color and represent the signing surveyor. Hiding surveys from the public eye is the number one problem, not the lack of a few extra words. It will probably not be a survey of the tract you are attempting to survey, but an adjoining parcel. The survey you are doing frequently has little to do with the vesting deed. The deed existed long before a survey was ever made. The pincushion largely came about by lazy surveyors who did not spend enough time in the courthouse doing proper research of their tract plus all of the neighboring tracts and numerous surveys. Some come about by deed stakers who really believe if the deed says 1320 feet they really meant 1320.0000000 feet.
OK Cow, but here in Texas, we don't record surveys. So having the description in the vesting deed be as clear, unambiguous and concise as possible is the desideratum for retracing surveyors.
Holy Cow, post: 359157, member: 50 wrote: Found it, pfool
Set it, pfool
Silent letters are so convenient.
FIPOOP
Found 1/2in iron pipe with no cap "out of position" bearing N 73å¡ E at 3.47ft
FIPOOL
Found 1/2in iron pipe with no cap "out of line" or "off of line" 0.77ft left at 39.95ft.
In the field book they would be listed as "OOP 1/2IP"
With all the different Surveyors, PCs and one Engineer I've been trained by, all of them had their unique way of reporting information. Everyone of them used somewhat a different shorthand and two were simply IP for everything metal.
Most of the detailed parts of our existing Surveyor's Act would have drove everyone of them crazy.
Especially one for sure, he was most of the way there anyway. His drawings were never much larger than a greeting card to begin with, whether it be 1 acre or 5,000 acres. He never moved into using a Rapidiograph pen or Leroy lettering set and depended upon inkwells and crowfeet. A computer to him was something out of science fiction and could not possibly be trusted.
During the process of learning deed search and gathering information, I was taught to write in Title shorthand because there were no copy machines and we had to transcribe deeds onto paper.
Beg @ PK SEC J Mason 25ac CLFC N63E 4.5vr xtie S57E 9.5vr 24in RO w/x E 3.7vr.
I've actually seen a few surveyors with a 2ft x 3ft portable drafting table at courthouses completing their pencil drawings in the records room.
They may never get the whole Surveyor's Act to that place in history that it is completely being understood the same by everyone. It has been a 40å± year process so far to refine the same intentions into what we have today.
:gammon:
Gotcha, Glenn. That's why I largely avoided this thread until today. There is a big difference between all of the various jurisdictions in which we all work.
What is extremely important under one set of conditions is minor in a different set of circumstances, and vice versa. Many of our survey plats are quite readable on a single 8-1/2 x 11 sheet of paper, yet contain the vital information needed. This would not happen if an essay had to be prepared relating to each corner monument and include passing calls and calls to adjoiners. Here, our title companies go nuts if they see any description other than the one already of record. Obviously that's not a concern where the standard is to recite a different set of words each time a property gets surveyed, even if it's just the difference between setting a bar and finding that bar on a later survey.
Shawn Billings, post: 359230, member: 6521 wrote: Now, I'm sure you understand the difference between "clarify" and "would require", so I'll spare the thread a language lesson, but certainly if the new rule were for the effect of having "spelled out for... the surprising number of licensees" that are too idiotic to know better, the Board would have chosen the work "clarify" in the explanation of the rule. But, as I'm sure you've observed, the Board used "would require".
Actually, the wording of the rule as presently in force hasn't changed. The reason given by the TBPLS is obviously simply trying to idiot-proof the rule. For example, your premise seems to be that someone could get registered as a professional surveyor in Texas without understanding what constitutes a survey monument and why it is important to adequately describe survey monuments on the maps and in the written descriptions that surveyors produce. So, you've asked for training wheels because you feel somehow that nobody could otherwise know the answer to such head-bustingly difficult problems as how to describe survey monuments.
If every rule of the TBPLS is approached from a similar standpoint, i.e. that it is for the benefit of someone who somehow has become registered as a professional surveyor without understanding even the barest, most fundamental principles of land surveying, then I predict an explosion of rules. Obviously, I think it would have much been more efficient in the first place not to register folks as professional surveyors who need to be told what to do for even the most elementary stuff. Idiot-proofing professions after the fact is always a losing strategy.
Kent McMillan, post: 359261, member: 3 wrote: For example, your premise seems to be that...
You tend to slip into nonsense when you begin a thought with these words. You're like the Van Gough of conversations. A thought is given to you in simple, easily digestible terms and somehow you regurgitate a mad distortion that may not even bare a slight resemblance to the original thought. It is instructive though, as it may explain how you could be so wrong about this entire thread.
Shawn Billings, post: 359302, member: 6521 wrote: You tend to slip into nonsense when you begin a thought with these words.
Well, the meaning of Rule 663.19(e) as it presently exists isn't modified by some remark in a newsletter. The rule says what it says and the rule says "describe", but I do understand your point that you find the simple English verb "describe" way too confusing and require much more detailed instructions as to how you are to do something as basic as describing survey monuments found and placed.
I've forwarded the following language as a clearer version of Rule å¤663.19(e) if it must be revised to idiot-proof describing monuments.
"(e) The survey drawing shall note those monuments upon which the land surveyor based his/her determination of the boundary of the property surveyed and shall also describe the boundary monuments found or placed by the land surveyor in such a way, including noting material, type, and/or visible dimensions, that will best facilitate identification of the same monuments by others in the future. In the case of monuments bearing identifying marks caps, washers, and tags, the material, type, and imprint or stamping of those identifying marks shall be noted in the descriptions of monuments found and placed."
In this instance, I wouldn't call your edit of the rule "idiot-proofing". I'd call it a more logical and explanatory example of how rules should be written. The problem with the Board's rules is that, far too often, they are not "clear". For example, take
663.15 Precision and Accuracy (First paragraph)
Survey measurements shall be made with equipment and methods of practice capable of attaining the accuracy and tolerances required by the professional land surveying services being performed.
How will the Board ever enforce that? We're supposed to set monuments to the accuracy we deem necessary? Good luck handling a complaint concerning accuracy and precision, unless the error is of the most egregious type.
We look to the Board for clear, decisive and meaningful answers and rules. When the rules aren't written in such a way (you call the process idiotproofing, I call the process explicit or unambiguous) that all of us can read them and then all of us be in agreement as to what the rules mean, the rules become a constant source of disharmony.
I think I would use the phrase lawyer proofing or weasel proofing. For purposes of enforcement against those who strive to do the least possible and who do not meet minimum standards, the language of the rules must be clear and unequivocal so judgment can be applied without leeway.
Jack Chiles, post: 359386, member: 24 wrote: In this instance, I wouldn't call your edit of the rule "idiot-proofing". I'd call it a more logical and explanatory example of how rules should be written. The problem with the Board's rules is that, far too often, they are not "clear". For example, take
663.15 Precision and Accuracy (First paragraph)
Survey measurements shall be made with equipment and methods of practice capable of attaining the accuracy and tolerances required by the professional land surveying services being performed.
How will the Board ever enforce that? We're supposed to set monuments to the accuracy we deem necessary? Good luck handling a complaint concerning accuracy and precision, unless the error is of the most egregious type.
We look to the Board for clear, decisive and meaningful answers and rules. When the rules aren't written in such a way (you call the process idiotproofing, I call the process explicit or unambiguous) that all of us can read them and then all of us be in agreement as to what the rules mean, the rules become a constant source of disharmony.
Yes, I thought it was a major mistake to eliminate the old accuracy standards in favor of this toothless rule. Under this rule, as a practical matter, unless a survey is made in conformance with TSPS or ALTA specifications, there is no accuracy requirement.
i'm terribly disappointed. I always thought that Texas Surveyors were so superior to all others, that their board probably only disciplined surveyors in other states, which is what I was thinking when I first read the header, but I went on to read that they are actually reprimanding Texas Surveyors. Sad day indeed.
