Jack Chiles, post: 359386, member: 24 wrote:
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.
BTW, any Texas resident, including registrants, may forward a comment upon the proposed rule to:
Natalie Jackson, Texas Board of Professional Land Surveying,
12100 Park 35 Circle, Building A, Suite 156, MC 230,
Austin, Texas 78753,
by email to: [email protected]
It won't bother me a bit if you want to propose that a better form of the rule would be:
(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 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, including 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.
Tom Adams, post: 359405, member: 7285 wrote: 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.
You are probably thinking of the days before RTK.
Please excuse the tongue-in-cheek comment above. I have pondered over board rules and to what extent they should be written and enforced. There are always surveyors who will adhere to a lesser standard, just like in any profession, and I don't know if you can accurately write language to stop them. Our board tried to write minimum standards for monumentation that has gone through some iterations since, but I often found times that it was not a good plan to, for instance, replace an old stone under asphalt that was not an 'original' corner (which is what the rules would have me do @ the time). Or replace an axle, because it doesn't have a cap.
Accuracy standards, I think, would be hard to enforce as well regardless of how well it was written. (the standards should probably be written in, but I don't see enforcement being that highly doable except when there was a case of gross neglegence...which is when you would want it enforced anyway).
Some years ago, some guys around here had a brainstorm and did what they called distance-only triangulation. They set up a network of triangles, and measured distances only on all the lines. They said it was much faster without any angles (jsut a bob @ the beginning), and they got perfect closure every time. I was totally at a loss on what to say about their total ignorance of redundant measurements.
Okay enough rambling. I have no real knowledge of the specifics of texas standards.
Kent McMillan, post: 359407, member: 3 wrote: You are probably thinking of the days before RTK.
Doesn't "RTK" = perfect closure? The boys in my example above no longer need to run distance triangulation traverses.
This whole discussion, seems like discussing the fart on the end of a gnat's b-hind! I mean, it is very academic, that we should be using unambiguous language, in creating law. Here, in Arkansas, we have MUCH bigger problems. Such as NO set monuments, and LOP surveys, (Lies on Pager) and complete disingenuous surveying.
I think when somebody produces a plat, that says "Corner bears N 01å¡13'14" E 0.04' from found 1/2" rebar" we are looking at a MUCH bigger problem.
It's funny that we as surveyors, can fight this one down to a nubbin'. While atrocities, get ignored, that are much bigger, in substance.
I'm not saying that we should have ambiguity in law, but that we should go after bigger stinks, legally.
N
Kent McMillan, post: 359407, member: 3 wrote: You are probably thinking of the days before RTK.
Looking at that site, it says that the Honorable George Bush is commissioner? Which one is the honorable one :-S:-S
Kent McMillan, post: 359406, member: 3 wrote: It won't bother me a bit if you want to propose that a better form of the rule would be:
(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 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, including 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.
What you have written is actually pretty good, if these are the standards to which the profession should adhere inviolate.
Rule of law requires unambiguous laws that are made known to all and that are enforced equally and free from arbitrary authoritative discretion.
Effectively creating law through creative interpretation borders on tyranny. It is simply unjust. The Board is proceeding correctly by adding specific language to the rule, through legislative process, in order for the rule to read exactly as they wish to enforce it. From your proposal, if the omission of type, material, and size of monuments in a description is to be an offense punishable by the Board, then there should be a clear, unambiguous proscription of these omissions, as you've described. It's not difficult, although it does require an exercise in care and consideration to develop good legislation.
This is the sum of my original point, not whatever the "so what you're actually saying is..." fabrications you've attempted to make of it. Rex Lex.
Tom Adams, post: 359409, member: 7285 wrote: I have pondered over board rules and to what extent they should be written and enforced. There are always surveyors who will adhere to a lesser standard, just like in any profession, and I don't know if you can accurately write language to stop them.
It's a two-part solution. First, you attempt to only license people who are truly qualified to serve as professional surveyors. That necessarily includes the qualification that they understand the REASONS for various professional practices and why land surveying is a licensed profession in the first place.
The actual rules themselves should ideally be statements of performance and intention, leaving the professional surveyor the option of deciding how to best meet the requirements. For example, survey accuracy can be specified and how that specification is met by particular methods and procedures left to the practitioner. All one would need to do is require documentation that beyond a reasonable certainty the standard has been met.
As for monuments, one would specify what the monument is to do and what its minimum life span should be if undisturbed. It would be reasonable to specify that certain types of monuments would be presumed not to meet the specification unless the contrary can be documented.
Jack Chiles, post: 359386, member: 24 wrote: 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.
One of the methods to report the accuracy of the position that you have set a monument from calculated data is to set the monument as accurately as possible within accepted tolerance (yours or as printed or adopted in the rules).
Then, setup on the monument and locate it again by sideshot or as a new RTK observed position and the information of that action is recorded to the file and into Raw Data.
The information that is read from the Raw Data of that location is the proof of accuracy based upon separately measured data as compared to computed data.
To farther document your actions, take a picture of the set monument and a picture of your setup (prism pole/RTK/other) on the monument.
This information can be sent to the BOR or court as proof of existence after client or other has pulled or moved or simply can not find something.
:gammon:
I'm in the wrong profession. I should have been a surveyor. Eighteen pages and counting over how best to describe an iron pipe. Mercy, you guys are so pedantic. Gotta love it. 🙂
I don't believe this is about how to describe a monument but at what point is the monument described
astrodanco, post: 359494, member: 7558 wrote: I'm in the wrong profession. I should have been a surveyor. Eighteen pages and counting over how best to describe an iron pipe. Mercy, you guys are so pedantic. Gotta love it. 🙂
I wouldn't even know where to buy iron pipe these days. Anything I'm setting is usually galvanized steel or ASTM A500 (or A53) Black Steel Pipe.
astrodanco, post: 359494, member: 7558 wrote: I'm in the wrong profession. I should have been a surveyor. Eighteen pages and counting over how best to describe an iron pipe. Mercy, you guys are so pedantic. Gotta love it. 🙂
Hey...you ain't seen nothing. You should see us discuss which way North is, and how many Norths there are.
A Harris, post: 359431, member: 81 wrote: One of the methods to report the accuracy of the position that you have set a monument from calculated data is to set the monument as accurately as possible within accepted tolerance (yours or as printed or adopted in the rules).
Then, setup on the monument and locate it again by sideshot or as a new RTK observed position and the information of that action is recorded to the file and into Raw Data.
The more broadly useful and widely accepted method, though, would be based upon the estimates of positional uncertainty from an adjustment by least squares and error propagation calculation. I use Star*Net on every project I survey and for about twenty-five years have found that it gives very realistic estimates of the uncertainties of the relative positions of points positioned by conventional survey. I've used it for more than twenty years to combine conventional measurements with GPS vectors and have likewise found the uncertainty estimates to be reliable if the GPS vectors are property weighted.
The main problem with GPS vectors, and probably doubly so for GPS vectors from quickie occupations as RTK tends to be used for, is that of using realistic weights. It isn't insurmountable, though.
Fellow called the other day and asked where I had come up with a specific elevation. Told him it was the same one as on the plan I was to follow which was based on DOT work within a few hundred feet of this very point. Said elevation was consistent with their benchmarks for a major highway project.
He said, "Well, we were there the other day and my numbers were three foot different than yours."
I suggested he might want to review his procedures as I was fairly certain the highway system, city streets and city sewer lines weren't all off by three feet, elevation-wise.
Simply state in the preamble somewhere that iron rods set have a whatever cap marked whatever.
Simple enough
Randy
Holy Cow, post: 359761, member: 50 wrote: Fellow called the other day and asked where I had come up with a specific elevation. Told him it was the same one as on the plan I was to follow which was based on DOT work within a few hundred feet of this very point. Said elevation was consistent with their benchmarks for a major highway project.
He said, "Well, we were there the other day and my numbers were three foot different than yours."
I suggested he might want to review his procedures as I was fairly certain the highway system, city streets and city sewer lines weren't all off by three feet, elevation-wise.
Don't worry Holy, in a few years the elevations may go back to where they were, then the guy will be all comfy....................
It's so sad to keep fighting the same thing over and over again................
I must say I never, never, never encountered this C&@p till GPS got put out there and users without a clue began using it.........
I think cause of what was going on here we were on the front lines, right about 2000 or so.
A Harris, post: 359431, member: 81 wrote: One of the methods to report the accuracy of the position that you have set a monument from calculated data is to set the monument as accurately as possible within accepted tolerance (yours or as printed or adopted in the rules).
Then, setup on the monument and locate it again by sideshot or as a new RTK observed position and the information of that action is recorded to the file and into Raw Data.
The information that is read from the Raw Data of that location is the proof of accuracy based upon separately measured data as compared to computed data.
To farther document your actions, take a picture of the set monument and a picture of your setup (prism pole/RTK/other) on the monument.
This information can be sent to the BOR or court as proof of existence after client or other has pulled or moved or simply can not find something.
:gammon:
The RTK part is not really a good check unless you dump the receiver and make it acquire a new fix before you re-stake it, which is what I sure Andy meant but for some folks you have to spell it out to be sure they get it.
Sometimes if you work in multiple states, just having a cap w/a company name is F/U efficient so your crew don't cap a NM rod w/a TX cap.
"But" my caps say GWS 5356 and on my plats, it says xxxxxx to a one half inch iron rod with a red plastic cap marked "GWS 5356" (RPC) and throughout the rest of the description it's xxxxxxx to an RPC.
My apologies if this has already been discussed, I have tried to read all of the comments but I may have overlooked a few. Has anyone mentioned where the board discussed Complaint 14-17 at the August 2015 where the following comments were made: " Ms. Chruszczak said that the rule says you are to show the location but it does not require including the information that is on the cap. Mr. Garcia felt that requiring cap information should not be required."?
I have seen where that 663.19(e) has been proposed to be amended, and am in favor of the proposed amendment for clarification purposes. However in my opinion (which will not get you very far) it would seem more important to describe the size, color, and material of the cap being set than the fact that it has my information on it. Don't get me wrong, I do not have any trouble with the requirement to include my personal information, but it seems pretty obvious that if I set a monument with a cap, it would have my information on it, not someone else's. The reason I would like to have size/material/color described is because a lot of the plastic caps that are being used do not stay legible very long (at least in my area) due to critters, mowers and other field crews that feel like it is a good idea to put the cap on before driving the rod. If the size/material/color were described at least you could compare that to the remains of the cap that you find. In the case of finding a capped monument, I definitely think you should call out the stamped information it contains.