I do have in mind to ask the board or the State investigator for clarification on this rule. I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing anything in the plain text of the rule before I did. So far, I haven't seen a compelling explanation of why someone should expect to receive punitive action for a rule violation regarding failure to describe the traceable identification placed on a set monument.
You've framed your case on the fact that the board has punished three "offenders" based on an interpretation of a rule requiring traceable identification to be placed on a set monument (no mention of describing that ID). This is a rather circular argument. By your reasoning, the board then gets to define what the rules mean, instead of applying them as written? How could a professional ever feel confident that his work is in compliance within such an arbitrary system?
Shawn Billings, post: 343670, member: 6521 wrote: That's not logic. That's supposition. It's also based on a subjective interpretation of another rule that the summary did not mention
What the summaries stated was :
Complaint 12-36 Rule 663.17(d) was also violated when the surveyor stated on the subject survey plat that he had set an iron rod and there was no mention of an identifying cap on the rod.
Complaint 12-37 The surveyor in this complaint followed the survey performed by the surveyor at his company who had previously surveyed the property. [...] As a result, he received the same violations as the previous surveyor. He also violated rule 663.17(d), Monumentation, when he stated on the subject survey plat that he set an iron rod but did not mention the identifying cap on the rod.
Complaint 12-38 Mr. Billingsley reported on complaint 12-38 which was filed by the same complainant in complaints 12-36 and 12-37 regarding the same piece of property and the same surveying company but a different surveyor. [...] It was determined that the subject surveyor violated rule 663.17(d), Monumentation, when he stated simply ÛÏIron Rod SetÛ on his survey without reference to an identifying cap on the rod.
So, the summaries establish that the basis of the violation was that three surveyors (all working for the same company) certified that they had set an "iron rod" to mark a corner with no mention of an identifying cap that would have made the marker traceable to them or to their common employer.
The proposition is "Does the fact that the marker was described as not having a cap or other identifying data constitute a violation of the rules of the TBPLS?" Obviously, the answer is yes.
Rule 663.17(b) provides that markers must be described. So if a rod and cap monument was set, but described merely as an "iron rod", that constitutes a violation of Rule 663.17(b). If the marker was correctly described as merely an "iron rod", that is still a violation of the rule in that no diameter is given, but setting that aside that detail that correct description is evidence that no cap was affixed to the rod, from which it follows that Rule 663.17(d) was violated if, in the judgment of the TBPLS is was practical to have affixed such a cap.
The fact that two of the three registrants signed agreed orders confirms that Rule 663.17(d) was violated. The third registrant apparently did not renew his license.
I guess the practice of failing to observe Rule 663.17(d) must be common for this topic even to be subject to debate.
Shawn Billings, post: 343695, member: 6521 wrote: How could a professional ever feel confident that his work is in compliance within such an arbitrary system?
Are you basically saying that you don't think a surveyor who sets identifiable monuments is also obligated under the rules of the TBPLS to fully describe those monuments? In other words, if you set a rebar marker with a cap affixed to it, you just consider the rebar to be the marker?
When you recover a bearing tree, do you just call it "a tree", do you identify it as to caliper and species, or do you further mention the identifying mark visible as a scar on it? Same idea.
Scott Ellis, post: 343691, member: 7154 wrote: My questions is what should the CAP have stamped on it. My CAPS have my name and number, but I have seen CAPS with just a company name. I can understand if the company only has one RPLS, but I have seen companies with several RPLS just having a company CAP.
I agree that all caps should have the number of the registrant who is professionally responsible for the correctness of the marker stamped on them if the cap marks or references a property corner. If a surveyor isn't affixing his or her name to markers, he or she should not be signing maps and field notes.
Please quote for me the statute that compels a surveyor to "fully describe" a monument. This is the lynchpin of your argument.
Once again you provide a personal preference as if it were statute. I agree it is good practice for the surveyor to have his name and registration number on his identification cap (or minimally his registration number), but by the language of rule 663.17d, the company name alone would be in compliance.
There appear to be two schools of thought on this matter.
RULE å¤663.17 (d) Where practical, 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.
RULE å¤663.19 (e) Boundary monuments found or placed by the land surveyor shall be described upon the survey drawing. 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.
So, from these two rules, a prudent surveyor COULD draw the conclusion that since 663.17 (d) requires (where practical), to identify the monument, then if a surveyor set it, and is noted under 663.19 (e), then it can be assumed that the monument noted as set is tagged/capped.
The other way of thinking is that under 663.19 (e), which requires the registrant to "describe" the monuments found or placed, that if it is capped, it can be assumed that noting the cap is part of the description.
I know surveyors who go both ways on this one. We have, since 1998 when the capping rule came into place, capped the rods and noted that it was a 1/2" steel rod w/cap, and w/cap = a plastic cap marked Affiliated Surveyors, both on the drawing and in the field note description.
It would seem to me that the three complaints in the minutes were legitimate, and that the board was driving the nails in the coffin with this penalty. It does odd though that the argument can be made both ways.
Kent McMillan, post: 343696, member: 3 wrote: ...I guess the practice of failing to observe Rule 663.17(d) must be common...
Just as a slightly interested reader (no dog in this hunt for this Okie), I find it interesting that the "set iron rod" appeared on (what I read as) three separate surveys? That may just be the way I'm reading it. But in any sense, the rod was set once and apparently found twice. But neither of the two retracements noted "found"? They all three noted "set" on separate documents? If I'm reading that correctly, that seems a little misleading.
But there are folks up here north of the Red that apparently work the same way. I guess our Board will eventually get around to addressing this....but we're still in the process of getting surveyors to actually SET something (anything!?) when they say they have on a print.
I guess the 'cap' issue will come later. :pinch:
They removed that little ditty from the regs didn't they? 🙂 I have an old copy where it did say "fully describe", but no seems to be redacted for some reason or another.
Any surveyor who is working only to minimum standards, i.e. only doing what is minimally necessary to meet the requirements of the rules of the TBPLS is perpetually on the edge of malpractice.
Rules exist for reasons and surveyors who want to ignore those reasons and fixate on some poorly constructed phrase are likewise on that edge.
There was definitely some poor work being done that the investigator and board were justified in pursuing.
Well when the obvious point of the monumentation rule is to require the placement of identifiable markers, how can a surveyor claim that failing to describe a monument by mentioning how it is identified is a description of the marker? It's just like calling for a bearing tree without mentioning the mark on the tree.
Sorry, but if the rules promulgate it, then it is assumed it was done, with respect to the capping.
We can only be judged on the rules in place and not how we should act but how we are supposed to act within the rules.
paden cash, post: 343703, member: 20 wrote: Just as a slightly interested reader (no dog in this hunt for this Okie), I find it interesting that the "set iron rod" appeared on (what I read as) three separate surveys? That may just be the way I'm reading it. But in any sense, the rod was set once and apparently found twice. But neither of the two retracements noted "found"? They all three noted "set" on separate documents? If I'm reading that correctly, that seems a little misleading.
But there are folks up here north of the Red that apparently work the same way. I guess our Board will eventually get around to addressing this....but we're still in the process of getting surveyors to actually SET something (anything!?) when they say they have on a print.
I guess the 'cap' issue will come later. :pinch:
This issue doesn't affect me either, but it's interesting. I normally describe the markers I set as "Set 1/2" Rebar and Cap". If I'm reading the thread correctly, this would be an offense in Texas. Sounds pretty harsh.
Not if somewhere cap is noted and more particularly described. Then it would be acceptable shorthand.
C Billingsley, post: 343713, member: 1965 wrote: ...Sounds pretty harsh.
From what I've gleaned this infraction was prosecuted as a part of a larger investigation...what we use to call "getting the book thrown at you".
I too state "set (size)rebar w/cap". But in my hired helps' infinite wisdom when ordering, some of the caps have my LS number and some have the firm's CA (Certificate of Authorization) number...both of which are proper...but don't make me start telling fibs...I really have no idea which pins have which number....
I guess I just live on the edge. Tomorrow I may run with scissors around the office.
Kris Morgan, post: 343711, member: 29 wrote: Sorry, but if the rules promulgate it, then it is assumed it was done, with respect to the capping.
That is a remarkable view to take. Using that logic, why would a survey need to say more than "boundary marker set" or "boundary marker found"?
What makes both the bearing tree and the monument identifiable are the DETAILS of the description. Otherwise, future surveyors are left to say "Well Shawn Billings said he set a rebar at this corner and I found a rebar with the remains of a yellow plastic cap on it, so this is definitely the same monument that Shawn Billings described setting.
I hesitated to comment initially, because these things could be based on what common practice is there.
The way I read the law without trying to read things into the law is that you have to mark the monument in the field and describe it on the survey as set or found. It doesn't say specifically that you have to describe it on the map to some level of detail beyond set or found. I set capped rebar with my name and license number on them every time I can or a nail with a washer containing the same information. My maps just say "nail/washer set" or "pin set". That seems to be pretty common practice around here.
Did anyone determine that the pins were actually set with no marker in the field? Maybe they didn't and these guys are in violation, but I don't see applying the law the way they did to fine them. I guess I am leaning towards Shawn's argument.
Well, professionals know the reason for rules and do not apply the rules in a way that defeats their purpose.
What in effect Shawn is arguing is that although registrants are required to describe monuments set and found, he doesn't think that means that if a monument bears a cap or some other professional identification that is a necessary part of the description of such monuments. I don't see that as passing the laugh test.
IN Oregon it is only necessary to have some distinguishing word on the cap, such as company name. But this is a recording state and the idea is that the source of any found monument can be found in public record from the map.
In Oklahoma the company CA number is required on the cap. In a state without recording it would be best to include some information on it that would lead the public to the source. Seems like OK is a step ahead of TX in this regard.
