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.
kkw_archer, post: 360677, member: 5453 wrote: 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.
A responsible surveyor should include a complete description of any monument either found or set (including what is on the cap). I don't know if that should be a law or a board rule or not. It is a more professional way to leave a trail of what you did and where your corners are which is why you are setting monuments in the first place.
Sometimes I get frustrated with board rules or statutes being way too specific, but maybe they need to be.
Just my 2å¢ worth.
kkw_archer, post: 360677, member: 5453 wrote: 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.
I don't believe these minutes were available when this thread was started in November. I could be wrong, but I suspect the minutes weren't approved and posted until the November 20 meeting. I am truly glad to know this is where the board ended up on this.
