Okay so I think I see the problem. You don't think that a survey monument that consists of a rod and cap needs to be described as other than a rod and think that any mention of the actual identifiable feature of the monument, the cap, is optional. Is that really your view?
Not one of those statutes mentions ID caps.
Bruce Small, post: 343746, member: 1201 wrote: How much effort could it actually take to correctly note the monument you set? Not much, I would think. The problem, probably, is that the drafter is not familiar with either the rules or what was set, and the surveyor signed without actually taking a glance at the sheet. In that case I have no sympathy. My standard note:
SET A 1.5" ALUMINUM CAP STAMPED RLS 12122 ON A 1/2" IRON REBAR 18" LONG WITH AN ATTACHED 3/4" BRASS TAG STAMPED RLS 12122.
That is precisely the point. It takes next to no additional effort to actually describe monuments but makes a huge difference in the ability of future surveyors to actually identify your monument. So far, I have heard zero reasons/excuses that make any sense at all for not doing this and have to wonder why any surveyor would not want to work overtime dreaming up convoluted excuses for failing to properly describe a monument set to makr a property corner.
None of the statutes with language pertaining to describing the boundary location or monuments say anything about describing ID caps.
...optional. Is that really your view?
yes. it's good practice, but not compulsory by statute in my view.
So, should one understand that you think that "iron rod" is a description that describes exactly the same object as "1/2 in. iron rod with 1-1/2 in. aluminum cap stamped 'Jan Lightyear, RPLS 6666' " does? How about "iron object"? Is that the same? How about "metal thing"?
The point is that only "1/2 in. iron rod with 1-1/2 in. aluminum cap stamped 'Jan Lightyear, RPLS 6666' " actually describes that object. "Iron rod" doesn't and neither do "iron object" and "metal thing". So if you are going to describe it, you have to mention the cap and its stamping.
Shawn Billings, post: 343834, member: 6521 wrote: ...optional. Is that really your view?
yes. it's good practice, but not compulsory by statute in my view.
Well, that is a tortured view of the actual rules that require descriptions of monuments which are supposed to have identifiable caps or other similar features. What in effect you believe is that registrants are required as a matter of law to set identifiable caps but can consider the caps to be optional features unworthy of mention when the same monuments are described. Fortunately, I don't know of any good surveyors who would agree with that view.
I would say that the topic needs to be clarified and possibly written in plain language by the Board.
Since my first contact with Board members in the early 1970s, the board members themselves described their Rules as "per desecration of the setting Board Members". Four times a year I saw as many as four at survey gathering and they would take a few minutes for your input and topics of interest for them to discuss among themselves.
That info and everything I have seen since had let me know that any middle ground is to be explained and decided upon by the members of the Board. The last topic that I heard a decision on was who did not need to obtain a "Firm registration".
Time to contact a board member and get an official answer........their email is on the BOR site.
I understand the verbage to mean that we must leave a cap or tag or other means of marking on the monument that will trace back to surveyor that set the monument.
I do not see where it is being ask that we describe that ID mark in our paperwork.
I will do whatever they ask of us.
BTW, probably 75% of the monuments I've set still have a cap on them and 5% of my caps have been replaced with some other's cap.
A Harris, post: 343856, member: 81 wrote:
I understand the verbage to mean that we must leave a cap or tag or other means of marking on the monument that will trace back to surveyor that set the monument. I do not see where it is being ask that we describe that ID mark in our paperwork.
But the rules as written say this:
Rule 663.19(b): "Every description prepared for the purpose of defining boundaries shall provide a definite and unambiguous identification of the location of such boundaries and shall describe all monuments found or placed."
Rule 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, isn't the question simply whether a surveyor can actually describe a capped monument correctly without mentioning the stamping or imprint on the cap and giving other distinguishing characteristics? That seems as fundamental as describing the sizes of unidentified pipes and rebars.
I realize that some folks will want to argue that "Well, the law doesn't say you have to describe it CORRECTLY", but can't we dismiss that as nonsense?
Shawn Billings, post: 343831, member: 6521 wrote: Not one of those statutes mentions ID caps.
I'm with Shawn on this, the regulation does not even require "Caps" just a method of identifying the surveyor. I would think if you used one inch square iron bars painted red and all the local surveyors knew that was your method of making a corner wouldn't that meet the requirement. If the ruling is you "Must" cap the iron rod with name and registration number wouldn't it be redundant to require you to call out that marking on your survey plat as you would be in violation if it wasn't capped.
Why were these people there before the Board?
Their appearance in front of the Board is unique to their own doings and being from the same company the group could not get it right when they were reporting on their survey.
In creating a new document, it takes only a few minutes to correct set to found and report of actual findings rather than simply do a pure unedited cut and paste.
According to their companies surveys, each of them had set the same monuments at different dates and their reports did not distinguish who did what and when they did it.
All the decisions were at the discretion of the Board according to their actions.
I can agree that what is in writing at this time conflicts between what is written into the Rules and that of the Occupation Code.
When somebody calls me on the phone and as a group of my local peers decide that we will all do that, then that is what I'll probably do.
On, that is what we are doing, airing out our version of what we read.
Until then, I am going to work on my unique verbage to begin to find a likable means for that to find its way into my paperwork.
That amount of words added to each noted monument will increase the size of my drawings.
My solution would probably make scan an image of my cap and put that image with a notation on the drawing and as a footnote to my descriptions. I may even show that in color.
The other solution would be to create a tiff and dwg to insert at scale into my paperwork.
My work is never done...............;-)
Rule 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."
Yes, the rule itself doesn't insist upon caps. Caps or the Morasse collars just happen to be the most widely used solution. I use aluminum caps for permanence and to have the ability to add pt. i.d. nos. to them, but would imagine that plastic holds up better in a coastal environment. Tablets and even spikes with stamped washers bearing the professional identification of the responsible surveyor would meet the requirements of the rule. If you're setting galvanized pipes, stamping a license number on the side of the pipe would work in theory, but would not serve the purpose or intent of the rule particularly well since it would be difficult for later surveyors to read the stamping if the pipe was driven below grade.
I don't think that some local custom like painting monuments with a particular color of paint really is traceable to the responsible registrant. How is someone fifty years from now supposed to know that Ole So-and-So's monuments can be identified because they are painted turquoise green, for example, even if traces of that paint remain on what is left of the monuments? It's better than nothing, but not much. I wouldn't want to argue with a straight face that "everyone" can trace those monuments to So-and-So if the only distinguishing feature on them is paint.
Writing descriptions like this solve the problem perfectly well, in my view.
I sent an email requesting clarification on the disciplinary action taken regarding 663.17d in these complaints earlier. I received an email response indicating I'll get more information next week. I'll share what I find out then.
I love it.
Desecration = Desecration (also called desacralization or desanctification) is the act of depriving something of its sacred character, or the disrespectful, contemptuous, or destructive treatment of that which is held to be sacred or holy by a group or individual.
Discretion = the freedom to decide what should be done in a particular situation.
