This entire topic has been kicked around for years. A lot of it has to do with the requirement of recording your surveys, which many states require. I happen to fully support this regulation.
SOP in my world is to cap my set monuments, tag found ones, and report them on my recorded map and depict them on the map accordingly. That's all per statute in the 3 states I'm licensed in. Pretty simple and doesn't take any time, and protects the public.
But every state has their own regulations, along with a certain element of our profession who tend to not exactly follow them. Some get reported, some get discovered by the next surveyor so the food chain continues, some just die before discovery takes place. But the main thing to me is if the found monument is within a reasonable proximity of where I'd set one, and who (John Q Public) is impacted if I disrupt that apple cart.
Wayne G, post: 344032, member: 7871 wrote: SOP in my world is to cap my set monuments, tag found ones, and report them on my recorded map and depict them on the map accordingly. That's all per statute in the 3 states I'm licensed in. Pretty simple and doesn't take any time, and protects the public.
That's essentially the system we have in Texas, except that the recorded map is primarily used in new subdivisions of land and detailed metes and bounds descriptions that should give all the essential information that would be on a map are used for just about everything else.
It is particularly important that new subdivisions be monumented with markers that can be later identified and that the replaced markers be distinguishable from the originals. Simply being meticulous about setting identifiable monuments and describing them properly is half the battle.
I suspect that a system that depends upon maps getting recorded every time a surveyor passes gas in the vicinity of a property could work well if there was an active policing of substandard submissions.
In all my years I have never described an ID cap....
I would state something akin to a "Wilson capped 5/8" iron pin" ... BUT I never ... not once ... ever describe an ID cap.
In hindsite, maybe I was wrong ...
Now let's see ... description ...
A 5/8" iron rebar found with a dark blue-colored 1-1/4" diameter, black filled lettering, centered with a black dot and stamped "J.N. FRANCIS" above the dot and "P.S. 6916 below the dot, and noted that the dot, "N. FR", and "S. 6", are partly obliterated through the process of being smashed. Also note that while the said pin appears solid, it extends about 5 inches out of the ground and the dot on the cap is misplaced by a bend on the pin, about 0.17 east, although the top 1-1/2" of pin appears to be re-set(?), vertically. The cap is also split on the west side and appears to be somewhat loose on the pin ...
How far can we really go with this stuff? Especially with no specifics on what, how and why to describe the found item and to what end?
A thread like this makes me so much more certain that giving up my license was the right thing to do.
AND ... if I wait a few years, maybe I can buy and old decrepid transit and 300' long chain and do surveys in one of the states where a discussion of doing away with the licensure board is on the horizon.
Seriously ... about the cap, common sense ... as I see it rules the day ... in absense of a written regulation.
You know what Kent ... most of the complaints delivered my way through the years referred to too much "extraneous", information ... "extraneous", being in the eyes of the "GIS professionals(?)".
So, while I generally agree with your thoughts on this matter, and while I've always strived to describe things in very definative manners, I KNOW, that a lot ... a lot, of surveyors don't see things quite the same.
I'm not about to say to anyone that since "I", interpret something "my", way, that everyone else's interpretations are wrong.
Gee whiz ... if an argument can be made for the meaning of what the word "is", is ... isn't it possible that a non-specified, un-written requirement, which is nothing more than an interpretation, could be interpreted more than one way?
They probably shouldn't - one has only to watch the news for about 15 minutes these days to observe that rules are not equitably applied...
I have no expectation whatsoever that my Board would reach the same conclusion twice given the exact same facts.
Between the location information that would go with your description, and the description given, the least skilled surveyor could probably determine if he had found the identical monument you did, and determine if it had been disturbed since you were there. That's exactly the point. Good job.
RETIRED69, post: 344093, member: 1248 wrote: In all my years I have never described an ID cap....
I would state something akin to a "Wilson capped 5/8" iron pin" ... BUT I never ... not once ... ever describe an ID cap.
Now let's see ... description ...
A 5/8" iron rebar found with a dark blue-colored 1-1/4" diameter, black filled lettering, centered with a black dot and stamped "J.N. FRANCIS" above the dot and "P.S. 6916 below the dot, and noted that the dot, "N. FR", and "S. 6", are partly obliterated through the process of being smashed. Also note that while the said pin appears solid, it extends about 5 inches out of the ground and the dot on the cap is misplaced by a bend on the pin, about 0.17 east, although the top 1-1/2" of pin appears to be re-set(?), vertically. The cap is also split on the west side and appears to be somewhat loose on the pin ...
How far can we really go with this stuff?
The description should be specific enough to identify the rod and cap years later. Obviously, that means the name and registration number of the licensee that is stamped or imprinted on the cap. In the case of plastic caps, that means that in some cases all that will be left will be a munged-up piece of plastic that the imprint has weathered off of, but which a later survey will be able to tell was once plastic of a particular color. Best practice is to describe all the printing/stamping on the cap, including the fact that it is only partially legible. In practice, it is simple enough to define shorthand phrases on map legends and in written descriptions as in the example from a written description that I gave above.
The rod needs to be at least described by diameter and type since if the cap is gone, that is the secondary clue to identifying the monument.
If the cap has a unique stamping, such as a point i.d. no., that should be mentioned.
Man I love the ignore function on this board now!
I am somewhat reluctant to join in the fray but if Rule 663.17(d) can be interpreted the way Kent would like it to be, then it seems to me that the rule is, at best, ambiguously stated. At the worst, it is constitutionally vague. In either event, I agree with ShawnÛªs interpretation.
It also seems to me that Kent has managed to change the discussion to something other than the intent of ShawnÛªs question, which merely concerned proper interpretation of Rule 663.17(d). While Kent makes a good case for how and why to properly describe a capped monument on a plat and in a description, this rule plainly applies to only its identification on site. Leastwise, thatÛªs how I read it.
Curiously, the minutes of TBPLS concerning the three complaints that are central to this discussion make no mention whether the subject iron rod was actually set. Therefore, one may deduce that the investigation did not make such a determination; leastwise I can. If not, then misapplication of Rule 663.17(d) indicates to me that it was used to ÛÏpile on another chargeÛ. And, if the rod was actually set and capped, then misapplication of the rule in such an instance as the complaints does indeed stink of injustice. It also stinks if, as Kent says, the surveyor must suffer the burden of proving whether it was practical to cap the rod. I thought the burden of proof was always on the persecutors prosecutors.
I disagree with KentÛªs assertion that violation of the rule was confirmed by the fact that two of the three surveyors entered into agreed orders with the board. In my opinion, this merely indicates that it was not worth the effort to argue the matter.
RETIRED69, post: 344095, member: 1248 wrote: You know what Kent ... most of the complaints delivered my way through the years referred to too much "extraneous", information ... "extraneous", being in the eyes of the "GIS professionals(?)".
So, while I generally agree with your thoughts on this matter, and while I've always strived to describe things in very definative manners, I KNOW, that a lot ... a lot, of surveyors don't see things quite the same.
I don't doubt for a minute that many surveyors work as if nothing matters but that the checks clear the bank. It appears to me that the basic rule describing how some surveyors describe anything found or set in the way of boundary markers is that it has to either fit into their data collector in no more than 18 keystrokes. :>
Sometime I'll post a photo of a marker and give the various ways in which it has been described and you can tell me which you'd rather have in hand if you were resurveying the property without having been there before.
I am absolutely astounded that a subject this simple has generated 108 responses (I guess I'm 109). If it's too hard to clearly describe the monument you placed in the ground (which only needs to be done once by putting it in a master legend in your template or sheet drawing) on your map perhaps you should consider a simpler profession...
Leave some footprints!!!
RADAR, post: 343957, member: 413 wrote:
I see a typo- Ansel Adams was born in 1902, not 1920 🙂
That said, he was one of my very favorite photographers.
The only superior evidence is that which you haven't yet found.
LRWells, post: 344141, member: 7284 wrote: I disagree with KentÛªs assertion that violation of the rule was confirmed by the fact that two of the three surveyors entered into agreed orders with the board. In my opinion, this merely indicates that it was not worth the effort to argue the matter.
I was thinking the exact same thing.
LRWells, post: 344141, member: 7284 wrote: It also seems to me that Kent has managed to change the discussion to something other than the intent of ShawnÛªs question, which merely concerned proper interpretation of Rule 663.17(d).
Yes, I framed the discussion in the full context of the rules of the TBPLS, not just in terms of one rule. There are other rules that require registrants to describe the monuments they set on the maps they prepare and so a map that described a monument merely as "iron rod set" was prima facie evidence that a rod and cap monument or any other identifiable monument had not been set.
It also stinks if, as Kent says, the surveyor must suffer the burden of proving whether it was practical to cap the rod. I thought the burden of proof was always on the
persecutorsprosecutors.
Except in this case, the surveyors themselves provided the evidence that they had not set identifiable monuments in their own descriptions appearing upon the maps they prepared. Shawn wanted to argue that "set iron rod" could possibly really mean "set iron rod with cap bearing the following professional identication ____________", but I don't think there are many Texas surveyors who would find that non-laughable. Had the registrants actually set identifiable monuments, they could have demonstrated that fact from their records. Although they would have violated the rule on monument descriptions, that is surely a less flagrant category of infraction than just not setting identifiable monuments at all.
Well, if you had actually set a rod and cap monument and the only rule that you had violated was that you had not described the monument correctly, i.e. had noted it as "set iron rod" with no mention of professional identification, wouldn't you have pointed that out and agreed that you had violated the board rule that required you to describe the monument? Failing to set identifiable monuments is obviously the more serious violation than an isolated drafting error.
In the facts of the case as gleaned from the TBPLS minutes, it appears that the three surveyors's work demonstrated a pattern of practice in that office that indicated a systematic failure, not just some isolated instance, so the surveyors appear not to have had that defense available.
I don't think there is a "less flagrant" category.
I can envision a point where a surveyor under scrutiny might simply accept charges in hopes that he doesn't invite additional scrutiny or that he estimates the costs to defend himself from a charge would outweigh simply paying the fine.
...obviously...
You use that word an awful lot in cases that are anything but...
Jim in AZ, post: 344143, member: 249 wrote: I am absolutely astounded that a subject this simple has generated 108 responses (I guess I'm 109). If it's too hard to clearly describe the monument you placed in the ground (which only needs to be done once by putting it in a master legend in your template or sheet drawing) on your map perhaps you should consider a simpler profession...
Leave some footprints!!!
I'm perplexed that after 109 responses that you come to the conclusion that this is somehow about the merits of whether a surveyor should or should not describe identification on a set monument. Some have done a masterful job at misrepresenting what I've said in this discussion, as though I've somehow promoted that surveyors should minimally describe monuments. Protip: When, in the course of a discussion or debate, someone uses the phrase "So what you are saying is..." , it's highly likely that the person being summarized is actually not saying that at all. To be honest, I'm astounded that you are astounded. If someone is found to have violated statute, let them face the consequences. If a person has not violated a statute, there should not be consequences. That's justice. Is this really so difficult to understand?
Yes, the rules of the TBPLS provide for abatement of penalties in certain circumstances.
"The Board has promulgated Rules which are of such importance to insure that all land surveying services are conducted in the best interest of the public and all those who rely on those services, any violation of any rule will cause the Executive Director to issue a reprimand and a $1,500 penalty for each violation. The Executive Director, after an Informal Settlement Conference, may arrive at a lesser sanction and penalty than suggested in this Rule and may also require additional educational courses."
So, you don't think that an isolated drafting error is obviously less serious that a pattern of flagrant violation of fundamental rules such as those requiring a registrant to set identifiable monuments? If so, I doubt very much that many good surveyors would agree with you. One can be justifiably considered to be an unintentional oversight. The other contains a level of intentionality that is much different.