Shawn Billings, post: 344164, member: 6521 wrote: 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.
Well, that is the only way that your position makes any sense at all. You initially wanted to claim that it was somehow shocking that a surveyor who certified that he had set a monument he described on a map as "set iron rod" was held to have violated the rule that he set identifiable monuments. While you declined to see the obvious logic in that considering that Texas surveyors are obligated to describe the monuments we set and "iron rod" does not describe a rod and cap monument, nonetheless the TBPLS saw it.
This is the significant part of the universe of possibilities:
1. Surveyor describes marker on map as "set iron rod" but does not set any monument at all. - Violations of Rules 663.19(e) and 663.17(b)
2. Surveyor describes marker on map as "set iron rod" and sets unidentified iron rod although it was practical to have set rod with identification. - Violation of Rule 663.17(d)
3. Surveyor describes marker on map as "set iron rod" and sets iron rod with identication such as cap. - Violation of Rule 663.19(e)
4. Surveyor describes marker on map as "set iron rod" and sets unidentified iron rod because it is impractical to do otherwise. - No violation of rules, but impracticality is not presumed and must be shown.
Strictly as a matter of logic, if a surveyor describes a marker on a map as "set iron rod", and Rule 663.19(e) is not violated, either Rule 663.17(d) is violated or surveyor was able to demonstrate that it was not practical to set a monument with professional identification. If surveyor is not able to demonstrate impracticality then it necessarily follows that Rule 663.17(d) was violated.
So, the only line of justification that you really had was to claim that "set iron rod" described something other than just an unidentified iron rod having been set.
Kent, I don't know if you have noticed, but there's no throng of Texas surveyors adopting your viewpoint. I'm sure there are some in the State who would see things your way. I'm equally sure that I'm more likely to be reporting next week that the TBPLS disagrees with my position than reporting otherwise. I intend to report back regardless. I'm very sure that there are many Texas surveyors who have read this and kept silent because they are concerned that if they publicly disagree with the board's position that it might make them targets for retribution unnecessarily. I don't think the board would be so petty, but I understand the concern.
You've insinuated, without facts, that I've been operating outside statutes and should review my procedures for compliance. You've also insinuated that I am not a good surveyor and that I'm encouraging others to engage in bad practices. And you've belittled me by saying my arguments are laughable. Now the 'laughable' comments are childish and harmless. Insinuation that my professional services are noncompliant and that I'm a poor surveyor are liable. How dare you? That's my livelihood, as well as my life's passion. You insult it to score points in a little Internet debate?
Kris Morgan, post: 344136, member: 29 wrote: Man I love the ignore function on this board now!
Dude i can totally see everything you're posting
Kris Morgan, post: 344136, member: 29 wrote: Man I love the ignore function on this board now!
dude, i can totaly see everything youre posting
Shawn Billings, post: 344172, member: 6521 wrote: Kent, I don't know if you have noticed, but there's no throng of Texas surveyors adopting your viewpoint.
Yes, but it hardly surprises me. The rules of the TBPLS mean what they say and have an obvious purpose, regardlness of whether there is a "throng" of Texas surveyors who understand them.
I'm sure there are some in the State who would see things your way.
Yes, many Texas surveyors do understand the plain purposes of the TBPLS rules as expressed in their language and from a professional understanding of the intentions behind them. I really don't know any good surveyors in Austin who would share your lax interpretation of the monumentation rules, for example.
I'm very sure that there are many Texas surveyors who have read this and kept silent because they are concerned that if they publicly disagree with the board's position that it might make them targets for retribution unnecessarily. I don't think the board would be so petty, but I understand the concern.
That should be a red flag right there that they need to carefully reexamine their office practices if they are worried about telling anyone in public what they actually are doing.
You've insinuated, without facts, that I've been operating outside statutes and should review my procedures for compliance. You've also insinuated that I am not a good surveyor and that I'm encouraging others to engage in bad practices. And you've belittled me by saying my arguments are laughable. Now the 'laughable' comments are childish and harmless. Insinuation that my professional services are noncompliant and that I'm a poor surveyor are liable. How dare you? That's my livelihood, as well as my life's passion. You insult it to score points in a little Internet debate?
Most of that is your imagination at work, but I do think that the most constructive thing you could take away from this discussion would be to reexamine your own office practices if a simple disciplinary action by the TBPLS has got you worked up over the enforcement of the fundamental rules of Texas practice.
Ignorantia juris, quod quisque tenetur scire, neminem excusat.
Dave Karoly, post: 344178, member: 94 wrote: Ignorantia juris, quod quisque tenetur scire, neminem excusat.
As I see it, the discussion above has nothing to do with ignorance of the law as a defense. But, it should have something to do concerning the proper interpretation of the rules of TBPLS. Kent and others have pointed out how easy it is to describe cap IDs. It should have been easier for the board to tie the violations to the correct rule, to wit 663.17(b).
I take it from removal of the two posts above that Shawn and Kent must have gotten a bit testy with each other. I hate it when I miss such exchanges.
I take it from removal of the two posts above that Shawn and Kent must have gotten a bit testy with each other. I hate it when I miss such exchanges.
I haven't removed anything. I doubt Kent has either.
I'll probably refrain from adding any more to this thread until I have something from the Board or Investigator. I can't think of anything I can add to this that I haven't already said. I'm tired of reading myself saying the same thing over and over, I'm sure everyone else is too, so until I have something new to contribute, I'm out.
Kent McMillan, post: 344157, member: 3 wrote: 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.
Prima facie evidence is in the eyes of the beholder, but you may be right. As I see it, the board's misapplication of the rule is prima facie evidence of its failure to do the proper job. If so, you should be concerned even if the outcome suits you.
Shawn Billings, post: 344218, member: 6521 wrote: I take it from removal of the two posts above that Shawn and Kent must have gotten a bit testy with each other. I hate it when I miss such exchanges.
I haven't removed anything. I doubt Kent has either.
I'll probably refrain from adding any more to this thread until I have something from the Board or Investigator. I can't think of anything I can add to this that I haven't already said. I'm tired of reading myself saying the same thing over and over, I'm sure everyone else is too, so until I have something new to contribute, I'm out.
My view indicates that two messages were removed after Kent responded to your 8:43 PM post yesterday. It must have been someone else. Please accept my apology for the mistaken ID.
None needed. Thanks!
Except Rule 663.17(b) provides: "All survey markers shall be shown and described with sufficient evidence of the location of such markers on the land surveyors' drawing, written description or report."
That was not the nature of the violation. It was that the registrants did not set a monument with professional identication. Their own statements on the maps they signed that described the marker set as just "iron rod" are proof of that fact.
I think that Dave's comment refers to those who claim not to understand the TBPLS rules as an excuse for non-compliance.
Shawn Billings, post: 343694, member: 6521 wrote: ...traceable to the responsible registrant or associated employer
By statute, it appears to be acceptable. I prefer a link to the actual surveyor, too.
My biggest problem with the associated employer is that sometimes vague company name used on some of the caps, such as initials, when the company isn't known by initials. Or, a DOT contractor company I followed a year or two ago, set rods with initials "ABC Inc" for the company name. Problem is that there never was an ABC, Inc. The company name was Alpha Bravo Charlie, Inc. and it was bought out by Big Survey, Inc, five years ago. But they are still setting "ABC Inc" ID caps. You got to get pretty sleuthy to make that connection.
My other problem is that when a company with multiple surveyors goes out of business, you have no link to the responsible surveyor anymore.
Shawn, I agree. Years ago I wrote some feedback for the Board when they were asking for opinions on some proposed rules, some of which involved this. I stated that "identifiable" should be either the RPLS registration number, or the FIRM registration number (for those firms with multiple registrants). This would avoid the problem of ambiguous acronyms such as "XYZ" on caps. Obviously, they didn't take my advice.
California's Professional Land Surveyors' Act section 8772 reads:
"Any monument set by a licensed land surveyor or registered civil engineer to mark or reference a point on a property or land line shall be permanently and visibly marked or tagged with the certificate number of the surveyor or civil engineer setting it, each number to be preceded by the letters L.S. or R.C.E., respectively, as the case may be or, if the monument is set by a public agency, it shall be marked with the name of the agency and the political subdivision it serves.
Nothing in this section shall prevent the inclusion of other information on the tag which will assist in the tracing or location of the survey records which relate to the tagged monument."
This is a statute codified in the Business and Professions Code. It is pretty clear as to its intent.
Further, section 8764 reads:
"The record of survey shall show the applicable provisions of the following consistent with the purpose of the survey:
(a) All monuments found, set, reset, replaced, or removed, describing their kind, size, and location, and giving other data relating thereto."
Just to give you Texans an idea of what other jurisdictions have in place.
Arizona says:
Whenever and wherever practicable, new or replacement boundary monuments, and witness
corner monuments set shall satisfy the following minimum criteria:
1. The body of the monument shall be of metal or other such durable material.
2. The body of the monument shall be at least 16 inches in length.
3. The body of the monument shall be at least å? inch in diameter.
4. The surveyorÛªs Arizona registration number shall be affixed to or clearly stamped into the
body of the monument.
5. The monument shall be magnetically detectable.
Kent's reasoning is that Land Surveyors in Texas are required to set identifiable monuments and describe them on the map, report or description. A Land Surveyor described the set monument as a set rebar with no mention of identification (such as a cap or tag). This is an admission against interest on a professional record document. If the Land Surveyor actually did tag or cap the rebar then he could've informed the board of this fact.
I state up or down distance too but it's not required.
Ever since Dave Ryan asked me to state the size of the cap I do that too. San Joaquin asked me to state the length of the monument so I adopted that practice too. I don't usually state lengths on found monuments for obvious reasons although the standard CDF concrete monuments were four feet long. How did we go from concrete monuments with brass caps still shiny fifty years later to cheap aluminum monuments?
Set 3/4"x30" rebar with 2-1/2" diameter aluminum cap (see stamping diagram), up 0.5'. BTs go here as applicable. Diagram below.
Found 4"x4" concrete monument with 2-1/2" brass cap (see stamping diagram), up 2.0', per 11 R/S 111.
Found 3/4" iron pipe, tag missing, sub 0.5' in lieu of 3/4" iron pipe tagged LS1111 per 11 R/S 111.
Oh wo(whoe ...woe?), is me ... I'm awaiting the dunning letter since I forgot to indicated the dark blue cap was plastic....
Akin to this, is a "plastic", cap "PERMANENT"?
I think NOT ... they get dinged easily, crack in the sun, crack on the pin and eventually become totally un-readable and likely will fall off the pin(from the sun alone), unless they get knawed by a beaver or racoon.
PLASTIC caps are far from permanent ... for that matter aluminum caps(unless they have the "costly", plastic insert), are also not longlived ... NOT PERMANENT!
For everyone, it is a plague on all our houses that the odds are very good that none of us, in practice have EVER placed a "permanent", ID Cap on a pin or pipe.
In fact, the term "permanent", is a complete cop-out, similar to school's "zero tolerance", policies.
It's time to begin using 1" solid stainless pins ... oops can't do this cause they cannot be located with a pin-finder ... violation.
Once, I read an article that stated state plane coordinates ARE a "permanent", monument ...hmm?
You're totally wrong about plastic caps. Take a look at Morasse caps on the Berntsen website. I've been using them for 30+ years at altitudes above 7000' (extreme UV exposure) and many of them look brand new. The open center style are next to impossible to remove without taking the monument itself out along with them. They are also immune to dissimilar metal corrosion and other nasty stuff that some of our soils do out here. Best monument ID solution I've ever seen!
Yes, the Morasse caps do seem to be a pretty good solution for many cases. The main objection that I have to them is that I don't see any way to add a unique i.d. no. or additional stamping to them.