I have used a standard steel punch set, but its a bit tricky. If I was more skilled I would build a jig of some sort to hold them securely while stamping them - I think that's the key.
This is news to a lot of PLS but this is not the only thing I have become aware of that the board is doing that is not spelled out in the rules. At a recent continuing education meeting we were told that if you do not store a point in Raw Data on a monument you set that the board does not consider you have set it. But all things are covered by a statement ( at the discretion of the board ). While I feel that storing the point is good practice I think if they want these things they should be spelled out plainly
The aluminum cap I found recently was in pretty good shape after 28 years. The only problem was that it was laying about two feet from the top of the bar. It appeared that the bar mushroomed too much when being driven into the hidden limestone bedrock and the bar was not filed down to allow the cap to fit properly. The attempt to slam the cap onto the bulging bar did not work. As it was slightly above ground level from the get-go, any number of things could have caused the two foot movement. Most definitely not a permanent part of the record bar/cap.
Dave Karoly, post: 344259, member: 94 wrote: 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.
Texas surveyors may indeed be required to set identifiable monuments and describe them on the map, report or description they prepare. But, if so, the requirement is not to be found in Rule 663.17(d), which is stated as the basis of the violation. This rule merely requires that, where practical, the surveyor affix an ID on the monuments he sets. As to the apparent admission against interest, perhaps the three surveyors had been brainwashed.
For what it is worth, two rules are misstated in the minutes of the board concerning the three complaints. There is no 663.19(4) and (6), which are alleged to have been violated.
LRWells, post: 344313, member: 7284 wrote: Texas surveyors may indeed be required to set identifiable monuments and describe them on the map, report or description they prepare.
Actually, by now, I'd think that it isn't a point of serious contention that the rules provide otherwise, so the "may" is disingenuous.
But, if so, the requirement is not to be found in Rule 663.17(d), which is stated as the basis of the violation. This rule merely requires that, where practical, the surveyor affix an ID on the monuments he sets.
Yes, and that was precisely the rule that the suveyors admitted that they violated by stating that they had set merely an "iron rod" with no mention of any such professional identification. This is elementary logic that I laid out above. You can't note on an map that you set an "iron rod" with no mention of identification and then claim that you didn't violate Rule 663.17(d) unless you can demonstrate that it was not practical to do so. The burden of proof of impracticality must rest on the registrant or the rule means nothing since every malpractitioner in Texas could avoid any disciplinary action at all just by arbitrarily claiming that compliance was impractical.
All I can say is you are much better at reading between the lines than I am. If you would be so kind, please tell me what in particular is the basis of your comment regarding Shawn, as I just donÛªt see it that way.
Actually it is a quite serious point; leastwise I believe it could be to a capable attorney. Rule 663.17(d) plainly does not apply to the description of the cap ID on the plat or in a description, no matter how hard the words are twisted.
Are you concerned at all that there is no Rule 663.19(4) and (6). which are alleged to have been violated?
I've laid it all out before now:
Complaint 12-36 was filed by the neighbor of the property being surveyed claiming that the common boundary line was being surveyed correctly. o.O
It gets difficult to understand this past the first sentence. I don't suppose you can blame the registered for not applying a cap, it seems like a
lose - lose situation.
LRWells, post: 344316, member: 7284 wrote: Actually it is a quite serious point; leastwise I believe it could be to a capable attorney. Rule 663.17(d) plainly does not apply to the description of the cap ID on the plat or in a description, no matter how hard the words are twisted.
Okay, if you note on a plat that you set "iron rod" and don't describe what you set as, say, a rod and identified cap, you think that you'd be free to claim that you really DID set a rod and identified cap and not just an iron rod? If so, the problem with that view is that other rules 663.19_ require you to describe the monuments you find and set on both maps and written descriptions. So, you would still be in violation of the rules of practice.
In the cases described, the registrants were free to claim that they really had set rods with identification and to agree that they had violated the rules on monument description, which would be a less serious violation if it were merely a drafting error, but that was not what they agreed to.
I actually had an argument with an LSLS about this very subject around ten years ago. I told him that he had not delineated on the drawing or in his description what he had set that was traceable to him, that he only provided the anemic "1/2 iron rod set" text. Further, I told him it did not comply with Board Rules. His response? "It's understood that I set a cap with my firm name on it". I just about fell out of my chair. I said "Understood by who?"
[sarcasm]I can just imagine all that extra time and expense it would've taken to type a few more words onto his survey to comply and help the future surveyors retracing his work.[/sarcasm]
The other little ditty that the LSLS like to say is that when acting in their official capacity, they are not required to meet the MTS. They actually said that in a court case over here in my county (vacancy case).
Glenn Breysacher, post: 344617, member: 188 wrote: I actually had an argument with an LSLS about this very subject around ten years ago. I told him that he had not delineated on the drawing or in his description what he had set that was traceable to him, that he only provided the anemic "1/2 iron rod set" text. Further, I told him it did not comply with Board Rules. His response? "It's understood that I set a cap with my firm name on it".
Yes, those folks who want everyone else to assume that they actually complied with the law without their actually having mentioned that they had is beyond bizarre. It is one of the most fundamental principles of surveying practice that a surveyor actually describe the monuments he or she has set and I'd never thought the word "describe" used in that context could possibly be ambiguous at all given the obvious professional purpose of the description.
Without getting into the middle of the debate, was a cap set? By which surveyor? Seems to me there is more going on than the simple issue of whether or not a point was capped. That is just the convenient issue used to punish them.
Oh my. Hard to believe.
You will no doubt disagree but just for the record your reply to my question is unresponsive. Instead of providing me with a particular basis of your comment, the link takes me to one of your pontificatory posts as to your position on ID caps. Is this really as good as you can do? If not, please try again.
You will no doubt disagree but just for the record your reply to my question is unresponsive. Instead of providing me with a particular basis of your comment, the link takes me to one of your pontificatory posts as to your position on ID caps. Is this really as good as you can do? If not, please try again.
You have failed again to provide a responsive answer to a question from me. I didnÛªt ask for a pontification on how the rule can be twisted to support your position. But, I did ask you whether you are concerned about the boardÛªs misstatements of rules that are alleged to have been violated. Well, are you?
LRWells, post: 344700, member: 7284 wrote: Is this really as good as you can do? If not, please try again.
Sorry, if logic doesn't make any sense to you, there's nothing left aside from illogic. Am I right in thinking that you are NOT a Texas registrant? If so, that would explain your end of this discussion fairly well.
I do not wish for the my Board to levy a penalty based on a subject interpretation of the Rules. The Board can always change and then publish revised rules if any rule needs to be more explicit. We all have our opinion on what constitutes good practice. However, enforcement should be based on black ink on white paper. I only wish that our Board had the time and resources to address the issue in this thread. We have much more serious violations occurring daily in this State. My hat is off to Texas if they have already addressed the more serious violations. A cap with an incomplete description in the right location seems like less of a problem than a well describe cap in the wrong location.