The summaries of the reasons for the board's actions were these:
Complaint 12-36 Rule 663.17(d) was also violated when the surveyor stated on the subject survey plat that he had set an iron rod and there was no mention of an identifying cap on the rod.
Complaint 12-37 The surveyor in this complaint followed the survey performed by the surveyor at his company who had previously surveyed the property. [...] As a result, he received the same violations as the previous surveyor. He also violated rule 663.17(d), Monumentation, when he stated on the subject survey plat that he set an iron rod but did not mention the identifying cap on the rod.
Complaint 12-38 Mr. Billingsley reported on complaint 12-38 which was filed by the same complainant in complaints 12-36 and 12-37 regarding the same piece of property and the same surveying company but a different surveyor. [...] It was determined that the subject surveyor violated rule 663.17(d), Monumentation, when he stated simply ÛÏIron Rod SetÛ on his survey without reference to an identifying cap on the rod.
None of those are a mistatement of the law. The fact that the registrant described a marker simply as "iron rod set" was properly held to be proof that the registrant had merely set an iron rod with no identification as required by Rule 663.17(d). This just should not be that difficult to understand for those who don't have some vested interest in not understanding the obvious.
lmbrls, post: 344706, member: 6823 wrote: I do not wish for the my Board to levy a penalty based on a subject interpretation of the Rules. [...] 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.
In this case, the registrants themselves provided the evidence that they had violated the law requiring them to set markers with professional identication when they described what they claimed to have set as merely "iron rod set". Under the law, the only exception to setting professional identification is in the case where it isn't practical to do so. However, the burden of proving that impracticality would rest with the registrant.
Presumably the registrants failed to claim or to prove that it had been impractical for them to set a marker with professional identication. In practice, there are relatively few cases where it isn't practical to set a boundary marker with identification.
the registrants themselves provided the evidence that they had violated the law requiring them to set markers with professional identication when they described what they claimed to have set as merely "iron rod set".
Nonsense. Lack of description on the plat is not evidence of lack of identification on the monument. They may not have met the requirements for properly describing what was set, but it strains logic to conclude there was nothing more than described.
Bill93, post: 344723, member: 87 wrote: Lack of description on the plat is not evidence of lack of identification on the monument.
Except that Texas law requires a registrant to describe on maps the boundary markers that he or she finds or sets. So the description given on the map as "iron rod set" is presumed to be a description of the mark as set unless you want to begin with the presumption that registrants never follow the law.
If in fact the registrants had really set a marker with professional identification in the position where the maps they signed merely stated "iron rod set", they were free to provide evidence of that fact and to claim that the note on the map was merely an isolated drafting error. The failure to describe the marker would still have been a violation of the law, but it could have been argued that they had in fact complied with Rule 663.17(d). The fact that they agreed that Rule 663.17(d) had been violated would say otherwise, however.
They may not have met the requirements for properly describing what was set, but it strains logic to conclude there was nothing more than described.
Why is it illogical in any way to conclude that they really didn't set a marker with professional identification in the position where their maps gave no indication that they had?
There you go again, being unresponsive. As you should know, I am not a Texas registrant. But, that fact is irrelevant to the question, which has nothing to do with logic. You either have a basis for your comment, or you do not. Which is it?
Once again, your reply to my question is unresponsive. I ask you whether you are concerned about
the boardÛªs misstatements of Rule 663.19(4) and (6) in its minutes concerning the three complaints that are central to this thread, and you respond with a pontification concerning 663.17(d). The question was simple. Kindly provide me with a simple answer. Or, at least one that is not designed to obfuscate the issue.
LRWells, post: 344759, member: 7284 wrote: The question was simple. Kindly provide me with a simple answer.
Considering that the minutes of the board make clear what the nature of the violations were, you're basically complaining about the secretary who drafted the minutes not correctly citing the rules violated. That is a matter of form, not of substance unless a surveyor is so unfamiliar with the rules as to depend upon the minutes of the TBPLS to familiarize himself with them.
The exact violations were set out in an order that the registrants agreed to, so presumably the order correctly identified the rules even if whomever wrote up the minutes did not. Next.
I worked in an area in New Mexico where monuments set by the local surveyors were described as 1/2" or 5/8" rebars set on all the descriptions. There was never any mention of the surveyors LS#. I tried to include it in the description for my employer, only to have him remove it and ask me not to do that again. That standard must have been handed down from older surveyors. I believe the assumption was that if a surveyor had produced a plat and set his monument, that the monument would have had his stamped cap as required and the monuments set by local surveyors did.
I later moved to Colorado where the local surveyors described no monuments, descriptions were to a point. I include my license number in my plat and descriptions for all monuments set and license numbers for monuments found, but a few years later a young surveyor who worked for the county surveyor had me add the color of my cap to the legend on a division of land survey. This wouldn't had bothered me but there was a double standard in their office.
There is a point where describing a monument can get out of hand. Lets begin with, I have on occasion hit a cap to hard and slightly smashed it, I have found monuments that were slightly leaning, square morasse caps, morasse caps where you can see the rebar, caps that were faded and I could not identify the original color, caps where I could not read clearly and only portions of the numbers were positively identifiable, caps where only portions remain, recovered pipes that were of unknown material and were corroded. Should I have described something that I was not sure of? In the case of an old wooden post, I not sure I'm qualified to identify the species of tree. So now I add to the legend and description, a 1/2 inch rebar set with a 1-7/8 inch blue morasse cap, stamped Southern Colorado Surveying Service, B.E. Vigil, CO PLS#38009, 0.1 foot above natural ground. Oh I forgot to add and imperfections on the cap after I hit it with a hammer or mallet and that it was leaning slightly to the southwest approximate 0.7 feet southeast of the a 12" cedar post fence corner and whether the 0.7 feet was from the center of the post or was the 12" post the diameter or circumference. It may be important to describe a monument found or set but I would much rather find it in the correct location, then I would not have to rely on some lengthy description to determine whether it is the original corner.
In Texas, if you come across a rebar that you are going to accept for your survey, do you have to put your cap on it? Or can you call it out as "found 5/8 rebar No Cap" or something like that?
I apologize if that has been covered, I got lost in all the comments and threads there for a while.
I use a note and leader for every monument, with descriptions, even if it's No Cap, or Red Cap, Illegible... for example. 4" concrete Monument with drill hole, with x chiseled top...
We are only required to set "traceable" ID on monuments set, when "practical". I've heard of some States (mentioned in this thread) that require tags to be put on every stake a surveyor accepts. It's not so in Texas.
Andy J, post: 344817, member: 44 wrote: In Texas, if you come across a rebar that you are going to accept for your survey, do you have to put your cap on it? Or can you call it out as "found 5/8 rebar No Cap" or something like that?
"Found 5/8 in. Iron Rod" or "Found 5/8 in. Rebar" sounds fine to me. I consider it to be poor practice in Texas to cap existing iron rods that originally had none. The cap tends to make it difficult to examine the rod for useful clues like pattern of deformations and apparent age. Unless there is a specific mention of a cap, it would be assumed that there was none on the rod. Likewise, the ordinary assumption would be that the responsible surveyor whose cap was on the rod had set it.
I apologize if that has been covered, I got lost in all the comments and threads there for a while.
Yes, the old format with changing subject lines made discussions like this much easier to follows.
I use a note and leader for every monument, with descriptions, even if it's No Cap, or Red Cap, Illegible... for example. 4" concrete Monument with drill hole, with x chiseled top...
I just annotate the monument on the map with its point i.d. number and give the descriptions in a point list keyed to the same point i.d. numbers. It takes the worry out of giving a full description and also serves to key to a coordinate list if there is to be one on the map.
As a point of interest, aside from corners falling in road pavements, when is it not practical to set an identifiable boundary marker either at the corner or referencing it?
While that answer was much better, it is nonetheless unresponsive as it leaves me to deduce that you are unconcerned with careless mistakes by the board. Surely, this canÛªt be so.
I generally agree with your response, and your deduction is a perfect example why the minutes must be approved at the next meeting. Oh, wait a minute those are the approved minutes.
Imagine if you will that Rule 663.17(d) is erroneously stated in the minutes. In such case, ShawnÛªs initial post is still valid and IÛªll leave it to you to wonder what such an error does to the positions that you have espoused.
Imagine if you will that Rule 663.17(d) is erroneously stated in the minutes. In such case, ShawnÛªs initial post is still valid and IÛªll leave it to you to wonder what such an error does to the positions that you have espoused.
Yes, if the rules that the Texas Board of Professional Land Surveying had not been codified into State law, I suppose it would be important to try to figure out what they were from reading the minutes of board meetings. 🙂 Happily, anyone who is interested can read all of those rules in the Texas Occupations Code.
billvhill, post: 344797, member: 8398 wrote: There is a point where describing a monument can get out of hand.
Lets begin with, I have on occasion hit a cap to hard and slightly smashed it, I have found monuments that were slightly leaning, square morasse caps, morasse caps where you can see the rebar, caps that were faded and I could not identify the original color, caps where I could not read clearly and only portions of the numbers were positively identifiable, caps where only portions remain, recovered pipes that were of unknown material and were corroded.
Should I have described something that I was not sure of?
I'd say that as a general rule monument descriptions should be based upon observable characteristics. If a marker is up and leaning and the point that was positioned was on the top of the marker, I'd say it is always proper to note that fact since otherwise future surveyors will naturally assume that the marker has been disturbed since your survey. A common situation in Texas are the precast concrete right-of-way markers along State highways. After fifty years, a minority of them are usually intact and plumb. So a description like : "+ scribed on Top Center of Type I Concrete Right-of-Way Marker found (leaning approximately 0.45 ft. away from Engineer's Centerline for Highway)". It explains why the tie from that "+" to the centerline as reconstructed by the survey is about 0.45 ft. long, among other things.
I have yet to see a monument description that contained too much information to be usable to identify the monument.
Why are you asking me?
Its ok to be meticulous, but your comments criticize others for not sharing your obesssion
Its ok to be meticulous, but your comments criticize others for not sharing your obesssion
billvhill, post: 344841, member: 8398 wrote: Its ok to be meticulous, but your comments criticize others for not sharing your obesssion
Let's go back to basics. How does a land surveyor prove that he or she has recovered a boundary marker placed by some prior survey if not by the description of the monument placed in the public record by a surveyor? That makes the description pretty important, doesn't it?
If monuments didn't degrade with time, there would be no need to give sufficient information from which the object could be identified from what might remain or evaluated for potential disturbance. Is this scabby piece of rebar with a weathered knob of something that could have once been plastic old So-and-So's marker? Does that fact that the rebar is listing about 30å¡ downslope mean that the ground is unstable and the monument has probably shifted out of position? Does the mangled condition of the cap meant that someone has pulled it up and driven it back into the ground after the fence got replaced?
Consider the descriptions given by 19th century surveyors as to dimensions, material, and markings on the stones they set to mark boundaries and the size, species, and markings on the bearing trees they marked so that the position of the corner would be permanent. In modern undescriptive practice would that be "set GLO stone with trees"?
."...when is it not practical to set an identifiable boundary marker...?"
If we are talking about putting a cap on found monuments - It would not be reasonable to expect a surveyor to carry caps that would fit every type and size of rod, pipe, axle, rifle barrel, etc. that one might encounter even without the various deformities monuments acquire with age. I suppose one could wire a tag to almost anything. I've not seen that done. Not sure how permanent it would really be.
If we are talking about putting caps on monuments we have set I agree. There isn't much excuse. But plastic caps weather away in time. Not that much time when exposed to the elements. And they pop off pretty easily. So it doesn't concern me much when I find the occassional capless rod. But I work in recording states. Flagrant disregard for the state law requiring marked caps would concern me, of course.
This whole argument carries less weight in a recording jurisdiction. In British Columbia, for example, surveyors set a 1/2" galvanized iron rod with only the letters "BCLS" stamped into them at the metal shop. He doesn't use these bars for traverse points, and no property owner stakes up his rose bushes with such a rod. It is always possible to figure out just which BCLS set any given rod, when, and on what evidence, by examining the record.