Tom Adams, post: 347564, member: 7285 wrote: Isn't 0.84 - .109 = .731??
Yes, but 0.84 - (2 x 0.109) = 0.62 inches.
Oh.....Oops. Thanks Kent. That higher-math has always stumped me.
Bearing trees make a good example. I'm going to give both the size of the tree as I find it, and any additional evidence I can figure out or find that might help me identify the size it was or might have been when it was originally used.
Those charts are the perfect example of what detail lies behind a typical description of ie, 1/2 inch iron pipe.
I go the the supply company and ask for a lot of pipe, rebar or rod in some generic size that my caps will afix to and the supplier will cut the lengths I ask for from the total feet of product I purchase.
In reality, the supplier set me up with the nearest product he has to the size I order.
It has become a universal expectation that either the wood, steel, pvc, aluminum, stainless steel or other product we get from the building suppliers is that the mill that makes the product runs and produces a product that is near in size to common measurements the consumer is accustom to and for commercial reasons, the mill has tweaked the numbers for their greater bottom end, profit.
In the end, for one typical description of "1/2 inch iron pipe" , the actual more accurate description contains 12 more comments for it to describe the actual product being placed in the ground.
Perhaps the powers that make the call should prepare a list of all possible raw materials that are acceptable to choose from for monuments and the surveyor can give a basic description ie, "Texas #9" monument.
B-)
Kent McMillan, post: 347525, member: 3 wrote: Interestingly, though, one thing that I've learned from this is that pipes of the same outside diameter can have different inside diameters, depending. So, if a surveyor wanted to mention the fact that he or she had found or set a pipe with an o.d. of 1.05 inches, good practice would require mentioning the inside diameter as well. Otherwise, what are nominally 1/2-inch iron pipes set by different surveyors at different times would all be possibly identically described.
In fact, I ran into just that situation yesterday, finding two old 1/2-inch iron pipes that were 0.14 ft. apart. My guess would be that both were set before 1940, but probably only one of them connects with other old 1/2-inch iron pipes marking other nearby lot corners in a 1910-vintage addition. I'll have to measure them to see if their dimensions alone associate them with the others.
I don't advocate for policies that reflect minority situations. At some point you make a choice, and grant leeway to accommodate unique situations. After 36 years the overwhelming best choice for me is o.d.
At the risk of applying rapid blows to deceased equine I did find this little ditty:
Kern County, CA Survey Standards
Which makes me ponder: Why wasn't ID or OD specified?
Makes me think most of us are "doing it wrong" by noting the apparent OD of pipes (of which we really don't know the origin).
I don't think those words mean what you think they mean
MightyMoe, post: 347601, member: 700 wrote: I don't think those words mean what you think they mean
Me: Mr. Moe, you agreed that you would set 24-inch long monuments, yet my inspector tells me that several are only 12 inches in length.
Moe: When I agreed to set 24-inch-long monuments, I understood that I could really set 12-inch-long monuments.
Well, what I'd say is that if you're going to give the outside dimension of a standard size pipe, it would be nice to make sure that it agrees with the o.d. of that pipe. I don't believe that I'll be reporting a 3/4-inch iron pipe as "a 1.05-inch outside diameter iron pipe", but I'm willing to hold the beer and watch if someone else wants to report finding a 1.05-inch or a 0.84-inch o.d. pipe.
As for the Kern County specs. I'm impressed by the idea of setting 10-inch long concrete monuments. My only question is "why bother?" The 2-inch pipe is evidently the one that a surveyor can drive a 2 x 2 redwood hub into.
lol, like I say....................
My home town.
Those standards don't apply to ordinary boundary surveys, only new development.
http://psbweb.co.kern.ca.us/UtilityPages/PublicVIDARMaps/Tracts/7000s/T07229A03.tif
Is a 10 inch tall concrete monument really all that stable in the typical Kern County soil condition?
It depends.
Bear in mind it is a street monument in a graded and compacted street. I doubt it's going anywhere.
Kern is a big County, it ranges from the coast range through the Valley, over the Southern Sierra and Tehachapi mountain ranges and across the Sothern California desert.
I did one Survey in the Mojave which is sandy bottoms and rocky peaks. Otherwise most of my surveys have been in Northern California.
Is the idea that the 10-inch-high concrete monuments are buried at least 18 inches below pavement grade and are thus protected against lateral loading from concrete trucks and similar heavy vehicles?
I don't know what their reason is for such a shallow monument. In California subdivision monuments are set after construction is completed. Subdivision is five lots or more. In Southern California they are called Tracts, in Northern California they are called Subdivisions and in the Subdivision Map Act they are called a Final Map.
Where rocky or caliche soils PREVENT specified lengths
Seems to be the important phrase, but I don't work in Texas, and really glad I don't.
Actually, what that idiotic specification provided was to use 24-inch long monuments, but that:
"Where rocky or caliche soils prevent specified lengths, the rod should be driven to refusal at such depths where it will remain stable".
Well, unless you think that an 8-inch rod is somehow "stable" I'm thinking that hacksawing off an 8-inch length isn't an option. Translation: "We really want you to set a monument that is at least 24 inches in length, but if you can't set one that long, just do a really good job, eh?"
