So the 1938-vintage subdivision plat shows a concrete monument set at the corner you're trying to locate. You've projected a theoretical position for it from other original markers set by the same surveyor. The position is in the floodplain of a creek but otherwise appears to be undisturbed, so you conclude that any monument set in 1938 ought to still be there.
A quick sweep with the metal detector and some operation of a high-tech tool called a "shovel" finds a 1/2 in. rebar 10 inches down with some plastic flagging on it. The pattern of the rebar, however, is one that wasn't manufactured in 1938 as far as you know, so you use vise-grip pliers to remove it to see if its magnetic signature may be masking something older and deeper.
With the rebar out of the way, the metal detector gives a faint ping in a position about 0.5 ft. away from where the bar was. Repeated applications of the "shovel" apparatus reveal that there is in fact a very old 1/2 in. iron pipe 27 inches below grade without any remnants of flagging on it, 17 inches below the rebar. The pipe isn't set in concrete, though, and is leaning a bit off plumb.
When you pull the pipe to examine it, you find heavy corrosion consistent with the appearance of other 70-year-old pipes you've found set by the 1938 surveyor. Oddly, there is the point of a spike or large nail sticking out of the bottom of the pipe.
What makes you think that you've found the 1938 surveyor's corner mark although not the concrete monument shown on the plat?
Wishful thinking. What do I win?
> What makes you think that you've found the 1938 surveyor's corner mark although not the concrete monument shown on the plat?
Because it is consistant with and is in harmony with the other pipes set in 1938, the position of the pipe was even roughly projected from other similar pipes. Maybe accretion or some sort of ground movement could have possibly played a role in moving the corroded pipe a half a foot or so over the years and that is why is is bent over a bit.
It was not a concrete monument because you did not find any concrete in the vicinity, also if there had been concrete then the pipe would likely not be corroded.
As far as the spike goes, I am thinking that they set nails originally and then intended to come back and set the actual corners. The crew blundered and set a pipe over the nail instead of the intended concrete monument.
I am guessing you may find nails under the other 1938 pipes, especially if they are on the creek bank.
> Wishful thinking. What do I win?
Well, I should have mentioned that the custom of the time was to build cast-in-place concrete monuments. The City Engineer's standard that was supposed to be used on subdivisions had a 1/4-inch copper pin set in the concrete marking the station.
To my mind, the end of the large nail or spike sticking out of the bottom of the pipe meant that the pipe had been driven over it. So, surveyor sets spike, intending to come back and pour a concrete monument. But later decides that is too much trouble and drives one of his 1/2 in. pipes of the type he used for the rest of the original lot corners I've found.
As for the distance discrepancy, the ground drops about 62 ft. over about 330 ft. That most likely accounts for the shortage in the chaining for that particular surveyor.
> As far as the spike goes, I am thinking that they set nails originally and then intended to come back and set the actual corners. The crew blundered and set a pipe over the nail instead of the intended concrete monument.
I do think that the spike was originally intended to have concrete poured around it. However, that corner was at the bottom of a hill and someone may well have decided that hauling a couple of sacks of concrete downhill may have just been too much trouble. There were many more concrete monuments set on paper than on the ground in the subdivision process then and for years afterward.
Creative guess; I don't know how you'll ever prove it. At least you know somebody set a spike and somebody liked it enough to set a pipe over it. That's probably good enough and along with your evidence that the pipe is similar to pipes that the guy that was supposed to set a concrete monument placed in other locations, it would be hard to say you're wrong. That is, if anybody cares enough to present an alternate theory.
#50,001
Close, but, no cigar.
The 22:19 post, that is.
> > As far as the spike goes, I am thinking that they set nails originally and then intended to come back and set the actual corners. The crew blundered and set a pipe over the nail instead of the intended concrete monument.
>
> I do think that the spike was originally intended to have concrete poured around it. However, that corner was at the bottom of a hill and someone may well have decided that hauling a couple of sacks of concrete downhill may have just been too much trouble. There were many more concrete monuments set on paper than on the ground in the subdivision process then and for years afterward.
Well, I may not be ready for west Texas surveying but I could at least make a decent assistant.
#50,001
What was 50,000? Is there a prize?
> Creative guess; I don't know how you'll ever prove it. At least you know somebody set a spike and somebody liked it enough to set a pipe over it. That's probably good enough and along with your evidence that the pipe is similar to pipes that the guy that was supposed to set a concrete monument placed in other locations, it would be hard to say you're wrong. That is, if anybody cares enough to present an alternate theory.
Well, the evidence supporting the old pipe 27 inches down would be:
- custom of time was often to show concrete monuments on subdvision plats as required by City Engineer, but not to actually build all of them,
- monument is clearly old and identical to pipes of more definite originality placed by 1938 surveyor,
- depth of sediment deposited over it is consistent with age,
- position of pipe is essentially in agreement with that of concrete monument shown on plat once allowance is made for ordinary errors of the surveyor who laid the subdivision out,
and (last, but not least)
- the pipe had no plastic flagging on it. In an old residential subdivision, this nearly invariably means that none of the quickie-dickie residential surveyors have found it or set it.
#50,001
> Close, but, no cigar.
>
> The 22:19 post, that is.
I think you mean 20:19...oh the irony
> Well, I may not be ready for west Texas surveying but I could at least make a decent assistant.
Oh, that one wasn't in West Texas. It was in an urban subdivision in Austin. The undisturbed location where I found the pipe is in a greenbelt along a creek.
#50,001
The first post in this thread. The one at 22:19 was the 50,001 post to this forum.
#50,001
> The first post in this thread. The one at 22:19 was the 50,001 post to this forum.
Must be a time zone thing, mine says 20:19..missed 50,000 by one 🙂
You've got my vote. You would think the guy would set something, even if he flaked out on the concrete monument. If that's all there is in the area and it's consistent with his modus operandi, let somebody try to show the contrary. Just hope that the next surveyor with his ground-penetrating radar doesn't find a concrete monument that your high-tech "shovel" was not calibrated for. Does anybody really care that much about where it is to argue with you about it?
> > Well, I may not be ready for west Texas surveying but I could at least make a decent assistant.
>
> Oh, that one wasn't in West Texas. It was in an urban subdivision in Austin. The undisturbed location where I found the pipe is in a greenbelt along a creek.
Gotta give credit for the 27" hole, however the ground was probably soft in the floodplain area.
Have you ever given up on a solid sounding faint beep, I never did till this past year. I had dug and chipped through compacted very dry and hard ground for 2.5' when I found the top of a wooden stake. I realized that the area had been filled and there was no way I was going to dig a 4' or 5' in that hard friggn ground, like a stone. I located the hole and positionally it was in harmony with the remainder of the corners, I am pretty sure that it down there but it got a new pipe set at grade. It was in a gravel parking lot. I sorta feel bad about it but I think under the circumstances it was prudent.
#50,001
I guess this would be the 50,000th post then. What an auspicious occasion:
Praying for Egypt.--DAVE
by ted dura dura, Friday, February 11, 2011, 21:11 (1 minutes ago) @ Dave Huff
You means it is what it am..tdd
btw its 10:10 pm and theres 3 black helicopters over my house--no shiite, they just went stealth and are going away--they are doing night maneuvers looking for people and animals using infared/heat sensors,, i'm sure for afganistan, yeah right--tdd
> Just hope that the next surveyor with his ground-penetrating radar doesn't find a concrete monument that your high-tech "shovel" was not calibrated for.
Actually, some of us carry another high-tech apparatus called a "probe". I used mine to determine that there was no concrete monumnet anywhere close to the position where the 1938 surveyor claimed to have set one.
> Does anybody really care that much about where it is to argue with you about it?
This is in connection with a matter that looks to me as if it will end up as a lawsuit. This particular corner is important in that it fixes the location of a line of a subdivision upon which another line depends. So I'd say that someone is probably going to care about where the line really is on the ground.
> Have you ever given up on a solid sounding faint beep, I never did till this past year.
The only exception I make is for monuments in heavily trafficked pavements where the position of the monument can be determined from reference marks out of traffic.
I wonder who has a survey in the area tied to the rebar you removed?
