> I wonder who has a survey in the area tied to the rebar you removed?
You mean the same mistakenly located rebar that I put back where I found it? If I were surveying the lot that that rebar is a corner of, that rebar would be gone since it is contributing nothing, only concealing the original 1938 surveyor's mark that is the true corner. But I wasn't engaged by that land owner, so the rod is still there to mislead future, less cautious surveyors and to assist them in mislocating other lot boundaries. What a public service!
>--------so you use vise-grip pliers to remove it to see if its magnetic signature may be masking something older and deeper.
>------- there is in fact a very old 1/2 in. iron pipe 27 inches below grade without any remnants of flagging on it.....
>-------When you pull the pipe to examine it,
I have a couple of questions:
1.You pulled up the rebar to search for the original, then you dug down 27 inches and pulled up the likely original pipe to inspect it for corrosion. Do you always pull up your irons to inspect them?
2. How deep is too deep to recover an original monument?
I mean there are a lot of things we all could do but most do not, you could do a tree coring to count the rings to determine how long a fence has been nailed to a tree...even though in theory it is good info to have....nearly nobody does it.
I guess I am pondering the grey area, how much is enough and when does it become overkill?
> I have a couple of questions:
>
> 1.You pulled up the rebar to search for the original, then you dug down 27 inches and pulled up the likely original pipe to inspect it for corrosion. Do you always pull up your irons to inspect them?
No, but in this case the pipe was leaning a bit off plumb and had to be replumbed. It was only 12 inches long, so removing it to have a good look at it was easy. The length of the pipe is one more attribute common to the 1938 surveyor's work.
> 2. How deep is too deep to recover an original monument?
I don't know. It depends upon how important it is to recover the monument.
> I guess I am pondering the grey area, how much is enough and when does it become overkill?
Well, as a rule, clients hire a surveyor to give a reliable opinion. If he or she believes evidence exists that could invalidate his or her opinion, then what do you think the proper amount of effort is? My own test is that a surveyor needs to make a diligent effort, meaning "an effort at least as great as any other normally prudent surveyor would make". Naturally, the quickie-dickie surveyors don't fit into that category.
WELL KENT, THAT'S IT IN A NUTSHELL
Well said and probably there is not a more apt description of the role and responsibility of the surveyor.
I have no idea how anyone could consider that they had reached a sound professional opinion, without evidence to support the proposition that they are advancing. The key is to ask the correct question. Is this rebar that I have found an original monument set to mark the corner? Is of the character called for? Has it been accepted by common report? If the answer to these questions is no, no and no, then you have more wore to do. Clearly Kent's opinion would be different with respect to the rebar had he not found the pipe.Because of his diligent search he has evidence that conflicts with the mere acceptance of the rebar simply because it is close to the location where the corner is.
It's not the marker the plat calls for, other surveys in the area are not tied to it, and it wasn't even plumb/non-disturbed looking when you dug down over other irons to find it. 70+ years have passed for occupation lines to take precedence. Good luck in court.
#50,001
Time zone difference. Yep, that explains what you meant and what I couldn't understand at first.
> > I wonder who has a survey in the area tied to the rebar you removed?
>
> You mean the same mistakenly located rebar that I put back where I found it?
I am curious, since the original pipe was only 0.5' away from the rebar and was 27" deep then the hole you dug must have encompassed the area where the rebar was when you found it, so how did you ensure that you replaced the rebar back in the place you found it?
Did you do a couple offsets/swing ties or use your total station or just eyeballed it?
Also, did you leave the original pipe at the depth you found it?
.
> It's not the marker the plat calls for, other surveys in the area are not tied to it, and it wasn't even plumb/non-disturbed looking when you dug down over other irons to find it. 70+ years have passed for occupation lines to take precedence. Good luck in court.
Okay, what we obviously have here is a failure to communicate. The subdivision that old pipe marks a corner of was surveyed in 1938 by a surveyor who marked all the corners in the subdivision. Those same lots have nearly universally been conveyed by reference to that 1938 survey shown upon the plat. In other words, the main point of inquiry is where the lots were actually marked upon the ground by the 1938 surveyor. That later 1/2 in. rod that was obviously set in ignorance of the 1938 surveyor's stake contributes less than nothing to the exercise since it only confuses where boundaries actually are.
I swear, you fellows who want to preserve every mistakenly located marker that every quickie-dickie surveyor (or his or her employees) ever set without bothering to recognize the huge disservice to the public you're doing live in some imaginary universe.
Finding a 12-inch long pipe in a floodplain 0.24 ft. out of plumb just means that some force has most likely pushed the pipe off plumb and that it needs to be stood upright. It isn't disturbed in the sense that we have no idea where it was originally placed. Experience shows that the method I used gives an excellent idea of where the pipe was originally set. As for the fact that the 1938 surveyor didn't actually build a concrete monument as the symbol used on his plat indicates, but set a pipe, that is easily answered as a matter of local knowledge. The spike is the telltale clue.
> I am curious, since the original pipe was only 0.5' away from the rebar and was 27" deep then the hole you dug must have encompassed the area where the rebar was when you found it, so how did you ensure that you replaced the rebar back in the place you found it?
No, the deeper hole didn't take in the newer rod. I may post a photo showing the archaeological dig.
>
> Did you do a couple offsets/swing ties or use your total station or just eyeballed it?
LOL! We took before and after measurements with the total station to both the rod and the pipe.
> Also, did you leave the original pipe at the depth you found it?
Yes, obviously the depth of the original pipe is an important clue as to its age. One can probably work out the time when it was set just by the rate of deposition of sediment if the age of the newer rod can be determined. I'd suspect that the newer rod found 10 inches down is probably about 25 to 30 years old, which would be a rate of between 2.5 and 3.0 yrs/inch of sediment. Considering that the pipe is 27 inches down, those rates of deposition would mean it was set between about 67 years and 81 years ago, or between 1930 and 1944.
Kent I wish I can use this as a lame excuse to make fun of TX surveyors' inability to use shovels and metal detectors, but I have come across on more than one occasion someone (clearly sends a crew out and does not do the field work) who sets his pipe within a half-foot or so of much more obvious, larger, original monuments - the latest being a 2 inch pipe filled with concrete with the copper tag and nail from the 1930s which was only about 0.3' below the surface. From the corner record of his, I can tell that he held two points and told the crew to go stake, so I suppose it is good for the pipe's sake that is was "out of position" enough from the calc'd position that the crew did not pound a 3/4" pipe through the concrete filled original by accident.
I took a photo though of both. Looks pathetic when you see a new pipe 0.3'-0.4' away from the much larger, original monument that the metal detector screams over.
> Okay, what we obviously have here is a failure to communicate.
> I swear, you fellows who want to preserve every mistakenly located marker that every quickie-dickie surveyor (or his or her employees) ever set without bothering to recognize the huge disservice to the public you're doing live in some imaginary universe.
If this is your philosophy then I recommend that you remove the rebar, why did you leave it, your actions were inconsistant with your philosophy.
Please advise and post photo.
> > Okay, what we obviously have here is a failure to communicate.
>
> > I swear, you fellows who want to preserve every mistakenly located marker that every quickie-dickie surveyor (or his or her employees) ever set without bothering to recognize the huge disservice to the public you're doing live in some imaginary universe.
>
>
> If this is your philosophy then I recommend that you remove the rebar, why did you leave it, your actions were inconsistant with your philosophy.
>
> Please advise and post photo.
Okay, what we obviously have here is a failure to communicate. My client is not the owner of the parcel that was mistakenly marked by that rebar. If that owner had been my client, that rebar would be gone.
> Kent I wish I can use this as a lame excuse to make fun of TX surveyors' inability to use shovels and metal detectors, but I have come across on more than one occasion someone (clearly sends a crew out and does not do the field work) who sets his pipe within a half-foot or so of much more obvious, larger, original monuments - the latest being a 2 inch pipe filled with concrete with the copper tag and nail from the 1930s which was only about 0.3' below the surface. From the corner record of his, I can tell that he held two points and told the crew to go stake, so I suppose it is good for the pipe's sake that is was "out of position" enough from the calc'd position that the crew did not pound a 3/4" pipe through the concrete filled original by accident.
Yes, the most pernicious mistakes are those where a new survey establishes a new monument to replace a "missing" monument that isn't and the new monument ends up completely hiding the existence of the original from the metal detector. In Austin, the residential surveying seems to be mostly done by quickie-dickie one-price-fits-all methods. That produces some pretty ugly results in subdivisions that were originally surveyed more than, say, twenty years ago.
Can you share a photo of the 1930 monument?
> Can you share a photo of the 1930 monument?
Sure. When I get back in tonight I can put that up here.
Actually I had more time than I thought. Here are a couple of angles:
Not that hard to locate this original if you did not have the 3/4" pipe to throw off the signal. I had experience with this guy doing this to me before, so when I saw the area, I knew it had to be there.
> Not that hard to locate this original if you did not have the 3/4" pipe to throw off the signal. I had experience with this guy doing this to me before, so when I saw the area, I knew it had to be there.
Okay, I'll see your 1930 monument and raise you four 1938 and 1940-vintage pipes.
This first was the 1938 monument that I posted about;
Here's the setting (after I reburied everything I'd found):
The next surveyor who digs in this spot will more than likely find this about 10 inches down since it has the biggest magnetic signature:
But the alert surveyor will recognize the rebar as not being of 1938 vintage and will pull it out of the ground to search for the real corner, which he or she will find still in place as I did:
The rebar 10 inches down really does an excellent job of concealing the actual corner, the pipe 27 inches down.
Thanks Bryan
They apparently did not even look. I just love the fact that they put a cup tack in the top of the cap. isn't that what the hole in the middle of the cap is for?
Can I guess, this the handiwork of someone whose last name begins with the letter "R"?
Thanks again
Ferrous markers in holes in shadow are hard to photograph. One of the tricks that I used in other photos I shot today was to highlight the top of the marker with white chalk. Didn't use the chalk on this one, though.
Thanks Bryan
> They apparently did not even look. I just love the fact that they put a cup tack in the top of the cap. isn't that what the hole in the middle of the cap is for?
> Can I guess, this the handiwork of someone whose last name begins with the letter "R"?
>
> Thanks again
Nope but decent guess.
It is clearly a situation where the crew comes off some existing control and is told to stake per calcs and may not have even had the map to know that the original existed.