> Yes, I've recently seen exactly that phrase in a surveyor's written description, as well as its big brother:
>
> "Thence [bearing and distance] to a broken concrete right-of-way monument found set"
>
> It's a bit like that scene in Stanley Kubrick's "2001" where Keir Dullea's character, the astronaut David Bowman, ages in the space of less than a minute.
I suppose, I could justify this, as long as there was a qualifier like "THENCE East, with the North line of John and the South line of Doe, 587.67 feet, to a 1/2" steel rod found set by Kent McMillan with an aluminum cap marked Kent McMillan."
Otherwise, I agree, it's silly to confuse the issue.
> I suppose, I could justify this, as long as there was a qualifier like "THENCE East, with the North line of John and the South line of Doe, 587.67 feet, to a 1/2" steel rod found set by Kent McMillan with an aluminum cap marked Kent McMillan."
>
Better practice would be something along the lines of:
"to a Punchmark found on a 2-inch Alumuminum Cap stamped 'KENT MCMILLAN, SURVEYOR, 996, RPLS 4341' affixed to a 5/8-inch Iron Rod and taken to be the original Northeast corner of that certain 5.00 ac. parcel conveyed by ____ to _____ as described in Warranty Deed dated ______ recorded in Vol. ____ at Pg. ____ of the Alamo County Official Public Records"
or "taken to mark the replaced Northeast corner of the 5.00 ac. parcel [reference] as determined by Kent McMillan, RPLS, according to his description attached to Warranty Deed dated ______ recorded in Vol. ____ at Pg. ____ of the Alamo County Official Public Records"
That is, you never want to get too far ahead of the observable facts when what you're offering is essentially a reasonable conclusion that is supported by observations, not an observed fact.
I was short handing it to get my point across. Evidently, it failed.
Hummm, "Found Set" I guess that's a lot better than "Found laying on ground"
> I was short handing it to get my point across.
Except it preserved the highly problematic construction "found set" which I'm going to say should always be avoided. Even if you find what is known as a "set stone" in Central Texas, "set stone found" should be avoided as awkwardly ambiguous.
Seems as though 'FOUND' is used there in place of the 'O' (Orig) we use here same effect though.
That would be shown as "ORT (Elm)" without the need for (Elm) but extra information like that is usually helpful.
fd is for Marks you found but cant find records of.
O (in front of descriptor) is for original reference marks, and you note where you pulled it's connection from; "3/SP123456" Station 3 on Survey Plan XXXX
New Ref is for an Original mark but referenced from a new/different corner
New Conn is when you're calling the other guy a liar... or the mark has been disturbed. You note if it's disturbed and also usually follow with "N&C" (Noted and Checked... that the other guy was wrong)
Just the description by itself and it's assumed you "SET" it.
Though when marking an actual boundary corner, not just a reference mark, we have to note what was done. Pld (placed) so 'Peg Pld', 'Screw in Footing Pld' or, 'Nail Pld in FP at Corner' etc etc We can just have a note on the plan though "Pegs Pld at all new stations" or "Pegs Pld at all new stations unless otherwise stated" then individually note any that were different (nail/screw/etc.)
That's why I love reading this site. It's interesting to see how many different ways everyone has come up to basically show the exact same information.
> He found the iron pin that he had set.
>
> He found the R/W mon. where it had been set? Not just laying on the ground. (it's a stretch)+o(
Hey, you must know the same Surveyor that we know around here. It's been said that he's known to carry around a few old pipes and rebar, sets them to where it'll support his survey, take a shot on it and call them found. He always measures within a couple of hundreths of what he found/set.....
Recent ITT graduate with $7 billion in student loans gets hired by mortgage mill
for $12/hr, cribs text from a template without completing the edit. Field notes
don't help, and it makes it past the redline.
that's my bet.
[sarcasm]..or said monument holds the quantum superposition of both being found and set simultaneously. [/sarcasm]
> Though when marking an actual boundary corner, not just a reference mark, we have to note what was done. Pld (placed) so 'Peg Pld', 'Screw in Footing Pld' or, 'Nail Pld in FP at Corner' etc etc We can just have a note on the plan though "Pegs Pld at all new stations" or "Pegs Pld at all new stations unless otherwise stated" then individually note any that were different (nail/screw/etc.)
>
> That's why I love reading this site. It's interesting to see how many different ways everyone has come up to basically show the exact same information.
Yes, the system followed in Queensland (as I understand it) relies upon identificable reference marks to fix the boundaries of parcels whose actual corners typically get an anonymous peg (what in US practice would be called a 2 x 2 hub) of jarra wood or whatever replaced rot-resistant jarra wood.
The system in Texas is just the opposite. Each parcel's location typically depends upon some permanent, identifiable monuments on its boundary remaining in place. This not exactly the entire story, of course, but explains perhaps 90% of cases.
