Example One:
About a decade ago, we surveyed a conglomeration of parcels for a nearby small city that were used for the city's sewer and water treatment facilities. One of the parcels was a 12' wide strip ajudicated to a predecessor around the 1940's. The description of the strip was very well written. Calls for specific monuments, with precise directions and distances, with several witness trees along the several couple thousand foot easterly extent. The surveyor had a reputation for providing his work on an astronomically determined meridian. We found the two called monuments on the west - car axles, called to be a Ford axle at the Northwest corner and a Chevy axle at the Southwest corner. Unfortunately this is where the story takes a turn for the worse. At the East end we find no evidence of the axles called for there. As for the witness trees, they've all been destroyed, easily discernable because most of the trees near this area have long since been bulldozed out. Lastly, the surveyor who so often provided reproducible bearings clearly did not on this survey as the short twelve foot line (which measured 12.005') was off in bearing by a couple degrees. In short, we had nothing to point us to the Eastern corners. We even used a backhoe to dig for the Eastern corners with no success. Ultimately we were forced to use occupation as it was the only evidence left of the 70 year old boundary. The surveyor did a beautiful job, technically accurate, well described and, by no fault of his own, sadly inadequate for me to retrace his footsteps.
Example Two:
A couple of weeks ago, we're hired to cut out a couple of acres from a 30 acre tract. The previous surveyor, when surveying this tract in the 90's, extended his traverse from a nearby job he had done solar observations on. In his survey he referenced a gas well which is visible now on Google Earth. With this information I was able to rougly translate his work to scaled coordinate from Google Earth on a projection (for the purposes of the example it could have been State Plane, but it wasn't). With this, we were able to go out on the ground, set up the RTK base and begin looking for the necessary monuments of the parent tract. Upon finding one (about 5 feet from my predicted coordinates) I was able to do a single point localization on that point. From there, we successfully navigated to the remaing dozen or so corners we needed with incredible precision (suitable enough to find the points without the need of a locator). We could have done this without RTK by simply turning in sunshots on the outset, and conventionally tying in the well. We would have been able to easily traverse to each point directly. Ultimately, we didn't need the reproducible bearing to do this job, but it provided us an incredible level of efficiency that translated to profitability to us and less expense to our client. Win Win.
Exactly why Reproducible Bearings shouldn't be used
These are excellent examples of why independently reproducible bearings should not be used. Somebody probably spent somewhere between $30 and $60 worth of some client's money figuring out which way North was and then just ... gave it away to anyone who might follow.
No, the actual directions of lines should be a well kept secret, one to be disclosed only after the information is no longer really needed. With the high-performance RTK gear, it is still possible to "calibrate" or "localize" on some randomly chosen set of survey markers to which coordinates in some meaningless range are assigned and just spin the North arrow to see where it ends up pointing. That is the truly professional method, I'm sure.
Shawn, although I 100% agree with you in principle, and practice, it seems to me that there is an exclusive game going on here.... (Why should I make it easier for some OTHER surveyor to compete with me... by making my work so handy).
So, the obstacles are, IMHO,
1.) Keep costs down, (competitiveness) (maybe to the tune of 50-100 bucks, if you push it!)
2.) Exclusiveness
3.) Ignorance
4.) Liability (why make it easy to see that my work is not so good)
5.) Purely not understanding the issues.
That is what I think.
N
On first read, Nate, I can see the validity of your questions. But put into the perspective of what we do as surveyors, I think those arguments fall flat.
Our first responsibility is to follow the footsteps of the original surveyor. I believe that, implied with that, is the requirement to leave footsteps for the next surveyor. I don't think we'd ever, as a profession, condone hiding monuments, perhaps even leaving corners unmonumented with ties to secret reference marks only the surveyor would know about. Likewise, I don't think we'd ever condone the use of a proprietary linear unit of measure, such as your first born's height at age 9. Think of it, only you would know how long a line really was, because only you would know the distance conversion. Only you would know where the corner was, because only you had the notes to the references that could reestablish the actual corner location. What a lock that would be! It'd be a sham and a disservice to the public and future generations of surveyors as well.
Yet, the questions you raise follow the same line of logic. Am I saying that anyone not using reproducible bearings is acting out of these motivations? Not at all. There have been some reasonable arguments against reproducible bearings. I get that. But to avoid reproducible bearings and the metadata that should accompany them because of the ease they provide to future surveyors in retracing your work certainly sounds unprofessional at best and unethical at worst.
Exactly why Reproducible Bearings shouldn't be used
:good:
Guess I don't understand the logic. The original surveyor screwed up the so-called reproducible bearing and you went with occupation (and most likely , intent). Would the requirement of a georeferenced bearings back in 1940 have somehow prevented the error? The problem could have been solved by proper monumentation of the strip.
In the second example, you saved some money now because the original surveyor had a reproducible bearing on the plat. If that a good enough reason to require the practice on every job?
Kent, I see your $30 figure is now $30-60. Why the price increase from the $30 you quoted me earlier?
I understand that more data is better than less data, but your previous statement of "the extra expense of scouring the subdivision for monuments" does not sound like following in the footsteps. Locating two monuments is always better than one monument and a bearing.
I'm going to say in the first example, the problem was the property owner didn't maintain the boundaries, not the basis of bearing problem you describe.
> I understand that more data is better than less data, but your previous statement of "the extra expense of scouring the subdivision for monuments" does not sound like following in the footsteps. Locating two monuments is always better than one monument and a bearing.
Kent was actually the one you are quoting, but I think you are intentionally being obtuse here. Kent didn't suggest you don't still do the requisite work to make sure you have the boundary nailed down. The suggestion is that the requisite work is less with a reproducible bearing basis. Even two monuments isn't really enough to be certain about a line. I'm sure, just as I have, that you have encountered cases in which a pair of monuments fit the distance call, but upon further ties, you find that one or both were improperly set/reproduced or one is out of rotation from the rest of the boundary geometry. How many monuments does it take to figure that out? It depends of course, but with a reproducible bearing, that number is reduced. A pair of found monuments and a reproducible bearing that agrees, suddenly puts the monuments in pretty firm standing, really only leaving the question of translation at issue - which could be resolved by just one more monument.
Perry, you yourself discussed not surveying the entire parent tract to cut out a much smaller tract. Surely your imagination is not so dull as to miss seeing the support a reproducible bearing gives to that premise.
> I'm going to say in the first example, the problem was the property owner didn't maintain the boundaries, not the basis of bearing problem you describe.
I would whole heartedly agree. But assigning blame really doesn't solve the issue. A reproducible bearings would have.
> Guess I don't understand the logic. The original surveyor screwed up the so-called reproducible bearing and you went with occupation (and most likely , intent). Would the requirement of a georeferenced bearings back in 1940 have somehow prevented the error? The problem could have been solved by proper monumentation of the strip.
eh, no. The surveyor didn't screw anything up. He just wasn't on a reproducible bearing. I'm not advocating a requirement now or for 1940. I'm attempting to make the point that "finding two points to rotate from" isn't always an option. Had he placed his work on an astro bearing (as he had done many times) it would have been a game changer.
Also. His monumentation was impeccable. Big, heavy car axles with witness trees along the strip. As David said, the problem really was more an issue of boundary maintenance.
> In the second example, you saved some money now because the original surveyor had a reproducible bearing on the plat. If that a good enough reason to require the practice on every job?
You sure jump around a lot. In one breath you decry the client's money. When I give an example of how reproducible bearings can actually save money, you still aren't satisfied. It's like arguing with my wife.;-)
Shawn
I will agree that: Having a reproducible bearing base would allow you to shoot one less monument to feel confident.
Shawn, on the second example, my point is:
Suppose you have a 20 lot subdivision created 10 years ago using an observed magnetic bearing. One of the lot owners wants to do a boundary line adjustment with his neighbor to move the line 10 feet for the construction of an addition.
There are 100 monuments to tie into and numerous control points.
Requiring us to put Grid North bearings on the plan would confuse everyone and not benefit the client.
> There are 100 monuments to tie into and numerous control points.
> Requiring us to put Grid North bearings on the plan would confuse everyone and not benefit the client.
Bad arguement Perry.
I have been in this situation many a time when using Geodetic/Grid azimuths. SPC co-ords and theta angles are mysterious and unknown to clients but with the advent of GPS, most humans with a pulse do understand Lat/Long
When I review the plat with the client. I show them the basis of bearings statement.
I explain to them that this is not necessary for them to understand. It is sort of a bunch of surveying speak gobbledegoo. The monuments on the plat are important to them to define the boundary.
But then I do explain that in the future if the monuments are gone decades for whatever reason, the gobbledegoo will assist the future surveyor to replace them. They do understand and I never under estimate the intelligence of my clients too.
In case Mr. Cow is spell correcting, Beerleg would not let me post gobbledegoo k, the word goo k was censored.
The redundant but repeatable bearing measurement isn't as valuable in a well-monumented subdivision as for a parcel that has few surviving monuments (or likely to survive in the future) in its neighborhood.
Giving a reproducible bearing does not mean that all the bearings on the plat have to be given as true or grid. The same piece of redundant and potentially useful information can be in a note saying "Plat bearings based on prior plat. Line xxx measured by GPS at true bearing yyy yy yy". That still gives a future surveyor a way to check things or work from fewer found monuments.
> Kent, I see your $30 figure is now $30-60. Why the price increase from the $30 you quoted me earlier?
The extra thirty bucks is to cover the correspondence.
What is surfacing from the "basis for bearing" discussion, as well as many others, is debate about business and professionalism.
Some posting to this board are businessmen and some are professionals. The businessmen's motive are profit and the professional's are to do what is needed with costs and just compensation in mind. The two, with exception, are mutually exclusive objectives.
The professional will determine appropriate orientation parameters in accord with a project's current and future requirements. Maximizing profits will dictate the orientation parameters determined or presented by the businessman.
Figuratively speaking, the lowest common denominator is this: The professional is concerned with the boundary line and the business man, with the bottom line.
> What is surfacing from the "basis for bearing" discussion, as well as many others, is debate about business and professionalism.
>
> Some posting to this board are businessmen and some are professionals. The businessmen's motive are profit and the professional's are to do what is needed with costs and just compensation in mind. The two, with exception, are mutually exclusive objectives.
>
> The professional will determine appropriate orientation parameters in accord with a project's current and future requirements. Maximizing profits will dictate the orientation parameters determined or presented by the businessman.
>
> Figuratively speaking, the lowest common denominator is this: The professional is concerned with the boundary line and the business man, with the bottom line.
I'm calling BS on that.
I think that we're all professionals here, and are trying our best to perform our services at the highest level.
What a lot of us our saying is that using GPS and putting each survey on SPCS is not always needed, and that doesn't necessarily diminish the quality of our services and product.
I could perform topo on all of my boundary surveys, but if it's not what the client is looking for or paying for, then I'm not going to do it.
> >
>
> What a lot of us our saying is that using GPS and putting each survey on SPCS is not always needed, and that doesn't necessarily diminish the quality of our services and product.
>
> I could perform topo on all of my boundary surveys, but if it's not what the client is looking for or paying for, then I'm not going to do it.
We could also require than all monuments be set in concrete. Who could argue that that wouldn't help future surveyors?
What a lot of us our saying is that using GPS and putting each survey on SPCS is not always needed, and that doesn't necessarily diminish the quality of our services and product. :good: :good: :good:
Some fail to recognize there are other and just as legitimate opinions about this subject than they hold. Using insults or claiming to be better than others does little to promote their cause. The words "It Depends" applies to this subject as it does to others. The problem I have is the justification of calling anything an independently repeatable bearing, don't believe such a thing will ever exist over time, unless the line has monumented end points, and all surveys are filed in a public record. Supporting what some call repeatable bearings, without supporting the recording of all boundary surveys seems a bit humorous to me, those records is where the tools for local repeatability and recovery of monuments is archived, there for as long as records exist and available for all to use. If you are going to use a grid bearings, use it on one line only and all other shown distances and bearings referenced to that one base line. My opinion, won't change anything, but that's OK.
jud